What habits should employers be able to discriminate on?

Great Debates
61

You know, as far as the relative productivity of smokers vs. non-smokers goes, I’ve usually found smokers to be as productive if not more so. They’re always busting their humps to get the job far enough ahead of schedule that they can go grab a smoke. Addiction can be a wonderful incentive.

I personally think that if you can’t refuse to hire someone based on family obligations that reduce their productivity, you shouldn’t be allowed to refuse them based on personal habits. After all, having kids is a personal choice that costs business a lot of money every year in additional sick days and family leave, but no one dares make a peep about that. Hey, if employee #1 can stay home with his sick kid, and leave early a few days a week to go to Little League games, why shouldn’t employee #2 be able to be sick himself a little more often and stop for 5 minutes once in a while to smoke? How is 1 any more cost-effective than 2?

62

Re the job applicant who, when asked about her hobbies, said “following Jesus Christ, my Lord and Master.” I’d say that answer showed that she was someone who was not willing to go more then a few minutes without bringing up Jesus or God or Chiristianity; that she was so eager to tell everyone about following Jesus that she would bring the subject up on just about any pretext, or none at all. Anyone that obsessed would be a pain to have around.

63

I’m a lifelong non-smoker. It’s my observation that yes, when smokers return from cigarette breaks, they smell of smoke – but the smell really isn’t that strong, and it wears off quickly. I have a long communte by bus. If someone who’s been smoking while waiting for the bus sits down next to me, I cirtainly notice the smell – but only for couple of minutes, then it’s gone. I would not want to have to put up with the person next to me on the bus smoking during the ride. At work, I would not want to have people smoking in the office. But the smell from someone who’s just been smoking elsewhere? It’s nothing. Not that strong a smell, and more imporantly, it’s gone in a very short time. I just can’t see this as anything to get upset about.

64

—Apos, I think you fail to take into account the fact that many goods and services are necessary for people to maintain a certain socio-economic status.—

No, I don’t. If you read my post, you’ll see that I indeed deal with that situation, and point out that it is rather beside the point.

My pointed question is simply this: why do any particular store owners owe you a chance to buy clothes over and above everyone else in the community, who ALSO do not offer you any clothing for sale? If you have some sort of demand on society to provide you with affordable clothes, why do the store owners bear this demand alone, especially given that they don’t want to?

After all, those clothing store owners don’t HAVE to be in bussiness at all! And if they weren’t in bussiness any longer, you certainly couldn’t in good faith demand that they supply you with garments!

Further, if you demand clothing purchases, and someone wants to sell to you, they will. In fact, they can probably make a premium off you, because of your desperation, and in so doing, crush the discriminating clothing stores by tapping a market tey are scorning.

—I live in an area where it wouldn’t take that many store owners to refuse to sell to me before I’d be SOL as far as buying clothes appropriate for work, and my company opperates on the assumption that everyone has access to nice clothes.—

Yes, you would be SOL: in exactly the same way as you would if NO ONE sold any clothes at all.

That this is all premised on assumptions about what will be available is sort of my point. If your company wants you to have clothes, then why don’t THEY provide some for you, at a considerable profit to themselves? Why is it the responsibility to some people who happen to own clothes and happen to sell them to some people when they feel like it?

65

It seems to me that it should be legal for the owner of a private business should be able to discriminate on whatever basis he wants, even if it is immoral. My reasoning is similar to Apos’–if a person is not obligated to cook food for just anyone who might want to eat, why does he incur that obligation just by cooking lots of food and charging people money to eat it?

However, I think public corporations should only be allowed to discriminate, with respect to employment, on the basis of characteristics that affect the candidate’s ability to perform the duties he’ll be asked to perform as an employee.

Does anyone else think the public/private distinction is relevant?

66

It seems to me that it should be legal for the owner of a private business should be able to discriminate on whatever basis he wants, even if it is immoral. My reasoning is similar to Apos’–if a person is not obligated to cook food for just anyone who might want to eat, why does he incur that obligation just by cooking lots of food and charging people money to eat it?

However, I think public corporations should only be allowed to discriminate, with respect to employment, on the basis of characteristics that affect the candidate’s ability to perform the duties he’ll be asked to perform as an employee.

Does anyone else think the public/private distinction is relevant?