"might be" does not mean "definately"Buckeyeskickbuttocks said:
for a group that is being so literal today, you're having 1 hell of a time reading.
Upvote
0
-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter dwimmer38
- Start date
for a group that is being so literal today, you're having 1 hell of a time reading.
27, chill out, bro.. I'm not worried about whether you said might or definate... I'm saying there are more stupid things to do... you seem to be the one worried about who's being literal.
Upvote
0
PrincessPeach
I want to ride my bicycle.
Fine. But, again, that isn't really the point of all of this. As AKAK just pointed out again, the issue with Scott's is that they're pointing to increased health care cost in justifying anti-smoker employment discrimination. How are they defining smokers? A casual, social smoker does not increase their risks of health complications to the same degree a lifelong chain smoker does. And, again, what about dependants covered by the health care plan? Are they firing employees whose spouses or children smoke?
And where does this lead...? I kind of feel like we're beating a dead horse here, but this does seem like the first in a line of dominos. Drinking habits. Eating habits. Sexual lifestyle. Gender. Race. All affect health 'risk factors.'
Upvote
0
scooter1369
HTTR Forever.
Yes. But because those things are illegal, companies have every right to test for them and remove employees who use them.
Smoking is perfectly legal (for now).
Being gay is also legal but it presents the perception of increased risk for the HIV and/or AIDS. Can we start firing them too?
Upvote
0
I agree that smoking is bad but I'm not going to judge all who do it.
I know a lot of soldiers in Vietnam who would argue the "Brain-washed" comment b/c about the only stress reliever they had was a cigarette with their comrades.
Again, I'm a non-smoker and think it's a disgusting habit but don't think companies should be allowed to ask such a question of employees.
I know a lot of soldiers in Vietnam who would argue the "Brain-washed" comment b/c about the only stress reliever they had was a cigarette with their comrades.
Again, I'm a non-smoker and think it's a disgusting habit but don't think companies should be allowed to ask such a question of employees.
Upvote
0
StooGrimson
He drives around, all over the town...
Yeah, but there's a very good arguement and substantial evidence that indicate that being gay isn't necessarily a choice but part of one's genetic makeup. Smoking (or not smoking) is a choice.
Upvote
0
BuckeyeFlorida
Resident Science Dork
At the risk of stirring an already boiling pot, I've been following this thread since its inception and feel the need to comment. If it weren't for the environment and education, I'd be a card-carrying Republican because I'm stick and tired of paying for everyone else's issues. That being said, I present two points for consideration:
1) Scotts is a private (although I acknowledge that there could be some govt subsidy or assistance there, but without full access, I'm assuming there isn't) company who has an obligation to the bottom line, the stakeholders and the employees of the company (both past and present). The obvious steps toward meeting your obligations in the business world is to reduce your overhead, thereby increasing profit and maximizing bottom-line gains, stock values and employee perks/benefits (including the maintenance of an active and successful pension and retirement plan). As is clear, by reviewing this thread, most of us agree that smoking is bad for you and it also appears we commonly define "bad for you" as serious illness and possibly death. These agreements coupled with the outlandish and unregulated health care industry could easily lead to the a inflated insurance overhead, leading to reductions in your ability as a company to meet it's obligations optimally (See above). If smoking elevates overhead, then it's an issue. Yeah, people are pissed (see previous 7 pages of the thread), but the the job of a CEO is protect the bottom line of his company, while properly and ethically running a business - period! If that means restricting high-risk "outside" activities, then so be it! His job is not to make friends and not to be a nice guy (although it's always a bonus). If the non-smokers cannot beat their addiction and continually place more value in smoking than in their job, oh well... I know of plenty of non-smokers who are looking for a job.
As for where this leads (i.e.- sexual habits, eating habits, etc), the future will tell as more medical and scientific information become available. This is exactly what happened with smoking, 20-30 years ago, smoking was common place and largely socially acceptable. Now, as we find more and more about the medical implications, the view of society has shifted. We are seeing similar trends with obesity; alcohol is problematic because there exists a rising amount of literature which indicates drinking, in moderation, may have positive health correlates. There is no such literature on smoking.
As many have mentioned, the definition of smoker is somewhat enigmatic. Casual, social, or chain? Good and reasonable question which warrants clarification. However, it opens up the possibility that a company may be left to define the number of smoking events which would result in the above classifications. That being said, I believe it's a company's prerogative to make such distinctions (see above).
2) Having lived in Florida for 7 hurricane filled years, as a low risk liver (i.e. -non-smoker, drinks occasionally, non-obese) and white, male from a family full of system-milking WTs, I'm sick of covering the cost of everyone elses' decisions. Build a beach front house in Florida and it gets leveled by a hurricane - surprised? I'm not! Lead a high risk life and cost the system (insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) and other users more money, you should be dropped or charged higher premiums. And as for my WT family - get off your ass and get a job - stop having kids to get a paycheck!
This issue (aside from the whole business can or cannot tell you what to do "outside" work) represents a larger problem with society. As a whole, Americans lack the ability to take responsibility for one's actions.
P.S. - Having lived in a state (Florida) where smoking was outlawed in public places and restaurants, I wish Ohio would get on board as mentioned earlier. As a non-smoker, it's nice not to smell like smoke after a night out
1) Scotts is a private (although I acknowledge that there could be some govt subsidy or assistance there, but without full access, I'm assuming there isn't) company who has an obligation to the bottom line, the stakeholders and the employees of the company (both past and present). The obvious steps toward meeting your obligations in the business world is to reduce your overhead, thereby increasing profit and maximizing bottom-line gains, stock values and employee perks/benefits (including the maintenance of an active and successful pension and retirement plan). As is clear, by reviewing this thread, most of us agree that smoking is bad for you and it also appears we commonly define "bad for you" as serious illness and possibly death. These agreements coupled with the outlandish and unregulated health care industry could easily lead to the a inflated insurance overhead, leading to reductions in your ability as a company to meet it's obligations optimally (See above). If smoking elevates overhead, then it's an issue. Yeah, people are pissed (see previous 7 pages of the thread), but the the job of a CEO is protect the bottom line of his company, while properly and ethically running a business - period! If that means restricting high-risk "outside" activities, then so be it! His job is not to make friends and not to be a nice guy (although it's always a bonus). If the non-smokers cannot beat their addiction and continually place more value in smoking than in their job, oh well... I know of plenty of non-smokers who are looking for a job.
As for where this leads (i.e.- sexual habits, eating habits, etc), the future will tell as more medical and scientific information become available. This is exactly what happened with smoking, 20-30 years ago, smoking was common place and largely socially acceptable. Now, as we find more and more about the medical implications, the view of society has shifted. We are seeing similar trends with obesity; alcohol is problematic because there exists a rising amount of literature which indicates drinking, in moderation, may have positive health correlates. There is no such literature on smoking.
As many have mentioned, the definition of smoker is somewhat enigmatic. Casual, social, or chain? Good and reasonable question which warrants clarification. However, it opens up the possibility that a company may be left to define the number of smoking events which would result in the above classifications. That being said, I believe it's a company's prerogative to make such distinctions (see above).
2) Having lived in Florida for 7 hurricane filled years, as a low risk liver (i.e. -non-smoker, drinks occasionally, non-obese) and white, male from a family full of system-milking WTs, I'm sick of covering the cost of everyone elses' decisions. Build a beach front house in Florida and it gets leveled by a hurricane - surprised? I'm not! Lead a high risk life and cost the system (insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) and other users more money, you should be dropped or charged higher premiums. And as for my WT family - get off your ass and get a job - stop having kids to get a paycheck!
This issue (aside from the whole business can or cannot tell you what to do "outside" work) represents a larger problem with society. As a whole, Americans lack the ability to take responsibility for one's actions.
P.S. - Having lived in a state (Florida) where smoking was outlawed in public places and restaurants, I wish Ohio would get on board as mentioned earlier. As a non-smoker, it's nice not to smell like smoke after a night out
Upvote
0
True, but gay sex is a choice, eh? (I'm guessing, again... as to gay vs. heterosexual sex with multiple partners... once again, if I'm wrong... reverse it, and that argument will work as well).
(PS... if we go down the "Being gay is/isn't a choice road, the dings are coming out... there are plenty of wrecked thread to argue that)
Upvote
0
scooter1369
HTTR Forever.
Does it matter now? The risk is there. These people were smokers when they were hired just as the gays were flamers when they were hired.
Can the boss really say "You, stop smoking or you're fired" without also saying "You, stop taking it in the ass, or you're fired" or "You, stop eating at McDonalds or you're fired" and still be legally in line?
Upvote
0
Not necessarily all of them.
I still can't figure how a company who produces some of the most toxic products in the world is giving it's employees personal health ultimatums.
Upvote
0