Smoking: To be or not to Be

[UcanRock2]

A US firm is stating that either "Quit Smoking"...or don't work here.

Full Story here! (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/26/smoking.reut/index.html)

[Everose]

A US firm is stating that either "Quit Smoking"...or don't work here.

Full Story here! (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/26/smoking.reut/index.html)


:ohmy: Quit smoking, but while you are doing it.......don't gain an ounce. :D

[clocker]

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.

[UKResident]

Good on him, he's making his employees healthier, probably happier, and he'll no doubt see less time taken off sick.

[clocker]

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.
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?

Not I.

[Barbarossa]

Good on him, he's making his employees healthier, probably happier, and he'll no doubt see less time taken off sick.

He's got no right to dictate to his employees how they live their lives outside of office hours. What a wanker! :angry:

Whatever next - Everyone must be in bed by 10 pm...? :blink:

[UKResident]

Quite a set of assumptions.
No basis in fact (especially "probably happier"), but to each his own.


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?

[ruthie]

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.

[Everose]

Quite a set of assumptions.
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?

Not I.


Me. Neither.

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. :P

[hobbes]

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.

[Busyman]

Good on him, he's making his employees healthier, probably happier, and he'll no doubt see less time taken off sick.
Communist ideology. :dry:

[UKResident]

Communist ideology

Really? Do you have the freedom to be a communist in the US then?

[hobbes]

Really? Do you have the freedom to be a communist in the US then?

In the US, you do not have the freedom to impose your communist beliefs on others, as it infringes on their individual rights.

Now could we get back on topic.

[Busyman]

In the US, you do not have the freedom to impose your communist beliefs on others, as it infringes on their individual rights.

Now could we get back on topic.
Exactly. :dry:

An employee can govern an employee while on the job. Smoking is not an illegal substance therefore the fact an employee smokes outside of the job means no harm no foul.

[bigboab]

I wonder if he refuses to do business with anyone who smokes.

[vidcc]

i saw this on the tv news.

i find it interesting that it has been called communist thinking when it is in fact the employment laws for that state...a US state... that appear to allow such a company policy. the same company is not allowed to have testing in other states in which it has operations. I would be interested to hear of any communist country where such a thing has happened.
I have heard of US companies that have teetotal conditions written into contracts of employment although i can't without researching, point to them.

I disagree with his actions however.

[RPerry]

well, seems all the extra money being poured into anti-smoking is taking effect. I am truly a minority when I go outside to have a smoke. I have seem similiar reports of people being told to quit smoking, or find other employment. Its not a state law here, but I guess up to the company.
Why do I feel like we are living the movie "The Demolition Man" when I see this? It does seem they will eventually make smoking illegal. whats next ? bodily fluid transfer ? salt ? :huh:

[Rat Faced]

1st they took away our smoking room, and no one complained

Then they told us we could go outside, and no one complained

Then they told us to go round the side of the building (into the prevailing weather in our area).. no one complained

and theres hardly anyone left to complain except management... coz the staff are now always on the f'n sick with the flue

[Rat Faced]

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?

Do you drink?

Do you take Prescription Drugs?

Hell; do you eat? Theres a lot of food poisoning around, maybe you should stop that... You'd be healthier and happier and spend less time on the bog.

[RPerry]

maybe thats why I am so damn sick now :( I forget I get hot and sweaty working on the machines all night, then have to go outside in 30-40 F temperatures.
I never complained about having to go outside, but I will say restaurants have lost some of my money, cause I no longer sit in there longer than it takes to finish my meal.

[hobbes]

i saw this on the tv news.

i find it interesting that it has been called communist thinking when it is in fact the employment laws for that state...a US state... that appear to allow such a company policy. the same company is not allowed to have testing in other states in which it has operations. I would be interested to hear of any communist country where such a thing has happened.
I have heard of US companies that have teetotal conditions written into contracts of employment although i can't without researching, point to them.

I disagree with his actions however.


Vidcc,

I wasn't trying to bring up any "damn commie" type accusation, but rather point out that a boss controlling his workers outside the confines of their obligations to the business was depriving them of their freedom of choice.

Such an imposition, even for ideals of "better health and happier people", is a way of removing indivdual rights for the betterment of the company, as he sees it. This philosophy is more in line with communistic thinking than freedom of the individual.

I'm not sure from the article that if what he is doing is legal. He says it is, but he doesn't seem to be suffering from a shortage of opinions.

I think legal challenge has not been brought forth because, as Clocker alluded to, the guy is likely an ass and people don't want to work for him anyway.

REmember, everyone in bed by 10:00, it does a body good!

[vidcc]

Hobbes

I didn't suggest you did bring up any "dam commie" type accusation, i just found it interesting that it was compared to communist thinking, even with your reasoning, and made the point that it was the USA employment laws that allowed it.
I am unaware if such an action would be allowed in any socialist country, which is closer to the left than the USA, let alone a communist one.
My point being that the employee in many socialist countries generally enjoys more rights and protections than most states in the USA. Here there is something of a "hands off" approach from government in private industry, so it is more likely to be an "American" thing.

