angledge | Big Brother is watching you (& your cigarettes)

Color me surprised that the first company to do this is a health benefits company.

That's discrimination. The company might say or do what they want, but there are so many things they can do. And for them to do what they did(about making their personnel take tests in order to find out whether they are smokers or not), that is discrimination against smokers.

The workers move was a little out of hand too. It's legal by law for them to refuse to take the test(as long as they prove that the test is discriminating), but at the same time, they should have complained that the company can't do that.

If I were them, I'd sue the company on discrimination grounds.

Just my 2 cents...

Discrimination law only applies to protected groups, of which smokers are not included. As far as I know it's just race, gender, religion, and sexual alignment.

Unless you live in San Francisco, of course, where it is prohibited to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, creed, ethnicity, national origin, color, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, domestic partner status, marital status, disability, AIDS/HIV, weight, or height.

Seriously! (http://www.sfgov.org/site/sfhumanrights_index.asp?id=4579)

Fuck that. I ain't hiring no shorties.

Come on now. Brian's not such a bad guy. Give him a chance.

You might have a point, but I still believe that the company went a little too far on their move. Ok, it might not be discrimination, but making their personnel take tests to determine whether or not they are smokers, it's uncalled for.

As an ex-smoker(and really proud of having quit), I don't agree with what the company is doing. The workers had the right to refuse the test, on the grounds that their employment was in question, due to the fact that they smoke.

It would have been much better if the company decided to help some of the personnel to stop smoking. And if the company would have chosen not to help them *directly*, at least they could have referred those workers to clinics that can be of such help.

Sorry, that is my belief. I might have been a smoker before, but even as a non-smoker, I don't think that company has the right to do what they chose to do. It's almost like saying that so-and-so can't keep his/her job because he/she likes this or that, which the company says it's not good. It violates the rights of that person.

Smoking might be bad, but there are far worse things out there.

Before January 2005, employees could claim smoker or non-smoker status. All employees claiming non-smoker status were subject to random testing for tobacco use. As of September 2004 employees not claiming non-smoker status were encouraged to join a program to help them quit. At that time they were advised that anyone who didn't meet their criteria for non-smoker would no longer have a job as of January 1, 2005. The company claims that of the 20 "smokers" 15 of them entered the program to quit and 3 resigned.

I would like to know if the 4 who refused the tests had previously claimed to be "non-smokers"

The company, like many others, also performs random tests for alcohol and drug use. Is the recent smoking issue any more wrong than this common practice?

The company, like many others, also performs random tests for alcohol and drug use. Is the recent smoking issue any more wrong than this common practice?

Heck, *I* get randomly tested for illegal drug use at my job. Emphasis on illegal drug use. I suppose an argument can be made that an employer should be allowed to make sure its employees aren't using illegal drugs.

But testing for alcohol use & smoking? I think that's going too far. Legal activities that employees engage in while not at work are nothing their employers has any right to know. I applaud companies that offer smoking cessation programs & the like, but they should not be allowed to go prying into their employees' non-work lives.

I remember reading a not-so-distant science fiction novel where a character consulted a lawyer after his employer looked at his genetic profile, determined he was suspectible to carcinogenic mutations from chlorine, & ordered him to stop swimming in chlorinated pools. Horrors!!

The only reasons I can see for testing for illegal drugs are the loss of productivity if that person gets caught or lack of performance due to effects of the drug. I don't see how the first is the employer's business anyway. The second case is the employer's business, but should be a reactive drug test based on suspicion due to performance issues rather than a random procedure.

The random nature of the tests is supposed to be a deterrent. Also, a random drug-testing policy is required by the Federal government on some contracts (specifically, anywhere where our company's employees could endanger human health or the environment if they're working while impaired).

I suppose an argument can be made that an employer should be allowed to make sure its employees aren't using illegal drugs.

On company time, perhaps. But I don't think it's the company's business to know what its employees do on their own time. It's bad enough that we tolerate this sort of intrusion over illegal substances, but to extend it to legal ones is completely wrong.

Sure, a privately owned company can do what they want provided it's legal, and this isn't illegal. But perhaps it should be.

I think we should make smokers use their own water fountains, ride in the front of the bus (in an enclosed space) and not be allowed to marry nonsmokers.

Also, they should pay extra for air. Maybe get it in cans of Perriair or something. Oooh, or they could live in a big smoky Bubbletopia that we'd build exclusively for them. Maybe in Wyoming- there's lots of space there. Or Saskatchewan.

Big Brother is watching you (& your cigarettes)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject