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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Smoking is not illegal. It is also stupid in my eyes, but it is not illegal. And to ban people from employment based on legal activities they enjoy in their private life is blatant discrimination.

There are other criteria employers use to determine employment eligibility which are also not illegal, such as poor credit scores and previous employment records; and the City has a compelling reason supported by sound evidence as to the health risks of smoking. The policy is also applied equally to everyone.

No one would be able to make the case that smokers constitute a ‘particular class of persons’ singled-out by a discriminatory policy.

It's just amazing so many can actually cheerlead for Government & Corporations controlling their private personal lives. What the Hell is wrong with this Country? How did we get to this point?

Actually this comports with libertarian dogma: the all-powerful employer (private property owner/’property rights’) with the universal authority to hire whomever he wants for whatever reason, regardless how subjective or capricious.

 

[Gadawg73]

Smoking is not illegal. It is also stupid in my eyes, but it is not illegal. And to ban people from employment based on legal activities they enjoy in their private life is blatant discrimination.

There are other criteria employers use to determine employment eligibility which are also not illegal, such as poor credit scores and previous employment records; and the City has a compelling reason supported by sound evidence as to the health risks of smoking. The policy is also applied equally to everyone.

No one would be able to make the case that smokers constitute a ‘particular class of persons’ singled-out by a discriminatory policy.

It's just amazing so many can actually cheerlead for Government & Corporations controlling their private personal lives. What the Hell is wrong with this Country? How did we get to this point?

Actually this comports with libertarian dogma: the all-powerful employer (private property owner/’property rights’) with the universal authority to hire whomever he wants for whatever reason, regardless how subjective or capricious.

And I am the All Powerful, THE OZ, the GREAT AND POWERFUL, The Ayatollah of Rock 'N Rolla!

 

[Gadawg73]

Stop Goose Stepping. Government & Corporations should stay out of Citizens' private personal lives. I don't care what their justifications are. To Hell with em.

If I pay your salary you go by my rules.

Did you ever play any sports or were involved in ANY activity where there were rules?
Nothing about your bull shit "goose stepping" crap.
You are undisciplined and cry when someone tells you something to do.
There are consequences in a free society to your actions. Get used to it.
If you do not like it move to Utopia.

Always the good little Nazi huh? But i do understand. You just don't know any better. Goose Stepping is all you know. You really should watch the video i posted. It might help you understand yourself a bit better. It may even help you change. Who knows?

So playing football, learning how to be disciplined, work hard and take care of yourself is being a "Nazi".
No one is forcing anyone to do a damn thing you fool. All you are doing is making excuses for the dope heads.
I am all for the legalization of drugs and you can snort up a large line of Drano for all I care. Smoke all you want, do whatever you want. I do not care and believe in that.
But YOU ARE THE NAZI if you can force me to hire someone that I deem a health risk to my organization.
YOU ARE THE NAZI if you want laws to protect those health risks from my employment rules and regulations that I set FOR MY PRIVATE BUSINESS and what we taxpayers expect out of OUR employees.
Comprende Adolph?
You are eat up with THE DUMB ASS.

 

[Nosmo King]

So governments cutting benefits to retirees is big fun and acceptable. Cutting funding to education is something to boast about. Cutting funding to women and dependent children is precisely what the state should do. But cutting health care costs by not hiring smokers is a travesty. I guess that's how Conservatives think.

 

[Gadawg73]

So governments cutting benefits to retirees is big fun and acceptable. Cutting funding to education is something to boast about. Cutting funding to women and dependent children is precisely what the state should do. But cutting health care costs by not hiring smokers is a travesty. I guess that's how Conservatives think.

I fully support cutting the "benefits" to the retirees.
In my county if you are over 62 your property taxes are slashed. Most of the large homes on my street are owned by folk over 62. So young families have to subsidize their taxes. 60 years ago the % of children that were in poverty in need of health care was much lower than now. We have seen the largest transfer of monetary spending in government over those 60 years away from essential government functions to retirees. Poverty now wears a diaper at the expense of the "retirees".
And we have the debt to show for it.
But I agree with your premise. Good post.

 

[Greenbeard]

It's just amazing so many can actually cheerlead for Government & Corporations controlling their private personal lives. What the Hell is wrong with this Country? How did we get to this point?

Actually this comports with libertarian dogma: the all-powerful employer (private property owner/’property rights&#8217 with the universal authority to hire whomever he wants for whatever reason, regardless how subjective or capricious.