So far there haven't been any lawsuits as has been pointed out. I do not know the employment laws in that state. It will be a very interesting case if one does go to court.

but as i said before i don't agree with the policy...it is wrong IMO...i'm just not sure if it is illegal

[hobbes]

Hobbes

I didn't suggest you did bring up any "dam commie" type accusation, i just found it interesting that it was compared to communist thinking, even with your reasoning, and made the point that it was the USA employment laws that allowed it.
I am unaware if such an action would be allowed in any socialist country, which is closer to the left than the USA, let alone a communist one.
My point being that the employee in many socialist countries generally enjoys more rights and protections than most states in the USA. Here there is something of a "hands off" approach from government in private industry, so it is more likely to be an "American" thing.

So far there haven't been any lawsuits as has been pointed out. I do not know the employment laws in that state. It will be a very interesting case if one does go to court.

but as i said before i don't agree with the policy...it is wrong IMO...i'm just not sure if it is illegal

I think that if challenged legally, US employment laws will not allow it. All we know from the article is that Mr. Weyers thinks it is legal.

Do you think controlling your employees outside the workplace is more in line with communist idealogy or a belief in the freedom of the individual?

Obviously it is more in line with communism where people must do as they are told and have no personal rights or freedom.

That is my point. Mr' Weyers is using a philosophy I don't agree with.

Out of complete ignorance on my part, what rights do employees get in socialist countries that we don't get here?

[clocker]

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?
Perhaps I worded that poorly.
I don't doubt that smoking is detrimental to one's health, I do however doubt that being forced to quit by a tin-horn martinet will make his minions "happier".

BTW, it's apparent that sky-diving and dabbling in deviant sexual behaviour can also be detrimental to a body's health, so I assume that you will gladly cede to the boss the right to restict those activities also.

[vidcc]

Do you think controlling your employees outside the workplace is more in line with communist idealogy or a belief in the freedom of the individual?

But that would be the state controlling political frredoms, not the factory "chief" controlling personal lives


Obviously it is more in line with communism where people must do as they are told and have no personal rights or freedom.
it was political and often religious freedoms they lacked...often western influences were prohibited i agree.. and they couldn't leave without permission


That is my point. Mr' Weyers is using a philosophy I don't agree with.

and i don't agree with it, however he MAY be legally able to do it. He certainly has the legal right in that state to have mandatory testing for booze/drugs etc....the question is if he can test for nicotine.


Out of complete ignorance on my part, what rights do employees get in socialist countries that we don't get here?

range from it being harder to dismiss an employee to maditory pension schemes, amount of paid holiday, overtime payments, Sickness pay compulsory job training, workers hours etc. each country being different but those within the EU coming closer together.
Much of which is a result of the EU directives. I can't say they are always good for the company or the employee.

Some things mentioned will be part of US employment laws but more in favor of the employee
I left manditory company healthcare payments into the social health system out because everyone gets healthcare...not just those working...however only those working would pay into it

[hobbes]

Isn't the concept exactly the same.

A factory overlord is a microscosm of government control.

Maybe he thinks that Republican employees for the best team unity. Or Christian employees are bestowed with a sense of inner peace and will therefore call in sick less.

The point is not his particular case, but if he is allowed to do this, what implication does this mean for our society? What are the limits of the mandates we can impose upon people outside of working hours.

Can all Federal employees be held to the same rules?

So I was simply extrapolating this isolated incident to the national picture and testing the limits.

Since it compromises individual freedoms, I object.

As for the comments you made about socialist system, I came to the same thoughts as you provided whilst driving for some chicken. As you seem aware, and as anyone who has ever dealt with the VA Healthcare system, you understand that these are not necessarily good protections.

BTW, I think testing for marijuana is a violation of our personal rights. Testing for alcohol will only be positive, if one is drinking on the job.

[Everose]

I have known quite a few people that have smoked all their lives, seldom went to the Doctor and lived to a very old age. I guess there are exceptions to everything.

I agree with Hobbes; as long as it does not interfere with their performance while at work, an employee's life after work should be off limits to a boss's control.

I can forsee an employee that quits smoking. However, his spouse still smokes, and his health is affected by continual exposure. How will this employer control this situation? :)

Smoking is used by a lot of people as a means to deal with stress. Very often after giving up the habit, a smoker's blood pressure will rise considerably, unless another way to deal with stress is adopted. This may end up costing him more in health claims than he is prepared for.

The thought of working in an office with twelve people (this is the number of his employees who quit Jan. 1) who are being forced to give up smoking against their will seems dangerous, health wise, in itself. :D Imagine the possibilities and lawsuits if anyone goes 'postal.'

In using a little imagination here........if this type of thing continues I can forsee office workers being told not to use computers while off the job, as it causes too much eye strain and neck and back problems to do so both at home and while on the job. :D

It is not illegal to smoke. This employer has overstepped his boundaries.

[UKResident]

Do you drink?

Do you take Prescription Drugs?

Hell; do you eat? Theres a lot of food poisoning around, maybe you should stop that... You'd be healthier and happier and spend less time on the bog.

By drinking l take it you mean alcohol? No l don't, l don't take drugs either and l certainly don't smoke. Only idiots smoke, whatever you may say. Why would anyone take up that digusting habit? l also eat well, l've been a vegetarian all my life and spend only the necessary time on the "bog", unless l'm reading the Guardian of course, then l may stay a little longer.

And for your information, l'm 62 and l still run marathons, could you?

[ruthie]

and?

