Hospital....Smokers need not apply!

[Foxfyre]

And again how would they know what you do when you're not at work?

An employer can have a no smoking policy at the workplace. But what you do when not at work is no one's business but yours.

If the business (a free market is something the right loves to say) says they do not want to hire anyone who smokes, they have the right to do so. If you dont like it, dont work there. Period. It is a legal request.

If they ask you to sign something that says you will not give confidential material to the competitors, and you do it from your home, not from work, are you wrong? Should you be fired?

If they ask you to sign something that says you will not smoke, ever and you sign it and smoke anyway, should you be fired?

So I can ask a woman if she will ever get pregnant and if she says yes I can refuse to hire her or fire her if I get her to sign a contract?

It would be a really foolish thing for an employer to do, but in my opinion, if it is your business and you don't want the minimal extra liability or risk associated with a pregnant employee, don't want to give the time off for regular doctors' appointments, etc., it should be your right to not hire one if you don't want to. In fact, if it is a profession in which pregnancy poses a significant risk--working with nuclear medicine or some such for instance--it could be not only reasonable but wise to have such a provision.

When I was much younger and in my prime child bearing years, I know I was passed over for jobs purely because the cost to train me was worth it to the employer only if he could reasonably expect me to be available to work for some time. He knew that was much less likely for a young woman who wanted a family, and in those days, would likely want to stay home and raise her baby.

The whole point of this folks is whether employers should be able to set the standards for the employees that they hire. To allow a person that freedom does not take away freedom from those who cannot or don't want to meet such standards.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The whole point of this folks is whether employers should be able to set the standards for the employees that they hire. To allow a person that freedom does not take away freedom from those who cannot or don't want to meet such standards.
__________________

So you wouldn't have a problem with hiring only smokers.

Any problem with requiring that all employees be white anglo-saxon males between the ages of 24 and 28 who attend a Baptist church, have a mole on their nose and smoke a pipe?

You think that if it's your bus you should be able to require that Blacks ride in back and Jews in the ashtray?

 

[Foxfyre]

The whole point of this folks is whether employers should be able to set the standards for the employees that they hire. To allow a person that freedom does not take away freedom from those who cannot or don't want to meet such standards.
__________________

So you wouldn't have a problem with hiring only smokers.

Any problem with requiring that all employees be white anglo-saxon males between the ages of 24 and 28 who attend a Baptist church, have a mole on their nose and smoke a pipe?

You think that if it's your bus you should be able to require that Blacks ride in back and Jews in the ashtray?

Again I think it would be pretty stupid, but I believe the employer should be able to require that if that is what he wants in employees. I can certainly support an employer who would hire only people who either smoke or don't mind being around smokers. And if you ran a tobacco shop selling cigs, cigars, pipe tobacco and other paraphenalia, it would make sense to hire people who could and would sample new products, etc. so that they could intelligently market them to their customers.

The ONLY discrimination that should be illegal are in those things that could not possibly make any difference to job performance: skin color, race, ethnicity, etc.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The ONLY discrimination that should be illegal are in those things that could not possibly make any difference to job performance: skin color, race, ethnicity, etc

It is every bit as easy to argue that any of those issues effect job performance as much as smoking does and even more so when the smoking is done at home. I think you just prefer your bigitry to be PC

 

[Sunshine]

Vanderbilt named one of Nashville

So, now the hospital that had just gone non smoking in 1989 has been named one of Nashville's healthiest employers!

 

[Zoom]

And again how would they know what you do when you're not at work?

An employer can have a no smoking policy at the workplace. But what you do when not at work is no one's business but yours.

If the business (a free market is something the right loves to say) says they do not want to hire anyone who smokes, they have the right to do so. If you dont like it, dont work there. Period. It is a legal request.

If they ask you to sign something that says you will not give confidential material to the competitors, and you do it from your home, not from work, are you wrong? Should you be fired?

If they ask you to sign something that says you will not smoke, ever and you sign it and smoke anyway, should you be fired?

So I can ask a woman if she will ever get pregnant and if she says yes I can refuse to hire her or fire her if I get her to sign a contract?

Stop being a child.