The Glade 4.0

Well you attribute this to discrimination against their marital status, I would attribute it to the company wanting to hire the best worker for their dollar- which is not only in their best interest, but I believe that it's the right of the owner. Why wouldn't you want to hire the most qualified applicant for the position? So the unintended concequence (or intented) is that employers have to build in more cost to the hiring process with women because they have to assume that every woman is going to get pregnant and have to take leave at some point in employment. Is that an entirely bad thing? Perhaps not, but it's better as an employer to have all the data up front rather then playing a guessing game.



My company has a zero % alcohol tolerance while on company time. Which means from the moment I am " on the clock" I am to have no alcohol in my bloodstream. Does that infringe on my free time before work if I wanted to have a drink and am engaged in a legal activity? Yes, but that is the agreement I have entered into with my employer as a condition of my employment. I see the smoking thing as no different. They want the healthiest canidates who are also the most productive, and if you would like to work there, you need to meet all the requirements. Does this make discrimination based on education or work experience wrong as well? If the hospital only wants staff with 5 years + experience is that "too much"? Yet my examples are very real and very accepted aspects of the marketplace.



What do you feel are acceptable discrimination criteria in this case? Weight? Physical ability? Life experience vs education? How far can an employer go to secure the success of their business?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

What if they were discriminating against people you liked, such as registered gun owners?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Happens daily. And few bat an eyelash at the practice because it's "those" people. But since I respect their property rights, I move my business to those who are friendly to my lifestyle.

I just can't wait till smoking becomes equated to civil rights. Seems to be the the new Godwins law.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

They wouldn't do it if it raised the cost of labor. It's going to decrease the cost of labor when they don't have to pay health insurance claims related to the smoking.

The easiest way to solve this problem is to not require corporations to charge every employee the exact same amount for the company's health insurance plan.

Not under the current administrations line of thought. Everyone is "equal" no matter how bad they are f'ing up their own lives.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Seriously though, the double standard with this is appalling. If a company wanted to not hire black people for positions that handle a lot of money under the rationale that crime rate amongst black people is far, far higher than amongst white people, everyone would be shocked and angry. But because it's smoking, it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate and enforce your will on others!

I have no problems if a business decided not to hire people of a certain ethnic background, pr perceived ethnic background.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I have a difficult time seeing the double standard. I feel you are mixing things up in order to prove a point.

Smoking is a lifestyle choice. Being black isn't. You can disqualify applicants based on facts, not assumptions. A company can't disqualify an applicant because of their ethnicity. A company however can disqualify an applicant if that applicant had made poor life choices that prevent them from meeting the stated criteria for the job. It seems to follow a logical path. You will prob be DQ'd from being a bank teller if you have a criminal history, or say even strained finances which "could" make you a risk for theft. It makes sense that in a healthcare field, the employers would want employees that take their own health seriously- even if it's just a show for the insurance company.

On a related note, don't Police Officers have a code of conduct which regulates their behavior even when not at work? Why wouldn't we hold our health care professionals to a higher standard as well or should we consider that a violation of the Police Officers rights?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Actually smoking is just as much a choice as being black. Your brain was formed from the same cellular division that formed black skin, and it governed your behavior that included the smoking habit.

I've seen a ton of overweight nurses, should they all be unemployed? Should you not hire people who don't eat nutritiously?

Really Lex? So the color of my skin is my choice? So you can choose to become black as easy as starting smoking? Is there a quit being black patch? Is it called Nig***ette? /facepalm. As to the overweight nurses- if their weight prevents them from doing their job then yes, they should be let go. Why should extra burdens be on their coworkers if the overweight employees can't do certain things.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

I'm very glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this. So is my iPad.

I never claimed that race is your choice. But since we are on the topic of biology, the "choice" of smoking is irrelevant, because the same biology that makes you black is what makes you smoke.

That's incorrect, Lex. There are certain genetic markers that indicate a *predisposition* to smoking, but it's not a guarantor. All you can say is that somebody was born more likely to become addicted. Whether or not they try one and do so is their choice, still.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

It's ok, Lex is just exaggerating again, just walk on by.

_________________


Dream as if you'll live forever...
...Live as if you'll die tomorrow

Vivere Senza Rimpianti

I believe this is the best thing said in this thread so far.

Edit:

I stand corrected - I didn't read far enough.

_________________
The Dude abides.

It's a mixture of their environment and upbringing too. Basically what it comes down to is you can't blame people for it anymore than their skin color. Their own "choice" is based on the biological makeup of their brain which they do not choose.

Nothing is anyones fault!

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

You don't choose what skin color you have, and you don't choose what brain you have.

If you are going to discriminate based on people's brains in a way that has nothing to do with the quality of their work, then it is equal to discriminating based on skin color.

While it is true that "choice" is ultimately an illusion and our decisions are always predetermined by biology and programming, we don't understand that programming very well and we cannot use it to predict very much on an individual basis. We kinda have to give the fantasy of "free will" a bit of weight for any of societal structure to have any use, Lex.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

No we don't. People are not responsible for their biology. If it leads them to smoking and this does not negatively affect their work, then they should not be discriminated against.

Murderers are not responsible for their biology. Perhaps they should just be allowed to continue murdering and not be discriminated against.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This is stupid. Murderers are dangerous to society and should be locked up.

I agree. But now you see how following the logic of determinism doesn't work when it comes to law.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Yes it does. If there were evil killer robots, I would want them locked up too at least, even if their actions are determined. Dangerous things should be locked up or destroyed.

And where do you draw the line in the determination of danger?

_________________