[HeavyMetalParkingLot]

By drinking l take it you mean alcohol? No l don't, l don't take drugs either and l certainly don't smoke. Only idiots smoke, whatever you may say. Why would anyone take up that digusting habit? l also eat well, l've been a vegetarian all my life and spend only the necessary time on the "bog", unless l'm reading the Guardian of course, then l may stay a little longer.

And for your information, l'm 62 and l still run marathons, could you?

Do you only eat organic veggies? No? Then you make as well grill up a steak, just as much poison in that squash.

[Arm]

The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else.
And then in a couple months.................

The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either lose weight or quit their jobs said he also wants to tell black people to quit listening to rap or quit their job and to tell gay people to quit being gay or quit their jobs.

I see slippery slope and discrimination lawsuits. :huh:

[MagicNakor]

I have no idea how large a company Weyco is, but I imagine it won't be in business much longer if he refuses to hire smokers and overweight people.

I'm neither, but I definately wouldn't work for such a company, and I certainly wouldn't be supporting them with any of my money.

:shuriken:

[UKResident]

Do you only eat organic veggies?
Yes.


and?
l was replying to someone, is that all right by you?

[ruthie]

Hmmm. I'll have to think about it. ROFL. Thought it was self-explanatory, like THIS post. Was asking for your point.

[UKResident]

Was asking for your point.

The point of what? Of replying to someone? l thought that was self explanatory.

[manker]

By drinking l take it you mean alcohol? No l don't, l don't take drugs either and l certainly don't smoke. Only idiots smoke, whatever you may say. Why would anyone take up that digusting habit? l also eat well, l've been a vegetarian all my life and spend only the necessary time on the "bog", unless l'm reading the Guardian of course, then l may stay a little longer.

And for your information, l'm 62 and l still run marathons, could you?:reallol: :D

All this healthy living seems to be playing havoc with your sleeping pattern, you always seem to be around the board at this time. Posting at half three in the morning, that cannot be healthy. You think the bland diet and all the marathon running is turning you into an insomniac - or maybe Slough is in a different timezone to the rest of the UK.

OK, what if your employer regulated the times you went to bed so that you'd be as fresh as a daisy for work the next day. That would curtail your forum habits, certainly, but more importantly it would also be infringing on your civil liberties a tad. Would you be OK with that.

[lynx]

unless l'm reading the Guardian of courseWell, I for one won't be employing any Guardian readers, too much free thinking would upset my totalitarian control of their lives, and I know exactly what's best for all concerned.

[UKResident]

:reallol: :D

All this healthy living seems to be playing havoc with your sleeping pattern, you always seem to be around the board at this time. Posting at half three in the morning, that cannot be healthy. You think the bland diet and all the marathon running is turning you into an insomniac - or maybe Slough is in a different timezone to the rest of the UK.

OK, what if your employer regulated the times you went to bed so that you'd be as fresh as a daisy for work the next day. That would curtail your forum habits, certainly, but more importantly it would also be infringing on your civil liberties a tad. Would you be OK with that.

Why are you so overtly concerned with other people's lives? Worrying about what other people do seems to be an obsession with you, that can't be healthy can it?

[manker]

So you can't refute that I have a point :happy:

If an employer is within his rights to stop people smoking outside of office hours, because it's beneficial to their health - surely it follows that your employer should be able to tell you to go to bed at a decent hour.

I propose that rather than your initial 'good on him' comment - you would actually be fuming at him daring to suggest that he has any sort of control over what you do when you clock off.

[clocker]

Why are you so overtly concerned with other people's lives? Worrying about what other people do seems to be an obsession with you, that can't be healthy can it?
Hmmm...that would appear to be a trait that you exhibit also, Billy.
After all, you think it's OK for a boss to supervise his employee's private life, right?

[UKResident]

Hmmm...that would appear to be a trait that you exhibit also, Billy.
After all, you think it's OK for a boss to supervise his employee's private life, right?

Thank you for that crap Internet.news, welcome back by the way, or did you just forget to sign in as Balamm this time?

[UKResident]

So you can't refute that I have a point :happy:

If an employer is within his rights to stop people smoking outside of office hours, because it's beneficial to their health - surely it follows that your employer should be able to tell you to go to bed at a decent hour.

I propose that rather than your initial 'good on him' comment - you would actually be fuming at him daring to suggest that he has any sort of control over what you do when you clock off.

If you're talking about me personally, l don't have an employer, l was the employer, and l'm now retired. Before l employed someone l interviewed them first, what they did in their private lives certainly concerned me, as did the way they looked, how they dressed and their general manners. l also refused to employ smokers, they weren't allowed to smoke in the stores anyway, and if they nipped off for a quick one they stank of it, not good for the customers. As far as l'm concerned, if l pay the money l choose the rules, if you don't like it, go work somewhere else. l never had to advertise for staff, by the way, l had far more applications than l could possibly need, it comes from paying good wages and providing decent working conditions.

[clocker]

Thank you for that crap Internet.news, welcome back by the way, or did you just forget to sign in as Balamm this time?
That's the best you can do?
Must be the crap diet and excessive exercise.

First you post this...

Good on him, he's making his employees healthier, probably happier, and he'll no doubt see less time taken off sick.
Then this...

Why are you so overtly concerned with other people's lives? Worrying about what other people do seems to be an obsession with you, that can't be healthy can it?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander...make up your mind.

