linksfiend Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 It's not governmental action. It's private actors - perfectly legal. The Constitution only applies to governments. 218593[/snapback] It's perfectly legal to profile workers based on health care considerations? Can I refuse to hire women because they have higher rates of breast cancer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 It doesn't end. When companies can control your employment based on your use of legal products, that's the end of our society. Bank on it. 218606[/snapback] You mean like baseball players not being allowed to ride motorcylces in the offseason? Football players not being allowed to play pickup basketball during the offseason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 It's perfectly legal to profile workers based on health care considerations?Can I refuse to hire women because they have higher rates of breast cancer? 218608[/snapback] Women and minorities fall into "suspect classes" that receive higher scrutiny in these types of situations. Smokers don't. Folks, I don't write the laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 It doesn't end. When companies can control your employment based on your use of legal products, that's the end of our society. Bank on it. 218606[/snapback] Sadly AD, I agree. Isn't it great that we are going around the world making sure that peolpe are "free?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 You mean like baseball players not being allowed to ride motorcylces in the offseason? Football players not being allowed to play pickup basketball during the offseason? 218609[/snapback] Yep. That's the first chink in the armor. It begins the slippery slope that leads far from the freedom our politicians like to talk about but apparently don't actually understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Yep. That's the first chink in the armor. It begins the slippery slope that leads far from the freedom our politicians like to talk about but apparently don't actually understand. 218612[/snapback] It's called a contract - it's something you agree to. You're not forced. Don't like it, work somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 It's called a contract - it's something you agree to. You're not forced. Don't like it, work somewhere else. 218614[/snapback] I suppose if you want to look at the small picture, it is that simple. The big picture is much more complex and the current path our country is on is closer and closer to the government our Forefather's fought so hard to escape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Wow, this seems dangerous. I can't imagine the ACLU not challenging this. Nor the employees not suing for wrongful termination and invasion of privacy. What's next -- fire everyone who drinks alcohol, or drinks caffeinated drinks, or is considered obese by National Institute of Health standards, or uses birth control pills. This can't be upheld. 218580[/snapback] I know...let's fire disabled people who are functionally incapable of doing their jobs... Oh no, wait...that's illegal under the ADA... (And keep in mind that I'm saying that as someone who has a condition covered by the ADA, and couldn't be fired for it even if it hindered my job performance. But it's legal to fire people for smoking? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 It's called a contract - it's something you agree to. You're not forced. Don't like it, work somewhere else. 218614[/snapback] Your right, and I'm sure in the contracts of these employees smoking was cited as an activity that could cost you your job. No way in hell this holds up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 The government has tighten the grip on smokers. Might as well lump tobacco and narcotic users together, and ban both from the work place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I suppose if you want to look at the small picture, it is that simple. The big picture is much more complex and the current path our country is on is closer and closer to the government our Forefather's fought so hard to escape. 218616[/snapback] I'm actually surprised you'd take this position. IMO, our "Forefathers" wanted freedom of contract more than anything, with the government not being able to swoop in and make laws that interfere with the free choices of individuals. The two examples I mentioned (football and baseball players) are perfect examples of situations where the employer has every rational reason for wanting that insurance built into its employment agreement. Are you suggesting that the government should step in and allow employees to do all sorts of self-destructive things that their employers will ultimately be on the hook for? That doesn't sound like a position you'd advocate. Don't forget - health insurance isn't an entitlement. My girlfriend doesn't get it from her employer. I suspect what happened here is that this particular employer is forced either to provide health insurance coverage, or, perhaps it is forced to provide it for all employees if it provides it for some. So the government already in this situation is forcing the employer's hands (again, not what our "Forefathers" wanted), and forcing the employer to choose between subsidizing a destructive behavior or firing some employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 The government has tighten the grip on smokers. Might as well lump tobacco and narcotic users together, and ban both from the work place. 218619[/snapback] Which will be very successful - just like the cost effective "War on Drugs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Which will be very successful - just like the cost effective "War on Drugs". 218623[/snapback] Again, you need to recognize that in this situation it's not the government who's acting. I couldn't agree more with you about the ridiculousness of the War on Drugs, but at the same time, I can't say that the government has a right to restrict private employers who want to fire employees for taking drugs, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I'm actually surprised you'd take this position. IMO, our "Forefathers" wanted freedom of contract more than anything, with the government not being able to swoop in and make laws that interfere with the free choices of individuals. The two examples I mentioned (football and baseball players) are perfect examples of situations where the employer has every rational reason for wanting that insurance built into its employment agreement. Are you suggesting that the government should step in and allow employees to do all sorts of self-destructive things that their employers will ultimately be on the hook for? That doesn't sound like a position you'd advocate. Don't forget - health insurance isn't an entitlement. My girlfriend doesn't get it from her employer. I suspect what happened here is that this particular employer is forced either to provide health insurance coverage, or, perhaps it is forced to provide it for all employees if it provides it for some. So the government already in this situation is forcing the employer's hands (again, not what our "Forefathers" wanted), and forcing the employer to choose between subsidizing a destructive behavior or firing some employees. 218621[/snapback] You've more or less made my point in a round about way. Too much government involvement in one arena has led to loss of individual liberty in another. The consequences are Orwellian in the end. We've learned nothing from history. Smoking is just another boogieman conquered for the good of the "collective". Next it'll be your diet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Again, you need to recognize that in this situation it's not the government who's acting. I couldn't agree more with you about the ridiculousness of the War on Drugs, but at the same time, I can't say that the government has a right to restrict private employers who want to fire employees for taking drugs, for example. 218624[/snapback] The difference is drugs are illegal. Smoking isn't. Nor is eating bad food or not working out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Smoking is just another boogieman conquered for the good of the "collective". Next it'll be your diet. 218625[/snapback] Does that mean they'll have to fire people who work at McDonalds... Meaning there won't be anybody working at McDonalds... Meaning there will be no fast food? CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 You've more or less made my point in a round about way. Too much government involvement in one arena has led to loss of individual liberty in another. 218625[/snapback] Except the solution isn't, and never will be, "more laws." I think we'd agree on that. Yes the government created this problem (and creates the problem of my girlfriend having to pay at least $280 in premiums per month for private health insurance, because she's forced by the government to subsidize old people), but the solution is not that the government pass more laws in response. It should just get out of the way altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 The difference is drugs are illegal. Smoking isn't. Nor is eating bad food or not working out. 218628[/snapback] Even if drugs were legal, I would respect the choice of private companies not to allow their busdrivers, for example, to smoke crack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Except the solution isn't, and never will be, "more laws." I think we'd agree on that. Yes the government created this problem (and creates the problem of my girlfriend having to pay at least $280 in premiums per month for private health insurance, because she's forced by the government to subsidize old people), but the solution is not that the government pass more laws in response. It should just get out of the way altogether. 218631[/snapback] I more or less agree. Government does have duties - the Constitution would be a nice place to start but they're way too busy stealing from the citizenry to pay attention to that. I wasn't advocating more laws and there likely won't be any after this thing gets whacked in some court somewhere. Just a precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Even if drugs were legal, I would respect the choice of private companies not to allow their busdrivers, for example, to smoke crack. 218635[/snapback] I don't see it being any different than alcohol. Bus drivers ain't allowed to toss a couple back, either. But, you can't fire someone if they drink away from work - unless it impacts their job performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts