Re: Smoking: To be or not to Be
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
You could easily justify dictating a bedtime,
Quote:
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.
Re: Smoking: To be or not to Be
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
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.
Quote:
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.
Re: Smoking: To be or not to Be
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
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. :)
Re: Smoking: To be or not to Be
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
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.
Quote:
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.
Re: Smoking: To be or not to Be
Sorry.
I was high on nicotine.
Re: Smoking: To be or not to Be
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:
Re: Smoking: To be or not to Be
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
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.
Re: Smoking: To be or not to Be
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:
I have not insulted you, but you have ignored a question put to you, quite directly, about 15 times now.
Quote:
I wanted to know if UKResident was willing to justify his assertion for us in regard to invasion of personal liberties.
Re: Smoking: To be or not to Be
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnnY
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.
Re: Smoking: To be or not to Be
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobbes
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?