[vidcc]

There is one thing clear here.

An employer does not have the right to run your private lives. However if employment laws allow they do have the right to ask for urine tests. As an employee one has the right to refuse and not work for a company that has mandatory tests.
The question to me is what is considered a reasonable thing to test for and should tests be limited to certain types of vocation...such as pilots?

[manker]

l also refused to employ smokers, they weren't allowed to smoke in the stores anyway, and if they nipped off for a quick one they stank of itWhy was it just the stores they weren't allowed to smoke in, why not the rest of the establishment. Surely your business could not have soley consisted of some stores. If you didn't employ smokers why was it necessary to declare a specific area non-smoking at all. If no-one smoked, it would be stupid to say to the workforce 'right, no smoking in the stores'. They'd think you were a mentalist.

Also if you didn't employ smokers, what the hell were they doing nipping off for a quick cigarette and coming back stinking of smoke if they didn't smoke :blink:

Methinks a flight of fancy too far this time, cobber.

Edit: Btw, you still haven't answered, what if your hypothetical boss tried to tell you to be in bed by 11pm lest you would be fired - is that OK?

[UKResident]

Why was it just the stores they weren't allowed to smoke in, why not the rest of the establishment. Surely your business could not have soley consisted of some stores.

What else do stores consist of then?


That's the best you can do?
Must be the crap diet and excessive exercise.

Troll!

[clocker]

Troll!
Yeah.

I learned alot from you.

[UKResident]

I learned alot from you.
You didn't need teaching, the credit is all yours, you've gone from a respected member of this forum to just another trolling insult seeker. A pity really.

[clocker]

Thanks, JPF.
It seems likely that we have simply misunderstood the definition of "troll".

As UK uses the word, I believe that it means "Anyone who disagrees with me".

Addendum:
In my long and varied career(s) I have been on both sides of the fence-both boss and employee.
In both cases I believe that one's private life is one's own, as long as work performance is acceptable then there is no excuse for the overlapping of personal and business life.
Certainly we have all been afflicted with the workplace drama queens who insist on dragging personal disasters/tribulations into the office, forcing co-workers to deal with them.
As an employer, this is not acceptable...work is work and while I'm sorry about your current boyfriend/girlfriend disaster, the office ain't the place to work it out.
Conversely, I see no reason why my boss should be looking over my shoulder (or in this case, up my bladder) when I'm at home. I gave an honest day's work and the rest is mine to enjoy as I see fit.

Ultimately, this case illustrates what I see as a sea-change in the perception of how we live our lives.
I always considered my job to be the means by which I financed my real life.
I worked to afford the life I wanted to live.
Now apparently, the reverse is the norm.
Our lives are merely the inconvenient time we are not beavering away for the boss and increasingly, subordinate to the needs of the workplace.

I saw a snippet in the paper that stated in America (which already ranks quite low in terms of days off per year), some 25% of folks don't even take the meagre time off they are offered.
We prefer to be drones.

Using the Vietnam era definition of the word, I believe that "frag" describes what rightly should happen to bosses like Howard Weyers (and wannabes like UKresident).

[UKResident]

Thanks, JPF.
As UK uses the word, I believe that it means "Anyone who disagrees with me".

(and wannabes like UKresident).

See? Trolling, you just can't resist can you? You have done your best in this thread to insult me for no other reason than you don't agree with my opinion. You really should reserve that behaviour for the lounge, it does nothing to further discussion in here.

[Cheese]

See? Trolling, you just can't resist can you? You have done your best in this thread to insult me for no other reason than you don't agree with my opinion. You really should reserve that behaviour for the lounge, it does nothing to further discussion in here.

What's with the lounge dissing? :(

Is the lounge non-smoking btw? Or do I have to spark up round the back of Sports Club? :unsure:

[UKResident]

The only person trolling is you.

And of course everything YOU say is true? Another troll with an inflated sense of his own importance.

[UKResident]

No-one's rising to you, .

Except you of course, you never could resist the opportunity to be nasty to anyone who doesn't lick your arse.

[clocker]

See? Trolling, you just can't resist can you? You have done your best in this thread to insult me for no other reason than you don't agree with my opinion. You really should reserve that behaviour for the lounge, it does nothing to further discussion in here.
You underestimate me, sir.
I have barely even begun to insult you.

You preferred to inject personal details into the thread ( to wit:"By drinking l take it you mean alcohol? No l don't, l don't take drugs either and l certainly don't smoke. Only idiots smoke, whatever you may say. Why would anyone take up that digusting habit? l also eat well, l've been a vegetarian all my life and spend only the necessary time on the "bog", unless l'm reading the Guardian of course, then l may stay a little longer.

And for your information, l'm 62 and l still run marathons, could you?") rather than attempt to reconcile some glaring disconnects in logic.

C'mon, I'm sure you're capable of better than this.
You could begin by explaining how the details of your bowel movements has furthered this discussion.

[UKResident]

Thank you Clonker, a fine example of a troll at work. You quote me whilst completely ignoring the post l was replying to.


Do you drink?

Do you take Prescription Drugs?

Hell; do you eat? Theres a lot of food poisoning around, maybe you should stop that... You'd be healthier and happier and spend less time on the bog.

Not even a good try, unless making an idiot of yourself earns you kudos in your little world.


