From a privacy standpoint, that blows. If they're going to ban cigarettes, first they should ban all non-prescribed drugs as well as alcohol. Wine and beer included.
I suppose if you ban drinking off the job, it's reasonable to ban smoking. 6.5 extra sick days a year is a fair number.
But again. That means no smoking pipe tobacco or hookah, and neither of those seem to have the same health risk as cigarettes due to manner of use. And that seems like a privacy invasion. It's like banning everything that can be ingested because some things that are ingested happen to cause hallucinations or impair judgment. So. Sounds like a privacy violation.
On the other hand, they did offer hypnosis and accupuncture and gave employees plenty of fair warning. Why would you turn down hypnosis and accupuncture if it meant quitting smoking? I'm not sure I understand what the problem is for these people. Do they feel that they need to smoke to fit in?
I don't like seeing anyone get the shaft. But my libertarian heart makes me say that it's ok for the company to do anything they want, and that the employees don't have to work there.
SO i'll let this one slide. But the government imposed smoking bans must stop and violate my liberarian heart.
The point of it is to reduce health care costs, so why don't they ban employees from doing other things that are health risks. As Aciel said, no more drinking after work. Cheeseburgers, those are pretty unhealthy, none of those either. If you even so much as look at a garbage plate, out the door with you.
I'm with Shaun here, the company should be able to do whatever they want. What's upsetting is how the largely government funded campaign against smoking has demonized it to such a degree that people think this is a good thing. San Francisco has gone so far as to ban smoking in public places outside. You are proof of the point, you think it's funny to see smokers get screwed, but if they were to take away garbage plates I'll bet you would be pretty pissed. In fact, assuming that employees retire from this company at an early enough age (say, 60 years old), I'd bet the health costs of being overweight out weigh the costs of smoking (pun intended). But if a company were to ban overweight employees, they would see a discrimination suit
( ... )
Comments 9
I suppose if you ban drinking off the job, it's reasonable to ban smoking. 6.5 extra sick days a year is a fair number.
But again. That means no smoking pipe tobacco or hookah, and neither of those seem to have the same health risk as cigarettes due to manner of use. And that seems like a privacy invasion. It's like banning everything that can be ingested because some things that are ingested happen to cause hallucinations or impair judgment. So. Sounds like a privacy violation.
On the other hand, they did offer hypnosis and accupuncture and gave employees plenty of fair warning. Why would you turn down hypnosis and accupuncture if it meant quitting smoking? I'm not sure I understand what the problem is for these people. Do they feel that they need to smoke to fit in?
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
SO i'll let this one slide. But the government imposed smoking bans must stop and violate my liberarian heart.
Reply
I'm with Shaun here, the company should be able to do whatever they want. What's upsetting is how the largely government funded campaign against smoking has demonized it to such a degree that people think this is a good thing. San Francisco has gone so far as to ban smoking in public places outside. You are proof of the point, you think it's funny to see smokers get screwed, but if they were to take away garbage plates I'll bet you would be pretty pissed. In fact, assuming that employees retire from this company at an early enough age (say, 60 years old), I'd bet the health costs of being overweight out weigh the costs of smoking (pun intended). But if a company were to ban overweight employees, they would see a discrimination suit ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment