Nanny State: Fort Worth To Ban The Hiring Of Smokers?...

Man, what's going on in our Country? Why such a rush to ban everything? Don't we have enough restrictive & oppressive Laws already?


Ever been to a local business and dealt with an employee that smelled like they bathed in cigarette ash? Well lucky for you, cities across the country may start to ban the hiring of smokers.

The city of Fort Worth, Texas could soon become the first major American city to ban the hiring of smokers according to CBSDFW News. As part of Mayor Betsy Price’s goals, she aims to make Forth Worth a healthier city and has encouraged employees to find the best way to cut city costs.

Attendees of a recent Fort Worth city council meeting were briefed on a proposal that would ban the hiring of people who use tobacco.

City Manager Tom Higgins favors the proposal and believes it could help reduce city costs.

“Overall I think there was a strong belief that not only does it provide financial benefits for us and our health insurance, but to work with employees to get in a smoking cessation plan and just not to encourage it by hiring additional people,” he said.

The proposition faces a slippery legal slope.

“What is it going to be next? Is it going to be refusing to hire people who consume alcohol?” said one skeptic.

If the city decides to take action against smokers, it will be at least a month before a vote.


Read more: Dallas Fort Worth | Employment | Tobacco | The Daily Caller

I see the slippery slope that is scary, however, I see the reasoning behind it also. Smokers take a "smoke break" every other hour and usually stay out their longer. It has been proven smokers are more prone to sickness and miss more time (esp older smokers). Older smokers tend to have more health issues, which in the end raise health insurance costs!

There are many things that constribute.

But then again a similar policy with rationale can be attributed to obcese people (who I say becone lazier, more health issues, more trips to the doctor), Old people (although they are a protected class :eusa_angel: ) etc!

A similar rationale can be attributed to all sorts of things. Like i said, first they came for the Smokers.
 
Man, what's going on in our Country? Why such a rush to ban everything? Don't we have enough restrictive & oppressive Laws already?


Ever been to a local business and dealt with an employee that smelled like they bathed in cigarette ash? Well lucky for you, cities across the country may start to ban the hiring of smokers.

The city of Fort Worth, Texas could soon become the first major American city to ban the hiring of smokers according to CBSDFW News. As part of Mayor Betsy Price’s goals, she aims to make Forth Worth a healthier city and has encouraged employees to find the best way to cut city costs.

Attendees of a recent Fort Worth city council meeting were briefed on a proposal that would ban the hiring of people who use tobacco.

City Manager Tom Higgins favors the proposal and believes it could help reduce city costs.

“Overall I think there was a strong belief that not only does it provide financial benefits for us and our health insurance, but to work with employees to get in a smoking cessation plan and just not to encourage it by hiring additional people,” he said.

The proposition faces a slippery legal slope.

“What is it going to be next? Is it going to be refusing to hire people who consume alcohol?” said one skeptic.

If the city decides to take action against smokers, it will be at least a month before a vote.


Read more: Dallas Fort Worth | Employment | Tobacco | The Daily Caller

I see the slippery slope that is scary, however, I see the reasoning behind it also. Smokers take a "smoke break" every other hour and usually stay out their longer. It has been proven smokers are more prone to sickness and miss more time (esp older smokers). Older smokers tend to have more health issues, which in the end raise health insurance costs!

There are many things that constribute.

But then again a similar policy with rationale can be attributed to obcese people (who I say becone lazier, more health issues, more trips to the doctor), Old people (although they are a protected class :eusa_angel: ) etc!

A similar rationale can be attributed to all sorts of things. Like i said, first they came for the Smokers.

Where are they building a concentration camp with ovens for smokers?

You are paranoid. Eat some pills and give up the smokes.
 
I see the slippery slope that is scary, however, I see the reasoning behind it also. Smokers take a "smoke break" every other hour and usually stay out their longer. It has been proven smokers are more prone to sickness and miss more time (esp older smokers). Older smokers tend to have more health issues, which in the end raise health insurance costs!

There are many things that constribute.

But then again a similar policy with rationale can be attributed to obcese people (who I say becone lazier, more health issues, more trips to the doctor), Old people (although they are a protected class :eusa_angel: ) etc!

A similar rationale can be attributed to all sorts of things. Like i said, first they came for the Smokers.

Where are they building a concentration camp with ovens for smokers?

You are paranoid. Eat some pills and give up the smokes.

Spoken like a true Nazi. So sad.
 
I had a union. But the Right Wing wanted it gone.

So fight and get it back, or just fight against these injustices.

Flashback:
The Taxpayers are sick of being raped by Public Unions. Their time is just about up.

The taxpayers (of Fort Worth) are sick of being raped by the smokers. Their time is about up.

What's your beef?

You want more Unions? Then get out and fight for them. But I oppose Public Unions. Private Unions are another matter though. I'm a bit flexible on them. Government & Corporations should not be involved with Citizens' private personal lives. Period, end of story.
 
My point is: now that public sector employees in one particular town are being (in your view, apparently) attacked, you're all for solidarity. "First they came for X..." and all that. Protect the working man from an employer that has no right to trample on his rights! (The employer in this case is a public sector entity, the City of Fort Worth).

Yet when they came for the public sector employees last year, you were happy to be in the mob, pitchfork and torch in hand.

You've made it very clear that when it comes to public sector employees--like the smokers in the OP--if the taxpayers want to impose a condition, they're to bend over and take it. Those public sector employees work for us, they play by our rules. They shouldn't even have the right to collectively negotiate over the terms. Somehow now that one place is considering moving the focus of the dictates from pensions and health insurance contributions to tobacco use, you're offended? Give me a break.

Your Nazi hysteria is obviously insincere bullshit, as is your faux concern for these people's rights.
 
My point is: now that public sector employees in one particular town are being (in your view, apparently) attacked, you're all for solidarity. "First they came for X..." and all that. Protect the working man from an employer that has no right to trample on his rights! (The employer in this case is a public sector entity, the City of Fort Worth).

Yet when they came for the public sector employees last year, you were happy to be in the mob, pitchfork and torch in hand.

You've made it very clear that when it comes to public sector employees--like the smokers in the OP--if the taxpayers want to impose a condition, they're to bend over and take it. Those public sector employees work for us, they play by our rules. They shouldn't even have the right to collectively negotiate over the terms. Somehow now that one place is considering moving the focus of the dictates from pensions and health insurance contributions to tobacco use, you're offended? Give me a break.

Your Nazi hysteria is obviously insincere bullshit, as is your faux concern for these people's rights.

Yes, i oppose Government Unions. I believe i said that already. I'm flexible on Private Unions though. Regardless though, no one should support Government & Corporations involving themselves in Citizens' private personal lives. That should be something all Americans could agree on.
 
Tatoos? Will not get hired by me if you have a visible tatoo.
"Do you want fries with that?" will hire you so get all the tatoos you want.
Bone through your nose? Will not get hired by me.
 
Tatoos? Will not get hired by me if you have a visible tatoo.
"Do you want fries with that?" will hire you so get all the tatoos you want.
Bone through your nose? Will not get hired by me.

Obviously, some standards are required. I understand that. But a line is being crossed by Government & Corporations at this point. It's time for them to pull back.
 
Last edited:
Tatoos? Will not get hired by me if you have a visible tatoo.
"Do you want fries with that?" will hire you so get all the tatoos you want.
Bone through your nose? Will not get hired by me.

Obviously, some standards are required. I understand that. But a line is being crossed by Government & Corporations at this point. It's time to for them to pull back.

Then your argument is inconsistent, as tattoos could be construed as a form of ‘free expression,’ and an employer’s refusal to hire a person with tattoos ‘discriminatory.’

…no one should support Government & Corporations involving themselves in Citizens' private personal lives. That should be something all Americans could agree on.

And yet you’ll be voting for Romney and other republicans this Fall who indeed support government involvement in citizens’ personal lives.
 
Tatoos? Will not get hired by me if you have a visible tatoo.
"Do you want fries with that?" will hire you so get all the tatoos you want.
Bone through your nose? Will not get hired by me.

Obviously, some standards are required. I understand that. But a line is being crossed by Government & Corporations at this point. It's time to for them to pull back.

Then your argument is inconsistent, as tattoos could be construed as a form of ‘free expression,’ and an employer’s refusal to hire a person with tattoos ‘discriminatory.’

…no one should support Government & Corporations involving themselves in Citizens' private personal lives. That should be something all Americans could agree on.

And yet you’ll be voting for Romney and other republicans this Fall who indeed support government involvement in citizens’ personal lives.

How far will they be allowed to go? And your assumptions on my voting preferences are not all that accurate.
 
If I own a car I can pick and choose who I want to sell it to.
If I choose not to sell it to someone because they have big feet that is my right.
Same thing with my $$ that I pay employees with.
Same exact thing.
My cash is my property and if I choose not to hire someone because they are a drug addict that is my right.
 

Forum List

Back
Top