So bob, I heard that the company you work at said that masturbation was bringing down employee production. So, are YOU going to give up masturbating? Just because you don\’t smoke doesn\’t mean that this will escalate into many different areas.
Ok – With all of the illegal or immoral activities going on in today\’s society, don\’t you non-smokers have a bigger concern than people smoking? Time to get off your soap-box people. I hope this man WINS his lawsuit! How ridiculous!!!!
I beleive that if people want to kill themselves by smoking then that is their choice. What they do at home is their own business. But I don\’t think it is fair for the employer to have to pay for their health bills. If people make the choice to smoke they should pay thier own health costs.
Jay, your argument does not hold water. What about the fat people? Should they pay their own health insurance too? Who will determine when you reach \”fat\” level? Or what about the guy who jogs on busy streets and sucks in all the Co2? Should we pay his health insurance since he is clogging his lungs with car pollution. What about the women who go out and drink and then go home with a different guy each weekend? That is risky behaviour too. So, please tell me where do you draw the line?
My employer doesn\’t pay any of my health care bills. I haven\’t heard of any company (aside from those which are self-insured) that does. Do you mean health insurance, Jay?
One might assume that if the employee is honest, then he disclosed the fact that he smokes to the provider and is therefore paying a higher premium to off-set the costs of whatever treatments he receives.
As far as privacy, where does the line get drawn?
Should my employer have the right to test me for alcohol, too? What about prescription meds? Should employers be allowed to test for particular types and reject employees who take them?
Boy, I got some responses, didn\’t I. So we all believe in freedom of choice! As the employer, which I am, and as the payor of the health insurance, which I am, then in a free, capitalist society I should be free to hire whom I choose.
And I choose not to hire smokers. It\’s my choice in a free society, right?
And 400,000 dead smokers every year have made choices, too, haven\’t they?
As an employer you are free to act as you wish, Bob, as long as it is within the scope of laws in your state.
Your ethics are a matter of your personal choice, too. I don\’t think anyone is trying to argue that it isn\’t your choice.
If you don\’t want to hire smokers, then by all means, don\’t.
The problem with this particular situation is… it apparently was not made clear to the smoker that his employment was conditional upon a urine test for nicotine. In most cases, employers are required to make the conditions of employment known upon or before hiring. Depends on if it\’s an employment-at-will state.
Let\’s say you\’re a member of Oprah\’s book club and you read on your own personal time. The company for which you work decides that the book choices are junk. Your car is searched the next week and one of your Oprah books is discovered. You\’re then fired. The firing was questionably legal, and it was unethical.
Now to put the shoe on the other foot. If the company told you *before* you were hired that Oprah books were prohibited and employment was conditional upon compliance with such policy. Then you chose to violate the policy, got caught and subsequently fired. That would at least be ethical.
Personally, I want to be able to choose whether I work for a company that crawls all up in my private business and I want to know whether they intend to do so BEFORE I accept the job.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Come on, I\’m waiting for all you smokers to log on in favor of this lawsuit.
But I say great for the company that fired him – – -. I sure hope they prevail.
So bob, I heard that the company you work at said that masturbation was bringing down employee production. So, are YOU going to give up masturbating? Just because you don\’t smoke doesn\’t mean that this will escalate into many different areas.
Ok – With all of the illegal or immoral activities going on in today\’s society, don\’t you non-smokers have a bigger concern than people smoking? Time to get off your soap-box people. I hope this man WINS his lawsuit! How ridiculous!!!!
Regardless of if you smoke, how much of your private life do you think your employer should be allowed to access?
Would any of you want to work for a company that tried to dictate your legal activities off-the-clock?
Things like this scare me… in a Big Brother sort of way.
Right on KLS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Very scary!
I beleive that if people want to kill themselves by smoking then that is their choice. What they do at home is their own business. But I don\’t think it is fair for the employer to have to pay for their health bills. If people make the choice to smoke they should pay thier own health costs.
Jay, your argument does not hold water. What about the fat people? Should they pay their own health insurance too? Who will determine when you reach \”fat\” level? Or what about the guy who jogs on busy streets and sucks in all the Co2? Should we pay his health insurance since he is clogging his lungs with car pollution. What about the women who go out and drink and then go home with a different guy each weekend? That is risky behaviour too. So, please tell me where do you draw the line?
My employer doesn\’t pay any of my health care bills. I haven\’t heard of any company (aside from those which are self-insured) that does. Do you mean health insurance, Jay?
One might assume that if the employee is honest, then he disclosed the fact that he smokes to the provider and is therefore paying a higher premium to off-set the costs of whatever treatments he receives.
As far as privacy, where does the line get drawn?
Should my employer have the right to test me for alcohol, too? What about prescription meds? Should employers be allowed to test for particular types and reject employees who take them?
Boy, I got some responses, didn\’t I. So we all believe in freedom of choice! As the employer, which I am, and as the payor of the health insurance, which I am, then in a free, capitalist society I should be free to hire whom I choose.
And I choose not to hire smokers. It\’s my choice in a free society, right?
And 400,000 dead smokers every year have made choices, too, haven\’t they?
As an employer you are free to act as you wish, Bob, as long as it is within the scope of laws in your state.
Your ethics are a matter of your personal choice, too. I don\’t think anyone is trying to argue that it isn\’t your choice.
If you don\’t want to hire smokers, then by all means, don\’t.
The problem with this particular situation is… it apparently was not made clear to the smoker that his employment was conditional upon a urine test for nicotine. In most cases, employers are required to make the conditions of employment known upon or before hiring. Depends on if it\’s an employment-at-will state.
Let\’s say you\’re a member of Oprah\’s book club and you read on your own personal time. The company for which you work decides that the book choices are junk. Your car is searched the next week and one of your Oprah books is discovered. You\’re then fired. The firing was questionably legal, and it was unethical.
Now to put the shoe on the other foot. If the company told you *before* you were hired that Oprah books were prohibited and employment was conditional upon compliance with such policy. Then you chose to violate the policy, got caught and subsequently fired. That would at least be ethical.
Personally, I want to be able to choose whether I work for a company that crawls all up in my private business and I want to know whether they intend to do so BEFORE I accept the job.