A US firm is stating that either "Quit Smoking"...or don't work here.
Full Story here!
Originally Posted by UcanRock2
Quit smoking, but while you are doing it.......don't gain an ounce.
That guy sounds like an annoying prick for whom I wouldn't work even if I was a non-smoker.
Imposing his will in the workplace may ( note the qualifier) be acceptable, but regulating his workers lives outside the office is beyond the pale.
He's an insurance salesman, which already relegates him to lower life-form status anyway.
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
Good on him, he's making his employees healthier, probably happier, and he'll no doubt see less time taken off sick.
Quite a set of assumptions.Originally Posted by UKResident
No basis in fact (especially "probably happier"), but to each his own.
Would you really like to be employed by a man who felt that his supervision extended into your private life?
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
He's got no right to dictate to his employees how they live their lives outside of office hours. What a wanker!Originally Posted by UKResident
Whatever next - Everyone must be in bed by 10 pm...?
Really? So smoking isn't detrimental to your health? l must have been misinformed. And why "especially" anything? Either it's true or untrue, what does 'especially' untrue mean?Originally Posted by clocker
How smoking is for your health isn't the issue. Privacy and freedom are issues that come up for me. He'd better have brreathalizers at the job too. Please..you think they should regulate eating habits, alcohol, and tobacco? Those are the "legal" things, but you sure are screwed if you're caught smoking a fatty.
Don't read what isn't there.
Originally Posted by clocker
There are a lot of lifestyle choices, and even chronic conditions that might effect health insurance claims. How can he discriminate?
I am afraid working for this man would lead me to drink and smoke.
Isn't the "greater good" justification for controlling human behavior the ideal of communism? (I don't want to argue the defintion of communism)
In a free society, one should strive to maintain the right to do as one pleases to achieve personal happiness, as long as in doing so you are not harming others.
If his argument is that they will be healthier and call in sick less often, then that gets a little shaky.
Hell, who would hire a diabetic, someone with heart disease, liver disease. But he can't ask those questions because that is private health information.
I think he should only be able to judge a person on what they bring to work.
We hire people based on what they say, so not why how they look? We don't let an idiot represent our product, so why should we hire a fat slob, who reeks of tobacco and alcohol?
If I run a healthfood chain, I would want all my employees to radiate health.
I think I should be able to stipulate that I want the workplace to be free of drinkers and smokers and that fat people don't sell "powerbars" very well.
If a person wants to drink outside of work, but always shows up to work on time and is completely alcohol free he should be allowed to do so.
SAme with smokers. If they have fresh clothes, clean teeth and nails, and report to work on time, they should be able to smoke as they please.
Employees should be based on performance, not habits. If I keep calling in sick, or I don't carry my fair load, then fire me for that.
The urine sample is a complete violation of personal privacy. He is an employer, not a doctor.
So the argument that he is doing it for them is a bit dangerous in my mind. If I want to be told how to live and sacrifice my desires for the good of society, I will move to China.
I do understand that both my intellect and appearance are important components of my job, but if I am not working directly with the public, as an embassador of the company, then being overweight really shouldn't be an issue.