• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Fired for smoking

That's NUCKING FUTS!

If it were an illegal drug then OK but Nicotine? Maybe he should say he was chewing the gum in an attempt to quit and that is how it got into his system.

Soon it will be Caffiene, elevated blood sugar levels or cholesterol.
 
I wish I was surprised, but that's Massachusetts. It's a good thing I'm certain our 90 year old CEO still lights up a pipe from time to time in his office. What scares me is it's probably going to get worse in the next couple of months.
 
Our handbook talks of not coming to work or work events with the oder of tobacco on our clothing/self<really!>. So, we all light up a doobie in the office at munch time!
 
Stuff like that burns me up. You can't tell someone not to do something when they are off of work, provided it is legal. Things are really getting out of control when your company has the right to tell you that you can not do something when you are in your own home. What's next!!!!! Oh, were sorry Mr. Powell but we have to let you go because blood pressure is to high, or cholesterol, or blood sugar or caffine, like JAEwing said. What is our world coming too?
 
It's one thing to ban the use of a substance while on duty, it's another thing to fire them for doing it. If you work for the American Cancer Society, you shouldn't be using tobacco. But this? Come on.
 
I'm torn on this one.

On the one hand, I don't want to be fired for legally doing what I damn well please in my own home. Getting fired sucks. Been there...and for less of a reason.

On the other hand, employers are people with rights, too. Were I an employer, you can bet your ass that I would zealously fight for my right to legally run my business the way I see fit.

Not all discrimination is illegal. Not all discrimination is bad. Any one of us who ever applied for a job and didn't get it, was discriminated against...presumably in favor of someone more qualified. And I'm sure we all seen employers discriminate against tardy people, lazy people, and the perennially stupid. Let's say I have an employee who is an outspoken member of the KKK. He's got his freedom of speech of course, but what about my freedom of association and a right not to risk having his choice of speech affect my business? I live in a work-at-will state. He's outta there.

Now as a society, we've drawn the line at certain kinds of discrimination...and rightly so, IMO. But why should the government similarly protect us smokers? We know there are risks and consequences attached to our decision to smoke, yet we choose to do so. Why should the government shield us from those consequences and allow us to burden employers with additional costs that result from our personal choices? I'm havin' a bit of a hard time with that. But I also concede and agree that if one risky behavior is to be disfavored, one can quite rightly make the case that other, riskier (or more costly) activities should be discouraged.

Here's another thought: let's say I or you or a friend decide to open a kick-ass cigar bar. Me, I'd "discriminate" in favor of smokers. I'd want to hire people that smoke cigars, know cigars, and have a passion for 'em. But if a new law were passed to say that employers couldn't discriminate against someone because they smoked, I'm guessin' that I likewise couldn't discriminate against potential employees because they don't.

That would suck, too.
 
I'm haven't had to face that with my big corporate employer. We have a portion of the courtyard in the center of the campus reserved for smokers where, most days, I have my lunchtime smoke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top