I heard on the news about an employer, a municipality in Florida I believe, that will not hire someone if they smoke.
Now, I firmly believe that an employer has the right to bar one from smoking on the job. Work is for what you get paid for, and it’s the employers property. They make the rules. That’s ok with me.
But this place won’t hire someone even if they only smoke “off the clock”. How can an employer legally tell someone that they cannot engage in a lawful activity after work hours, and get away with it? I don’t smoke, but I feel that this is unfair discrimination. The reasons the employer gives is the escalated cost of health care for a smoker. Understandable, but I still feel it’s unfair discrimination. Under that arguement one could refuse to hire people who aren’t in monogamous relationships. (sleeping around might cause them to get AIDS, a very costly disease). What I do off the clock is my business, as long as it is legal. Smoking (tobacco:D)is legal. If I want to smoke in my house after work, it should not affect my job or any future job I may wish to apply for.
I can’t wait for the first lawsuit from a smoker on this.
What do you think, and if you agree with the employer please justify it. This sounds more like a control issue than a heath care cost issue to me.
Well, I happen to be of the opinion that a private employer should be able to hire (or not) somebody for pretty much any reason. I also support my right to not give them my business.
So for this particular case, when there is a very real possibility of increased health care costs (plus increased sick time, etc.), I fully side with the company.
So, DavidB, any reason is a good reason? So if I don’t hire you because your a woman, and they will take time off eventually to have a child, and the child will go on the health plan and raise the rates, is that OK? Or if you eat too much red meat. Thats a recipe fo r heart disease. Better yet, if anyone in your family has a history of illness, why should you get hired? That would raise the cost of doing business. There are too many examples to list as to why this it is a bad idea to not allow employees to do legal things on their own time. I don’t care if its a public or private employer, its a bad precident to set.
Does that include not hiring people who are black, gay, liberals, etc? Where do you set the line of "almost any reason? Now believe it or not, I actually agree with your position about private employers being free to hire or not hire who they want. The problem is, the law does not agree with you. As an employer I can not not hire someone just on the grounds that they are a color, religion, sex, that I don’t like. Then why can I seemingly discriminate against an activity that is legal for adults to participate in during their own time? I say, if there is going to be laws against descrimination, then they have to be full coverage, not just enforced upon what is politically correct.
I have a feeling that in this specific case someones ego is just a little too big. Where does any employer get off telling me I cannot enjoy a legal activity on my own time?
No, I didn’t say any reason was a good reason. I just said that I think they ought to be able to make that decision. I was pretty clear in also saying that I may not choose to do business with them.
Define “OK.” Do I think you should be allowed to do it? Yes. Will I give you my business if I find out? No.
pkbites continued in the same vein:
Yes. And to repeat, if I were to find out that a business did such a thing, I would make sure to avoid them like the plague. Indeed, I already do so with several businesses where I live.
Oh, I know that. I wasn’t talking about what is legal, but what I happen to think.
He may well have a valid point with the cost of health insurance. If the employer is paying it, why should he have to shell out more for the smoker’s insurance if he can hire a non-smoker instead?
There was a case in Nova Scotia where a surgeon refused to operate on a patient because he smoked. I have some sympathy for this view, transplant patients are chosen on criteria such as general health, likely prognosis and age and smoking is clearly a risk as well. Nevertheless, people have the right to smoke in their own homes on their own time and I don’t think corporations should be allowed to discriminate against smokers. Nor do I think commonplace operations should not be performed on smokers.
One could take DavidB’s arguments to an obvious extreme and say corporations should have the right to genetically test potential employees. I also disagree with DavidB about not hiring specific people when it can be clearly determined the only reason for doing so was race, gender, etc. How can I avoid doing business with the government, or do business with a big university that adopted similar standards?
Closer to home, I remember an episode of ER in which doctors refused to transplant an organ into a drug user who had burned through two already due to drug use.
Let’s work it through:
[ul]
[li]The UNOS List (or whatever it’s called) ranks people who are waiting for transplanted organs.[/li][li]The rank is determined through some (probably complicated) calculation of things like time spent on the list already, age, risk factors, etc.[/li][li]One of those risk factors must be health related - ie a pack-a-day smoker is unlikely to be high on the list of heart recipients.[/li][/ul]
If that makes sense, then DavidB’s position makes sense as well. I agree with him - in most cases, employers should be able to do whatever they want.
How about large unincorporated firms? Should they be allowed to discriminate against smokers? What about limited partnerships? Pubically-traded limited partnerships? What about a newfangled Limited Liability Company (LLC)? Should it be allowed to discriminate against smokers? And what about really really small corporations, you know, corporations that aren’t traded on the public stock market and have maybe 4 or 5 employees at most? Should they not be allowed to discriminate against smokers? And how about a sole proprietorship that hires a huge number of workers? Or a Massachusetts business trust?
(Sheesh. What do so many people have against the corporate form of business ownership, anyway?)
I’m defining “OK” as being legally allowed to do it.
In this case, this would seem like sexual discrimination. As far as I know (which probably isn’t much) this would be illegal.
I just feel like this is wrong. It shouldn’t be legal. What is to keep companies from not hiring or even firing people for reasons like age (older people use their health insurance more than younger ones) or sex (besides child birth, women use their health insurance more) or disablity (assuming it didn’t affect the job, disabled people use their benifits more).
Do we really need more middle aged white males dominating the work force? Because I feel that is the road that these things would lead us down.
I’m glad you wouldn’t chose to do business with companies that follow these practices. Unfortunatly, that doesn’t help the people out of jobs because of them.
Well, since it apparently was, allow me to clarify for you: Not government. Not a university. Not even anybody who deals with the government (for example, a company that makes planes for the defense dept.). Private. You know, like the restaurant down the street.
blur said:
Yes, it would. In fact, I have a neighbor (and small business owner) who was accused of doing something very much like it. He didn’t, mind you, but he was accused of it and ended up having to settle to avoid a costly court battle. It is illegal, but, IMO, should not be.
Public opinion, choosing to do business with the government, wanting people to actually buy from them. You know, staying in business.
Yes, it would. Not because I, alone, do it. But if everybody who felt the same way did it as well. But because it involves some work and thinking on their part, instead of just relying on the government to try to enforce it, a lot of people won’t bother.
Overall, I think people have the right to be assholes. I just won’t support them, and don’t think others should either.
While on a ‘perfect world’ level, I’m inclined to have some sympathy for David B’s position, isn’t one of the problems with:
That it depends on you either spending inordinate amounts of time checking individual businesses, or happening to read xyz story in the paper?
The problem goes deeper than that. You do business with a raft-load of businesses you probably don’t even know about every time you do (for instance) a big shop at your local supermarket. Hard to check on the Human Resources provenance of your 100 goods, especially if some of the more esoteric food-stuffs are sourced from abroad.
The same goes (to a greater or lesser extent) with whatever you buy.
Further food for thought; suppose in a few years’ time it was possible to screen for a slew of genetic diseases by simply analysing a drop of blood (a lot of gentech companies are working on this sort of reasearch).
Should such a company be able to insist on such a test, and to reject you on the basis of it? Let’s further say that the company can offer 5% more than a rival company in remuneration (which it saves on health insurance). So, it’s all very well to say that you personally wouldn’t even apply, but the fact that they pay above the odds means that some people would.
A further trouble arises if an employer finds that it can reduce costs by, say, only employing men (e.g. only one toilet and no maternity leave, no advantage from diversity of workforce in this industry)
Then they can sell their product cheaper than their equal-opportunity rivals and the question arises: will ethical trading practices sufficiently override a higher price?
The answer depends on the level of price differential and the importance the consumer places on the ethics.
The cynic in me says that we may well find situations where the cheaper good is bought despite the differences in opinion the consumer has with the employer. Especially as the consumer will not feel that their small boycott in itself will change anything.
It’s not always possible for a competitor to set up with “better” business practices and be competitive enough to steal market share. Especially if there are large set-up costs or discrimination really does lead to lower expenses.
So, David B, that is why we need labour laws to protect against discrimination. Without them, you may well not have the non-discriminating competitor as an alternative at all.
I would think that government agencies can not discriminate against potential candidates based on any legal behavior (ie, smoking)
I support the right of any private employer to discriminate against potential candidates for any reason. Regarding private employers, I agree with David B, it is their right to employ (or not employ) any person of their choosing, and it is also their right to do business (or refuse to do business) with any person of their choosing. It is also my right to refuse to do business with / work for that employer.
I don’t believe that society/government has any place in telling private employers who they must hire, or dictating that you must provide services to those with whom you would rather not. That’s what money is for…if I want to increase my profit with your money, I can. If I choose not to do business with you, I lose that money. Additionally, if the community does not agree with my practices, they can get together and collectively tell me they don’t agree by boycotting my products and services, which will send the message real quick: Shape up or go broke.
Actually, in Illinois, our state legislature agrees with you.
Under the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, an employer in Illinois can’t discriminate against employees in hiring or firing based on legal activities the employee does off the employer’s premises during non-work hours (with an exception for not-for-profits that discourages use of specific profits, i.e. apparently the Cancer Society can require its employees to be non-smokers).
Personally, I really like this legislation. What I do on my own time is none of my employer’s damn business.
Do you not see the irony of this? If a private entity takes action against something that it sees as against its interests, that’s wrong because it’s “none of their business”. But if the government tells people what to do, that’s just fine. This does seem like more of a control issue than a health cost issue. However, it’s not the company that’s trying to control people, it’s you.
blur
I’ve never understood why people allow their morality to be legislated by the government.
Well, I think Christianity is wrong. Should we ban that?
kabbes
Assuming for the moment that women are in fact less valuable workers (and note that it is not I that am proposing this, but you), why should companies be forced to hire them? Shouldn’t companies be allowed to hire whoever’s best suited for the job, rather than who it is politically correct to hire?
This is the only argument for prohibition against discrimination that I consider valid. But we don’t need separate discrimination laws; laws against the abuse of monopolistic power are sufficient.
If ScumCo can sell a widget for 50% of the price charged elsewhere by only hiring men, we should allow the government to stop them?
I don’t mean to be obtuse, but I don’t see why. Iit seems to me that, if I were a doctor, I would offer my patients lower rates if they signed a waiver releasing me of liability. Then, I could charge much less for elective surgery since I wouldn’t need to carry malpractice insurance.
Or, I could tell all of my factory workers that they would get a 15% raise if they signed a waiver releasing me from the responsibilty of providing them medical insurance.
I understand that these ideas (and many others like them) are illegal, but I am not sure if I understand why. Who decided that the job of government is to protect people from themselves?
Nowhere in the constitution am I promised the right to a job. So, why should I care if ScumCo won’t hire me just because I am female? If ScumCo can make more money employing males, let them. I will find a job in an industry that values females over males.
Mind you, I don’t neccesarily feel this way… I just don’t think I can articulate why these ideas are wrong.
tracer:What about limited partnerships? Pubically-traded limited partnerships?
:eek: Wow, tracer, sounds like you’ve got some interesting, er, business contacts there! Personally, I think individuals who enter into that kind of “limited partnership” (is that what you kids are calling it these days?) should be able to discriminate according to their own preferences.
In employment, however, corporate or otherwise, the same does not hold true. Workplace rights entail the right to have hazardous or unappealing hobbies/practices in your off-hours, including smoking, as long as you are performing your job satisfactorily. I completely agree with Xerxes and kabbes that the argument “employers should be able to discriminate however they want and consumers should simply counteract that by selective boycotts” is a hypothetical alternative (actually, I would probably call it something like “far-fetched libertarian tripe”, but I don’t want to put words in those other posters’ mouths) that’s ineffective and unworkable in the real world.