You underestimate me, sir.
I have barely even begun to insult you.

l quiver in anticipation. :lol: :lol:

[manker]

You don't think RF was making a point relating to the topic, rather than him being generally curious about your diet.

Your fantastical anecdote was not the the response RF was soliciting.

It strikes me that he was saying that if an employer starts dictating to an employee if he can smoke, due to health issues - then it logically follows that an employer can dictate about other things, due to health issues.

Was Rat Faced being a bit subtle for you, Mr UKResident.

[UKResident]

Blah, blah, blah.

Another useless troll, join your gang, you make good company.

[UKResident]

Blah, blah, blah.

http://d21c.com/AnnesPlace/Summer2/FishingRod.gif

[manker]

I quite agree, JP. I do enjoy the taking of the piss, tho', like taking sweets off kids.

Speaking of kids, even 15 year olds like Gungrave have come back after bannage and hidden their intentions for longer. It was plain to me who he was and his agenda from the third post.

However the 15 years olds have an advantage because they don't pretend to be Sir Cliff Richard.


It could of course just be childish attention seeking. However what's the chances of that in a 62 year old retired businessman. Who incidentally doesn't drink or smoke, lives on organic vegetable and runs marathons.

[hobbes]

Good on him, he's making his employees healthier, probably happier, and he'll no doubt see less time taken off sick.


So you are in full support of an employer controlling the private lives of his employees. In this particular case you might think that these people need a firm hand to lead them to a healthier life and better productivity, but as has been discussed in this thread, where does this influence end, what are the logical boundaries?

You could easily justify dictating a bedtime, their religion, or diet under the auspices of better health and productivity.

I don't like vegetables, I hate running, and if I couldn't drink as well, I think I might die of boredom. That would not make me happy at all.

You say, "Well work for someone else."

But each employer is going to have his own "life philosophy". So you need to find a combination of your vocation and a life philsophy to find acceptable employment. Your "life philosophy" is for you, not for you to impose upon me. I want a job putting clocks together, not a 24/7 marriage.

I make clocks, judge me on that, not the fact that I have a beer with dinner a cigarette afterwards.

[vidcc]

You could easily justify dictating a bedtime,



I make clocks, judge me on that, not the fact that I have a beer with dinner a cigarette afterwards.

While I agree an employer should have no right to dictate life outside work, I do believe that an employer should be within his rights to take action if the outside activities are affecting the employees ability to carry out his / her work.

For example if an employee regularly came into work with a hangover or even took regular time off work due to the effects of his/her lifestyle, or if the employee regularly came to work over tired.

An employer should not have to suffer at the hands of employees that voluntarily render themselves unfit for work.

[hobbes]

An employer should not have to suffer at the hands of employees that voluntarily render themselves unfit for work.

That is ground already covered in the thread, and I agree.


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.


I wanted to know if UKResident was willing to justify his assertion for us in regard to invasion of personal liberties.

Seriously, I'm done editing. I mean it.

And I don't really make clocks, but Clocker has been trolling this thread so hard, it was the first profession I could think of.

[bigboab]

And I don't really make clocks, but Clocker has been trolling this thread so hard, it was the first profession I could think of.

Unless you are one of Clockers workers. Think I saw a pic of Clocker once holding a rabbit. :lol:

Back on the thread. :) There are a lot of jobs/professions where your private life is taken into consideration before and after employment. But if your actions outside your employment do not affect your performance then it should be of no concern to your employer. Criminal activities excepted. :)

[clocker]

Unless you are one of Clockers workers. Think I saw a pic of Clocker once holding a rabbit. :lol:


Just when I had gotten over my breakup with hobbes you go and remind me of that photo.
Thanks for that.

There are a lot of jobs/professions where your private life is taken into consideration before and after employment. But if your actions outside your employment do not affect your performance then it should be of no concern to your employer.
Naturally...the Secret Service comes to mind as an example and I suspect that UK would be all in favor of applying the same rigid/restrictive standards to his shop drones (one wonders what was being purveyed in these establishments).
The point seems moot however.
All smokers are "idiots" and thus unlikely to be capable of finding his shop, much less applying for employment therein.

[clocker]

Sorry.
I was high on nicotine.

[UKResident]

l just love it when the trolls resort to personal insults, it's a sure sign l've won.

l shall mark this thread up as finished now then, seeing as Clonker, J'Trol and Minger have nothing constructive to say. :01:

[Snee]

l just love it when the trolls resort to personal insults, it's a sure sign l've won.

l shall mark this thread up as finished now then, seeing as Clonker, J'Trol and Minger have nothing constructive to say. :01:
If that's your criteria for a succesful whatever it is, I'd call this a draw.




And for the record I agree with those who have posted above and said that attempting to control somone's life outside of the workplace is wrong.

Smoking may be a filthy habit, but that doesn't give any employer the right to force ppl not to do it. Not as long as smoking is legal.

[hobbes]

l just love it when the trolls resort to personal insults, it's a sure sign l've won.

l shall mark this thread up as finished now then, seeing as Clonker, J'Trol and Minger have nothing constructive to say. :01:


I have not insulted you, but you have ignored a question put to you, quite directly, about 15 times now.


I wanted to know if UKResident was willing to justify his assertion for us in regard to invasion of personal liberties.