Maybe this will drive him to a join a union. Although we're talking about public sector employees in this case, and we know public sector unions are the root of all evil.

 

[Artevelde]

Smoking is not illegal. It is also stupid in my eyes, but it is not illegal. And to ban people from employment based on legal activities they enjoy in their private life is blatant discrimination.

There are other criteria employers use to determine employment eligibility which are also not illegal, such as poor credit scores and previous employment records; and the City has a compelling reason supported by sound evidence as to the health risks of smoking. The policy is also applied equally to everyone.

No one would be able to make the case that smokers constitute a ‘particular class of persons’ singled-out by a discriminatory policy.

So the city should also be able to exclude people who are HIV+, obese, handicapped, etc. from employment?

 

[paulitician]

Poor sad dupes. No one should be cheerleading for more Government & Corporate interference in Citizens' private personal lives. It doesn't matter which Political Party you shill for. It's just wrong. And it's as simple as that.

 

[Nosmo King]

So governments cutting benefits to retirees is big fun and acceptable. Cutting funding to education is something to boast about. Cutting funding to women and dependent children is precisely what the state should do. But cutting health care costs by not hiring smokers is a travesty. I guess that's how Conservatives think.

I fully support cutting the "benefits" to the retirees.
In my county if you are over 62 your property taxes are slashed. Most of the large homes on my street are owned by folk over 62. So young families have to subsidize their taxes. 60 years ago the % of children that were in poverty in need of health care was much lower than now. We have seen the largest transfer of monetary spending in government over those 60 years away from essential government functions to retirees. Poverty now wears a diaper at the expense of the "retirees".
And we have the debt to show for it.
But I agree with your premise. Good post.

Most counties offer a homestead exemption to seniors. Most retirees live on a fixed income. Some are no longer able to work. Cutting the benefits they acquired during a lifetime of productive work cuts them off at the knees. Those benefits are relied on to live, to pay utility bills, to buy gasoline and food. Those benefits are part of a senior citizen's monthly budget. It is altogether wrong and bordering on criminal to deny those necessary funds to retired senior citizens.

 

[earlycuyler]

Man, what's going 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

Any employer should decide not to hire smokers. Smokers are pooreer workers, sloppier in their habits, and are costly to ensure.

I take issue with the "poor worker" and "sloppy in our habits" comments. That said, smokers smell bad, and do cost more to insure. I smoke and think it stinks. There is also the fact that its not illegal to discriminate in Texas. I dont have a problem with this.

 

[paulitician]

First they came for the Smokers. When Big Brother comes for you, I suspect perceptions and opinions change on issues like this. Because make no mistake about it, Big Brother will get around to coming for you as well. So all you loyal Goose Steppers cheerleading for this, may want to think it over a bit more. When they come for you, who will be left to defend you?

 

[Nosmo King]

First they came for the Smokers. When Big Brother comes for you, I suspect perceptions and opinions change on issues like this. Because make no mistake about it, Big Brother will get around to coming for you as well. So all you loyal Goose Steppers cheerleading for this, may want to think it over a bit more. When they come for you, who will be left to defend you?

No. First they came for the retired workers and the Right Wing cheered. Then they came for the single mothers and again, the Right Wing cheered. Then they came for the libraries and the schools and the sewer systems and the roads and the Right Wing cheered.

Now they're coming for the smokers. Why? The same reason they came for all the others~ cost savings.

 

[paulitician]

First they came for the Smokers. When Big Brother comes for you, I suspect perceptions and opinions change on issues like this. Because make no mistake about it, Big Brother will get around to coming for you as well. So all you loyal Goose Steppers cheerleading for this, may want to think it over a bit more. When they come for you, who will be left to defend you?

No. First they came for the retired workers and the Right Wing cheered. Then they came for the single mothers and again, the Right Wing cheered. Then they came for the libraries and the schools and the sewer systems and the roads and the Right Wing cheered.

Now they're coming for the smokers. Why? The same reason they came for all the others~ cost savings.

You don't have to be a loyal Goose Stepper. You do have a choice. Big Brother will come for you at some point too. Wouldn't it be nice if you had some support and defense? Defending Big Brother & Corporations on this, will only eliminate any possible defense for you in the future. More Americans better start figuring that out.

 

[Nosmo King]

First they came for the Smokers. When Big Brother comes for you, I suspect perceptions and opinions change on issues like this. Because make no mistake about it, Big Brother will get around to coming for you as well. So all you loyal Goose Steppers cheerleading for this, may want to think it over a bit more. When they come for you, who will be left to defend you?

No. First they came for the retired workers and the Right Wing cheered. Then they came for the single mothers and again, the Right Wing cheered. Then they came for the libraries and the schools and the sewer systems and the roads and the Right Wing cheered.

Now they're coming for the smokers. Why? The same reason they came for all the others~ cost savings.

You don't have to be a loyal Goose Stepper. You do have a choice. Big Brother will come for you at some point too. Wouldn't it be nice if you had some support and defense? Defending Big Brother & Corporations on this, will only eliminate any possible defense for you in the future. More Americans better start figuring that out.

I had a union. But the Right Wing wanted it gone.

 

[Gadawg73]

So governments cutting benefits to retirees is big fun and acceptable. Cutting funding to education is something to boast about. Cutting funding to women and dependent children is precisely what the state should do. But cutting health care costs by not hiring smokers is a travesty. I guess that's how Conservatives think.

I fully support cutting the "benefits" to the retirees.
In my county if you are over 62 your property taxes are slashed. Most of the large homes on my street are owned by folk over 62. So young families have to subsidize their taxes. 60 years ago the % of children that were in poverty in need of health care was much lower than now. We have seen the largest transfer of monetary spending in government over those 60 years away from essential government functions to retirees. Poverty now wears a diaper at the expense of the "retirees".
And we have the debt to show for it.
But I agree with your premise. Good post.

Most counties offer a homestead exemption to seniors. Most retirees live on a fixed income. Some are no longer able to work. Cutting the benefits they acquired during a lifetime of productive work cuts them off at the knees. Those benefits are relied on to live, to pay utility bills, to buy gasoline and food. Those benefits are part of a senior citizen's monthly budget. It is altogether wrong and bordering on criminal to deny those necessary funds to retired senior citizens.

And that fixed income is more than the income than families with young kids.
And the retirees have had 40 years to amass equity.
They have the $$ and just like they are passing on the debt to the younger generation they are passing on their responsibility of owning property.
It is criminal to take $$ at the point of a gun from productive citizens and give it to other citizens be they seniors or not.
I am 4 years away from the exemption in this county and I oppose it.
No one is denying any funds to anyone. Have a bottom line exemption of 100K in property values with incomes less than 40K or something and have it at that.
My neighbor lives in an 11,000 square foot home and we give him an exemption.
Insane.
No offense to you but you speak in non specific generalities. Seniors have the cash and are allowed to keep it at the expense of the younger generation BECAUSE OF AARP and their political clout only.
Take home income of seniors 65 and older now is 15K above the take home pay of those 22- 35 PLUS seniors have free medical care and have equity in their homes in most cases.
Poverty wears a diaper these days at the expense of wealthy seniors.

 

[paulitician]

No. First they came for the retired workers and the Right Wing cheered. Then they came for the single mothers and again, the Right Wing cheered. Then they came for the libraries and the schools and the sewer systems and the roads and the Right Wing cheered.

Now they're coming for the smokers. Why? The same reason they came for all the others~ cost savings.

You don't have to be a loyal Goose Stepper. You do have a choice. Big Brother will come for you at some point too. Wouldn't it be nice if you had some support and defense? Defending Big Brother & Corporations on this, will only eliminate any possible defense for you in the future. More Americans better start figuring that out.

I had a union. But the Right Wing wanted it gone.

So fight and get it back, or just fight against these injustices. Government & Corporations need to get out of Citizens' private personal lives. But they're not going to do that voluntarily. The People will have to stand up and demand it. Because like i said, Big Brother will come for all at some point. But will there be anyone left to stop him? That's an incredibly important question. Americans need to say enough is enough, before it's too late.

 

[saveliberty]

So we don't have retired workers, single moms or union members any more? When did they come and take your libraries, schools, sewer systems and the roads?

 

[Nosmo King]

So we don't have retired workers, single moms or union members any more? When did they come and take your libraries, schools, sewer systems and the roads?

The seminal phrase you ignored was "cost savings".

 

[GHook93]

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 ) etc!

 

[Gadawg73]

Still no evidence from the PaulBots that government if stopping ANYONE from smoking.