General Discussion

Codeine

(25,586 posts)

120. All hiring decisions are inherently and unavoidably "discriminatory".

Fri Jan 6, 2012, 12:24 PM

Jan 2012

There's no legal protection regarding nicotine patch use and thus no real grounds to sue. I discriminate in hiring against people with visible gang- or neighborhood-related tattoos because that can cause friction with customers who are affiliated with other gangs and intimidate those who are afraid of people like that.

I discriminate against people who are so unable to express themselves that they'll never be able to speak openly to customers and against people who have noticeably poor hygiene. I discriminate against people who lack even the rudimentary math skills needed to handle and count money and make change or people with records of stealing from other employers.

Every decision ever made at the hiring level involves discriminating against some aspect of a person's behavior or personal traits. That's life, and it's not even vaguely illegal.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

158 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"We're not denying smokers their right to tobacco products. We're just choosing not to hire them." [View all] The Straight Story Jan 2012 OP

Trying to promote a culture of wellness, but instead promoting a culture of fascism, MadHound Jan 2012 #1

I agree. It's a slippery slope! TheDebbieDee Jan 2012 #5

Which is by definition unwell Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #90

I quit smoking 8-1/2 years ago..........but I AM overweight. TheDebbieDee Jan 2012 #2

I'd be willing to bet... one_voice Jan 2012 #43

I do recall Rush Limbaugh proposing something to that affect ... zbdent Jan 2012 #55

It sort of already is Marrah_G Jan 2012 #104

Makes you want to keep smoking just to fucking spite them... SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #3

Exactly..I smoked for decades and then quit and am glad I did, but this is just fascism at work. n/t whathehell Jan 2012 #10

"It will be seen that, as used, the word �Fascism� is almost entirely meaningless." -Orwell nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #149

What does that have to do with my post? SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #154

Meant to reply to the poster below you. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #155

They came for the smokers, I was not a smoker so I did not stand up for them. Vincardog Jan 2012 #4

Well one list I wouldnt object "to much" for them coming for would read like cstanleytech Jan 2012 #15

I would probably be rolling around on the floor with you in those cases however the OP Vincardog Jan 2012 #21

Health Insurance corps trying to promote a culture of wellness... SammyWinstonJack Jan 2012 #113

those have already come to pass SixthSense Jan 2012 #72

I see. It's designed to promote health. KamaAina Jan 2012 #6

Yep. It's all about the money. PA Democrat Jan 2012 #46

prohibition did not work demtenjeep Jan 2012 #7

Can't figure out how nicotine patches invade other peoples' air space eridani Jan 2012 #8

I go back and forth on the gum and it's not hurting anyone. My company has a no tobacco policy but Tunkamerica Jan 2012 #11

No, of course it isn't. Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #92

it's not about that... it's about insurance premiums. ejpoeta Jan 2012 #14

Companies will dictate this as long as they are pitching in for insurance arcane1 Jan 2012 #80

its almost like they want to punish people Mosby Jan 2012 #24

nicotine, non-addictive? emcguffie Jan 2012 #130

You're addicted to the free base nicotine in cigs Mosby Jan 2012 #148

The low levels in old-school cigs were far less addictive. Fawke Em Jan 2012 #151

This is a good argument for ending the connection between health insurance and employment. surrealAmerican Jan 2012 #9

I hate cigarettes, but this is just awful. Capitalocracy Jan 2012 #12

If the employer contributes to the cost of employees' health insurance... WillowTree Jan 2012 #13

So then when they decide that SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #16

Yes _ed_ Jan 2012 #109

Actually I Would Say That It Shows. . . ProfessorGAC Jan 2012 #116

Yep Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #119

I agree with that... Tikki Jan 2012 #18

Those employer paid premiums are, in effect, wages. Luminous Animal Jan 2012 #20

They already do Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #121

I don't see why this is wrong. Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #17

So you are in favor of choice when it comes to smoking in bars as well? The Straight Story Jan 2012 #19

If you are going to be snarky them I can't have a discussion about this Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #25

This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #98

Called 'choice' over one's own body The Straight Story Jan 2012 #128

This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #132

In that case, no one makes you work a job that won't hire you because you smoke. uppityperson Jan 2012 #137

The fallacy in your argument is that its' not your body grantcart Jan 2012 #138

Not just abortions and smoking in bars. uppityperson Jan 2012 #135

This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #144

Next thing there'll be employers who won't hire unless you smoke. Your choice. uppityperson Jan 2012 #145

This message was self-deleted by its author Bunny Jan 2012 #147

Precisely. If I choose to never bathe again, my employer and co-workers should simpl LanternWaste Jan 2012 #99

Everything you do in your "free time" is a choice. surrealAmerican Jan 2012 #26

No. And I wouldn't ban smokers either but I can't say that employees don't have that right. Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #30

Are you saying you believe an employer has the right to prohibit you from something uppityperson Jan 2012 #33

You raise good points. I guess I'm saying this: I believe employers should provide health Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #39

Which would encourage someone to stop smoking. Get fired and not be able to find a job, or working uppityperson Jan 2012 #45

Care to make any other assumptions about me? Or have you had your fill? I guess it isn't Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #50

At what point do you decide what is legally ok but a fireable offense? uppityperson Jan 2012 #51

I am answering your questions but your retorts are full of unflattering assumptions about my Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #58

since you haven't answered ANY of these questions to clarify, I am assuming from what you do write. uppityperson Jan 2012 #77

So the natural prgression of this could then lead to pre-employment screening for: bighart Jan 2012 #108

Yes. LanternWaste Jan 2012 #101

Do you mean like Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #122

This is about companies, who pay you for a few hours a day ... surrealAmerican Jan 2012 #36

Drinking coffee is a choice, it's not a discrimination to prohibit employees who drink coffee even uppityperson Jan 2012 #27

Yes I used a bad example since drugs are illegal, my wishful thinking that tobacco should be Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #34

So you believe and employer can demand anything of its employees. If they don't want to go along, uppityperson Jan 2012 #37

I'm done. It's difficult to have conversations tonight without people being rude and condescending Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #41

Not being condescending here, trying out other examples. uppityperson Jan 2012 #47

Ha ha, it looks more like you were unprepared to defend your position & bailed. U4ikLefty Jan 2012 #86

Do you agree with my edit? This is also bad for my health. SlimJimmy Jan 2012 #52

No because you can't live without food. You can live without smoking. Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #59

I didn't say food for basic sustenance, I said eating too much and being overweight. SlimJimmy Jan 2012 #61

Only if someone can scientifically prove which foods make one overweight which science has Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #100

It doesn't matter *what* makes them overweight. If they are overweight then SlimJimmy Jan 2012 #105

+1 nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #63

By the way, I think tobacco should be illegal, like marijuana is. uppityperson Jan 2012 #139

Try this MFrohike Jan 2012 #31

Lots of people seem to have no problem with public school teachers being fired ... markpkessinger Jan 2012 #64

As they should MFrohike Jan 2012 #73

Did you mean people should have A problem with teachers being fired over photos showing drinking? uppityperson Jan 2012 #141

Good catch MFrohike Jan 2012 #152

I have a problem with teachers being fired over fb photos showing drinking. uppityperson Jan 2012 #140

Smoking begins as a choice and becomes an addiction. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #54

You nailed it here: CrispyQ Jan 2012 #112

The ultimate problem is "health" insurance benefits... arcane1 Jan 2012 #83

Thank you! I raised this point and it is the crux of my feeling. Health care is a right and until Happyhippychick Jan 2012 #102

Because drugs are illegal and smoking is not and mrmpa Jan 2012 #94

Pregnancy Is a Choice RobinA Jan 2012 #125

I recall being askes about my reproductive plans at my first "real" job interview. uppityperson Jan 2012 #143

What if they said they wouldn't hire people who went skiing, or played softball, as suggested above? emcguffie Jan 2012 #133

DU legal minds: wouldn't the nicotine patch prohibition constitute a pretty good lawsuit? DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #22

Certainly, it is discrimination. Laelth Jan 2012 #103

All hiring decisions are inherently and unavoidably "discriminatory". Codeine Jan 2012 #120

culture of wellness my ass ixion Jan 2012 #23

I recognized this trend decades ago. Part of the reason I quit smoking. . . Journeyman Jan 2012 #28

I'm fine with this. nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #29

What else are you fine with them prohibiting? No fast foods or processed foods, no high fat uppityperson Jan 2012 #32

Eh. Whatever is fine. nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #38

An employer can dictate what you do during the time you aren't at work, even legal things. uppityperson Jan 2012 #40

But none do that. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #57

Yeah, not yet Texasgal Jan 2012 #66

And Congress would soon remedy that. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #67

I'm glad someone isn't. Texasgal Jan 2012 #68

But it's okay to have one as president? hughee99 Jan 2012 #87

I don't give a flying motherfuck what anyone thinks of my disregard for smokers. nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #88

Even your "stinking-assed, time-wasting, often-ill" President? n/t hughee99 Jan 2012 #89

I don't know if he wastes time, but if he still smokes, he fucking stinks. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #91

Don't forget, often-ill. hughee99 Jan 2012 #95

I will broad-brush smokers as STINKY all I like, thanks. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #111

painting LanternWaste Jan 2012 #136

No Alcohol RobinA Jan 2012 #126

+1 L0oniX Jan 2012 #85

Smoking liberals come on to the Commonwealth where smokers are a protected class TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #35

Smoking is a choice. nt bluestate10 Jan 2012 #42

Smoking during your non-work hours is legal. Eating at McD's is a choice also. Is it a fireable uppityperson Jan 2012 #49

The article was not on firing. It was on not hiring. bluestate10 Jan 2012 #65

Would eating at McD's be a non-hireable offense? uppityperson Jan 2012 #79

Exactly! The problem is not smoking, or hiring arcane1 Jan 2012 #84

Its still a problem if your taxes go to paying for.these folks' care in a single payer system stevenleser Jan 2012 #96

Based on Reliable RobinA Jan 2012 #127

If you don't want to hire mormons is that ok? Atheists? Those are choices to The Straight Story Jan 2012 #53

Smoking is an addiction. Cerridwen Jan 2012 #74

Maybe they should hire them, but not put them on the group insurance ecstatic Jan 2012 #44

Every person in this country needs to say NO to urine testing. Matariki Jan 2012 #48

What bullshit. HappyMe Jan 2012 #56

I can understand restricting smoking in the workplace, but they are treating smokers Arkansas Granny Jan 2012 #60

The criterion is clearly not law-breaking. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #62

Maybe so, but I don't think your employer has the right to restrict your legal activities when Arkansas Granny Jan 2012 #69

They CHOOSE to hire you, you mean. nt Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #75

I believe you're completely wrong DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #70

Maybe an exception can be created for patch wearers. Dreamer Tatum Jan 2012 #76

As a non-smoker, I think this is wrong. PA Democrat Jan 2012 #71

Don't you think you're engaging in a little 'man on dog' hyperbole there? randome Jan 2012 #106

No. PA Democrat Jan 2012 #107

This is the kind of news that makes me really miss Bill Hicks n/t arcane1 Jan 2012 #78

High BMI will be next OmahaBlueDog Jan 2012 #81

It is disgusting to see doctors and nurses smoking outside of the hospital. i wouldn't want these Pisces Jan 2012 #82

Let's reword that a little... Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #93

I absolutely hate your argument but your logic is simply too solid!!! Zalatix Jan 2012 #97

The logic does not stand. Residual smoke and smell does affect patients with respiratory problems. Pisces Jan 2012 #124

Their fat does not affect anyone's health, unlike lingering smoke on someones clothes etc can affect Pisces Jan 2012 #114

you can't compare smoking to eating marions ghost Jan 2012 #115

It's Disgusting RobinA Jan 2012 #129

"But I was not a pot-head, so I said nothing..." nt Romulox Jan 2012 #110

K'd & R'd DeathToTheOil Jan 2012 #117

I am hoping that those same companies also do not participate in corporate softball leagues... ScreamingMeemie Jan 2012 #118

If we deny an employer the right to control their employees - whether at work or outside Douglas Carpenter Jan 2012 #123

Anarchy RobinA Jan 2012 #131

exactly - if we don't have employers or governments or landlords doing their job and controlling us Douglas Carpenter Jan 2012 #134

"Wellness" my fat ass. "Profit, bonuses, and dividends" is more like it. n/t krispos42 Jan 2012 #142

First they came for the pot smokers...but I didn't complain... Taverner Jan 2012 #146

If a company does not hire me because I refuse to sign a writing-compliance agreement... LanternWaste Jan 2012 #156

Yep Taverner Jan 2012 #157

This is exactly why health care needs to be de-linked from employment ParkieDem Jan 2012 #150

Authoritarians at it again. nt ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #153

some smokers at their jobs get more free time with all their smoking breaks firehorse Jan 2012 #158