[UKResident]

And for the record I agree with those who have posted above and said that attempting to control somone's life outside of the workplace is wrong.

Smoking may be a filthy habit, but that doesn't give any employer the right to force ppl not to do it. Not as long as smoking is legal.

Plenty of people have used stupid analogies here SnnY, so l may as well. Would you employ a wife-beater? He wouldn't be bringing it to work would he, unless his wife worked at the same place. Would you employ a child molester? What about a burglar? A Liverpool supporter? What if you wanted someone to look after a store with many thousands of pounds worth of stock, and that person was addicted to gambling, and deep in debt, would you trust them with your money?

An employer has a right to employ "nice" people. Many employers hire married, family men with kids, because of the inferred stability and commitment. So to say they have NO right to be concerned with an employee's life outside of work is wrong. As an employer l had the right to employ whoever l wished, if people felt they didn't want to answer the questions on the job applications they were free to refuse.

[UKResident]

I have not insulted you, but you have ignored a question put to you, quite directly, about 15 times now.

Hobbes, where do people like you come up with the assertion that just because you ask a question, the person is obliged to answer? Minger does this a lot. Maybe l didn't like your tone, or your sarcasm. The point is, l choose what questions l answer, just as you do, have l demanded anything from you?

[manker]

Hobbes, where do people like you come up with the assertion that just because you ask a question, the person is obliged to answer? Minger does this a lot. Maybe l didn't like your tone, or your sarcasm. The point is, l choose what questions l answer, just as you do, have l demanded anything from you?I take it that you're referring to me when you say 'Minger does this a lot'. Yes I do, if I feel I've put a pertinent point forward and the person I'm discussing an issue with does not refer to it, then I'll ask the question again - as I've done in this thread.

If a person still will not reply then by default one has to assume that they don't have an answer.

[Snee]

None of your examples are allowed, legally*.

And furthermore, they all involve hurting others, more or less directly. Except for the gambling, which isn't anything like smoking every once in a while. That points to a serious mental problem for which they should seek treatment. And if they can't stop themselves before becoming deep in debt it's fairly certain that they can't be trusted with responsibility.

Smoking on the other hand may actually be considered a form of self-medication, as it helps to calm the nerves of the smoker, altho' it is detrimental to his health.


None of your examples compare with someone smoking outside of the workplace, the worst they can possibly do to you because they are smokers is to smell bad, and I daresay you'd think twice before firing someone with bad BO.

And even if someone else might have used a bad analogy that doesn't mean you win an argument by doing the same.


*Except for the gambling, depending on where you live.

[UKResident]

If a person still will not reply then by default one has to assume that they don't have an answer.


Maybe l didn't like your tone, or your sarcasm.

So it defaults to you does it?

[UKResident]

None of your examples are allowed, legally*. Liverpool Supporter?

And furthermore, they all involve hurting others, more or less directly. Liverpool Supporter?
Except for the gambling, which isn't anything like smoking every once in a while. That points to a serious mental problem for which they should seek treatment. And if they can't stop themselves before becoming deep in debt it's fairly certain that they can't be trusted with responsibility.

Smoking on the other hand may actually be considered a form of self-medication, as it helps to calm the nerves of the smoker, altho' it is detrimental to his health. The only nerves it calms are the ones it causes.

None of your examples compare with someone smoking outside of the workplace, the worst they can possibly do to you because they are smokers is to smell bad, Exactly and I daresay you'd think twice before firing someone with bad BO. No, smell bad and you're gone.

And even if someone else might have used a bad analogy that doesn't mean you win an argument by doing the same. Yes it does, ask Minger

*Except for the gambling, depending on where you live.

What about the questions l asked you? l insist you answer!

[hobbes]

Hobbes, where do people like you come up with the assertion that just because you ask a question, the person is obliged to answer? Minger does this a lot. Maybe l didn't like your tone, or your sarcasm. The point is, l choose what questions l answer, just as you do, have l demanded anything from you?

I was one of many asking the same question and really the only relevant question relating to this thread.

So you dodge again.

[UKResident]

Hobbes, where do people like you come up with the assertion that just because you ask a question, the person is obliged to answer? Minger does this a lot. Maybe l didn't like your tone, or your sarcasm. The point is, l choose what questions l answer, just as you do, have l demanded anything from you?


I was one of many asking the same question and really the only relevant question relating to this thread.

So you dodge again.

Answer my question!

[manker]

So it defaults to you does it?I consider that using the poster's style as an excuse for not providing an answer is poor in the extreme.

This is the sole reason I furnish you thusly.

[hobbes]

Answer my question!


And again.

I will answer your question. I made no such demand, you simply made that up.

I stated that you have ignored a question put to you, not my.

[UKResident]

This is the sole reason I furnish you thusly.

thus·ly
Usage Note: It appears to have first been used by humorists, who may have been echoing the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish.

[UKResident]

I stated that you have ignored a question put to you, not my.

What was the question again? :blink:

[hobbes]

What was the question again? :blink:

How do you spell "shitstirrer"?

I'm suprised you haven't posted this:

http://d21c.com/AnnesPlace/Summer2/FishingRod.gif

[manker]

thus·ly
Usage Note: It appears to have first been used by humorists, who may have been echoing the speech of poorly educated people straining to sound stylish.You really do crave attention. It's startling - I should ignore you 'cause that would be the grown up thing to do.

However, each time I, or anyone, replies. You make yourself look like an arse and it makes me laugh. I think, for now, I'll forego the grown uppedishness.

Billy, you're an idiot and a fantasist - but not bad entertainment. :beerchug:

[Snee]

What about the questions l asked you? l insist you answer!
:blink:


I'd employ the smoker if he was the most qualified. It seems pretty stupid to settle with someone less skilled, simply because the best person for the job doesn't smell acceptable to you. In fact, I think that someone who'd discriminate the way you obviously would doesn't fall within what I'd deem acceptable for a "nice" person.

I'd employ none of your criminals, or the compulsive gambler, which I thought would be obvious from my answers.

I'm not a Liverpool supporter, and it really wouldn't matter if I was, now would it. Have you lost the plot somewhat, perhaps?

Nicotine does have a soothing effect even on those who hasn't previously used it, like alcohol, it gives a rush, and for many people a feeling of contentment.

Bad analogies doesn't win anything. However, I didn't see manker comparing someone with a bad habit with a child molester. You did on the other hand, and that strikes me as somewhat excessive, to say the least.

[Cheese]

Billy, you're an idiot and a fantasist - but not bad entertainment. :beerchug:

This thread is pretty entertaining. :lol:

On-topic: I have been asked at interviews whether I smoke or not, I just lie and say I do but not very much. :whistling

[UKResident]

Billy, you're an idiot and a fantasist - but not bad entertainment. :beerchug:

http://d21c.com/AnnesPlace/Summer2/FishingRod.gif

[manker]

No, no. You misunderstand.

I based my idiot and fantasist statement on everything I've ever read that you've written. In this thread, on this board in other threads, under your Rikk persona and at the Moderation.

Not just this thread.

You're an idiot and a fantasist. I wasn't tempted into that statement by your comments in this thread alone but thanks for the roddage.

[UKResident]

No, no. You misunderstand..

l'd love to stay and show you up some more Minger, but my son's band is playing in Cambden tonight and l must get them there. Keep up the fantasies, you're good value for money.

[j2k4]

This thread is pretty entertaining. :lol:

On-topic: I have been asked at interviews whether I smoke or not, I just lie and say I do but not very much. :whistling


:lol: So then the truth is that you don't smoke, but like a chimney?

[Cheese]

:lol: So then the truth is that you don't smoke, but like a chimney?

And I never exhale... :sick:

[j2k4]

And I never exhale... :sick:

Me either.;)

[Rat Faced]

And for your information, l'm 62 and l still run marathons, could you?

Ah, a nutter :P

I never could.

If God had wanted us to run, he'd never have give us the brains to train horses or make cars
:whistling

[clocker]

Hmmm...
Advocate of Orwellian society.
A marathon runner and exemplar of health.
62 years old.
And father of a child who still needs ferrying around?

Sheesh.
I smoke a lot and still managed not to stink up this thread as you have done, UK.
Bravo.

A tip of the Lucky to you, sir.

[manker]

Hmmm...
Advocate of Orwellian society.
A marathon runner and exemplar of health.
62 years old.
And father of a child who still needs ferrying around?

Sheesh.
I smoke a lot and still managed not to stink up this thread as you have done, UK.
Bravo.

A tip of the Lucky to you, sir.:lol: :D

If the rest of this thread is anything to go by, I predict wholesale ignoring of the point, selective quoting and this response:

=======

And father of a child
I'm the father of two children, a grandchild, three koalas and a polar bear, actually. Clonker, please stop making things up.

I'm making a fool out of you.

[UKResident]

Hmmm...
Advocate of Orwellian society.
A marathon runner and exemplar of health.
62 years old.
And father of a child who still needs ferrying around?

Sheesh.
I smoke a lot and still managed not to stink up this thread as you have done, UK.
Bravo.

A tip of the Lucky to you, sir.

You can get as personal as you like Clonker, it makes no difference to me. You've already proved what an idiot you are with your posts, now you've proved further what an idiot you are as a smoker. You obviously have low self esteem as a smoker, which puts your posts into perspective.

Do you really want to bring my children into this? Well do your worst, show us all how low you can stoop. You'll soon be right down there with Minger and J'Trol.

[UKResident]

Blah, blah, blah.

http://d21c.com/AnnesPlace/Summer2/FishingRod.gif

[manker]

Consecutive roddage without attempting a comeback. I must have really got to you.

[clocker]

You can get as personal as you like Clonker, it makes no difference to me. You've already proved what an idiot you are with your posts, now you've proved further what an idiot you are as a smoker. You obviously have low self esteem as a smoker, which puts your posts into perspective.

Do you really want to bring my children into this? Well do your worst, show us all how low you can stoop. You'll soon be right down there with Minger and J'Trol.
I didn't think my idiocy was the issue here.
For some reason I believed that the issue was how extensive the control of an employer over his employees could be.
You apparently believe that it should be limitless (as you've failed to provide any exclusions) and I do not.
Lashing out at those who question your beliefs is amusing and mildly entertaining for the rest of us ( and almost certainly quite satisfying for you), but hardly condusive to furthering the discussion.

Bye Billy.
I'd like to say it's been fun, but it hasn't.

[Busyman]

Why do you guys even entertain such an idiot? :blink:

If UKmanBillyDeanwhateverthefuck actually had good points then maybe he'd be worth the time but alas he is a leper on this board (most likely banned).

UKResident
blackerdays
1234
leftism

BLACKBALLED - you are hereby known as a board ghost.

CWOT

[UKResident]

I didn't think my idiocy was the issue here.
For some reason I believed that the issue was how extensive the control of an employer over his employees could be.
You apparently believe that it should be limitless (as you've failed to provide any exclusions) and I do not.
Lashing out at those who question your beliefs is amusing and mildly entertaining for the rest of us ( and almost certainly quite satisfying for you), but hardly condusive to furthering the discussion.

Bye Billy.
I'd like to say it's been fun, but it hasn't.

You have not made a proper post here yet. You entered this thread with the sole intention of having a go at me, even to the exclusion of reading the posts l was replying to, so don't make out that you're the aggrieved one here.

lf you want to continue this stupid Billy nonsense, carry on, how childish, if l were Billy Dean l would have been off here weeks ago. But you believe what you want, who cares.

[UKResident]

Blah, blah, blah.

Another twat. Disagree with Mr Know-it-all and watch out! Insults, threats, lies, what a great contribution you make to the board.

[clocker]

You have not made a proper post here yet. You entered this thread with the sole intention of having a go at me, even to the exclusion of reading the posts l was replying to, so don't make out that you're the aggrieved one here.


Please to refer back to page one of this thread.
You'll note that I posted here before your odious self did.
Perhaps nicotine has made me prescient, as I was "having a go" at you before you even posted.
Your logic gap widens even as your eloquence diminishes.

Kinda like watching a slo-mo trainwreck.

[BigBank_Hank]

If anyone is watching TV right now this guy is going to be on FOX news in a few minuets.

[ilw]

@RF why is billy still here?

[vidcc]

If anyone is watching TV right now this guy is going to be on FOX news in a few minuets.

What guy and what orchestra is playing? :unsure:

[BigBank_Hank]

The boss who wanted employees to quit smoking or be fired.

Say what about an orchestra?

[Snee]

Please to refer back to page one of this thread.
You'll note that I posted here before your odious self did.
Perhaps nicotine has made me prescient, as I was "having a go" at you before you even posted.
Your logic gap widens even as your eloquence diminishes.

Kinda like watching a slo-mo trainwreck.
But with less casualties, thankfully.

[bigboab]

The boss who wanted employees to quit smoking or be fired.

Say what about an orchestra?


I think it would only apply to the wind section.

[j2k4]

I just found out what an LFBM is! :ohmy:

[vidcc]

The boss who wanted employees to quit smoking or be fired.

ahh.... all is clear now



Say what about an orchestra?




in a few minuets

Sorry with my spelling/typing i shouldn't have, but i couldn't resist :devil: :lol:

[BigBank_Hank]

Sorry with my spelling/typing i shouldn't have, but i couldn't resist :devil: :lol:

:lol: I just noticed that.

[Smith]

Smoking=Bad

[Busyman]

Smoking=Bad
:ohmy:

[clocker]

Smoking=Bad
Ah, at last.
The thread in a nutshell.

If you agree with the above AND believe that your boss has the right, nay, the obligation, to regulate your personal habits, please raise your hand.

The rest of you have detention.

[j2k4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by hank
...in a few minuets...

Funny-I just thought it was an superbly configured non-sequitor. :D

Shithouse luck, then, eh? :lol:

[vidcc]

Quote:
Originally Posted by hank
...in a few minuets...

Funny-I just thought it was an superbly configured non-sequitor. :D


non-sequitur ;) :lol:

[Everose]

Ah, at last.
The thread in a nutshell.

If you agree with the above AND believe that your boss has the right, nay, the obligation, to regulate your personal habits, please raise your hand.

The rest of you have detention.



Uhm, Clocker.... can I smoke in detention? :P

[j2k4]

non-sequitur ;) :lol:

Noted.

You may pick up your certificate at the front desk.:P

[clocker]

Uhm, Clocker.... can I smoke in detention? :P
You must smoke in detention.
You are already a self-selected idiot and we would prefer you hurl yourself, gasping, towards an early grave.

There is a line of more suitable applicants bunching up behind you maam...please move along.

[Everose]

You must smoke in detention.
You are already a self-selected idiot and we would prefer you hurl yourself, gasping, towards an early grave.

There is a line of more suitable applicants bunching up behind you maam...please move along.



Sorry for holding up the line. I was grabbing my soap, shampoo, laundry detergent, toothpaste and brush, mouthwash, light, fresh scented perfume, breath mints, air cleaner and air freshener that, as a smoker, I use probably twice of as compared to a non-smoker.. ... :frusty: .. ... when I realized I must ask further questions here before hurling myself into detention.

These bosses in detention........do they force you to smoke after work, too? :huh:

Because you see, that is my own time. And I refuse to be told by a boss if I can or cannot smoke during my own time. :lol:

I will step aside, although I am sure I would love the company, and stay where I am at. :D

[bigboab]

I have de tension. But I am taking pills for it. :)

[Everose]

I have de tension. But I am taking pills for it. :)


:lol: At least you didn't have to pack for it... ... ...

[j2k4]

I have de tension. But I am taking pills for it. :)

As an American, I suffer from Hyper-detention.

I am also medicated, Boab. :huh: