Any thoughts on a person having a wrongful discharge case because they were fired for smoking (in violaiton of company policy)?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FIRED_SMOKER_SUES?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
Okay, that situation was a bit over-board, I have to admit. I thought I heard of a similar situation happening about a year ago.
It's overboard, but smoking is NOT a constitutional right.
RW: There are people out there--many on the right (libertarian?)--who believe that smoking restrictions by companies is unlawful because it interferes with personal freedom. I find that hilarious. What about my personal freedom to have my clothes, and in turn myself, not smell like a monkey's a@s because others need to exercise their personal freedoms near the entry of my office building.
In any case, think about the underlying reasons behind statutory prohibitions against wrongful termination instances where an employee has been fired because of race or gender. There is an effort by government at the removal/remediation of all vestigates of histroric discrimination. Do cigarette smokers really believe their "civil rights" have been violated similar to blacks and women?
The state did it here somewhat succesfully. The company can say "employees are allowed to smoke, however they cannot do it on company property and do not get smoke breaks" Both those statements are well within their rights and state basically the same thing. Companies get a more productive workforce and lower insurance rates as well.
Keep in mind libertarians also think you should be able to smoke pot at work.
Libertarians also believe that employers should have the right to fire anyone they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason. I think a libertarian would say that, yes, you have a right to smoke. But you don't have a right to work at a particular job.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Keep in mind libertarians also think you should be able to smoke pot at work.
No offense, sgrizzle, but that's just BS. Libertarians oppose excessive GOVERNMENT control. What a private business allows or disallows is an entirely different matter.
And I have never met one SINGLE (and I know quite a few) libertarian who thinks you should be able to smoke pot at work. That's just about the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a month of Sundays.
My boss, who is also my best friend (next to my wife) is a heavy smoker. There are only two of us in the office who do not smoke and I have an air purifier in my office. I'm an ex-smoker and the legend must be true about ex-smokers bitching the loudest about cig smoke because I hate it now.
That's fine and good, I also reserve the right to fart at my convenience [xx(] in anyone's work area or office who doesn't mind walking into my office with a lit cig at their convenience.
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Keep in mind libertarians also think you should be able to smoke pot at work.
No offense, sgrizzle, but that's just BS. Libertarians oppose excessive GOVERNMENT control. What a private business allows or disallows is an entirely different matter.
And I have never met one SINGLE (and I know quite a few) libertarian who thinks you should be able to smoke pot at work. That's just about the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a month of Sundays.
They believe in repealing all drug prohibition. Whether they want to personally smoke pot at work I don't know, but they are making sure its not illegal. They also want to legalize other things like prostitution.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by papaspot
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Keep in mind libertarians also think you should be able to smoke pot at work.
No offense, sgrizzle, but that's just BS. Libertarians oppose excessive GOVERNMENT control. What a private business allows or disallows is an entirely different matter.
And I have never met one SINGLE (and I know quite a few) libertarian who thinks you should be able to smoke pot at work. That's just about the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a month of Sundays.
They believe in repealing all drug prohibition. Whether they want to personally smoke pot at work I don't know, but they are making sure its not illegal. They also want to legalize other things like prostitution.
Being one myself, I have a pretty good idea what "they" believe in. This guy didn't get fired by the government. And it's a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG WAY from saying that the government has no business telling what people should do with their private lives and saying that "they" believe that people ought to be able to smoke pot at work.
Many states including Oklahoma, are Employment At Will. Meaning employees have the right to choose to who they work for, or quit a job in a moments notice. On the other hand the employer can also exercise that same right in termination. And are not required to give a reason for termination.
Other than age or gender issues, wrongful termination cases rarely are filed.
Right to Work status lowers civil cases brought between employees and employers even more.
Don't like where you work and quit, or are terminated because you don't fit the requirements or violate specific policy, or a new manager does not like your hair color, tough toe nails. You are out the door.
AMP: That is probably the reason the employee who is the subject of the link has turned his firing into a federal civil rights case. Federal law, federal cause of action.
I can certainly understand a company banning smoking at work, even in and around the building. I can also see where a company might have such regulations where they prohibit people from smoking (if they wish to work there). They need to apply the rules consistently, however. Are you overweight? Do you have high cholesterol? Do you drink too much caffeine? Of course they wouldn't do that because it would diminish their labor pool. I'm all for limiting smoking in enclosed public places or places that a person has to pass through (such as an entryway) to work, but if they want to pick on "unhealthy" liefestyles they need to be consistent.
Snopes. You have actually touched on what's probably coming next from companies. The issue of firing people because of personal habits is a concern because of the slippery slope.
There is a good chance that if health care does not become universal, in companies that offer health insurance, a cost reduction analysis will show that people who are obese, that smoke, or who practice unhealthy or dangerous "off campus" activities will be terminated. After all, if health care is to be profitable, we can't have people actually using it. What is going to be fun is if we take this to absurdity. I can see it now "Jim, you live in Owasso and the statistics show that the commute is excessive and may create stress related problems so you are going to have to move to Broken Arrow."
quote:
Originally posted by Goodpasture
There is a good chance that if health care does not become universal, in companies that offer health insurance, a cost reduction analysis will show that people who are obese, that smoke, or who practice unhealthy or dangerous "off campus" activities will be terminated. After all, if health care is to be profitable, we can't have people actually using it. What is going to be fun is if we take this to absurdity. I can see it now "Jim, you live in Owasso and the statistics show that the commute is excessive and may create stress related problems so you are going to have to move to Broken Arrow."
Great point Goodpasture.
There is simply no fundamental right to smoke ... particularly in the workplace.
Many smokers take egregiously long smoke-breaks, detracting substantially from their work output. They huddle at the base of various buildings, in "designated" smoking areas, seeking solace in their cancer sticks, in their addictions. Non-smokers must dare to pass through their wall of smoke.
So, no, no wrongful termination claim should be allowed. The same outcome would hold for an employee who takes a 30 minute, mid-day "eating" break ... or a 30 minute "socializing" break. Persons may be addicted to food, or to socializing, but that doesn't detract from the negative effect on performance, nor on the employer's right to terminate.
I'm just not sure how such a claim be reasonably justified.
quote:
Originally posted by snopes
quote:
Originally posted by Goodpasture
There is a good chance that if health care does not become universal, in companies that offer health insurance, a cost reduction analysis will show that people who are obese, that smoke, or who practice unhealthy or dangerous "off campus" activities will be terminated. After all, if health care is to be profitable, we can't have people actually using it. What is going to be fun is if we take this to absurdity. I can see it now "Jim, you live in Owasso and the statistics show that the commute is excessive and may create stress related problems so you are going to have to move to Broken Arrow."
Great point Goodpasture.
I second that. Let's close down McDonald's, BK, KFC, because they make people fat and contribute to rising health care. Lets reinstitute alcohol prohibition to cut down on liver failure, drunk driving deaths, etc. All workers that don't conform to standard height/weight tables should be fired and all benefits terminated immediately. Where does it end?
quote:
Originally posted by Trams
There is simply no fundamental right to smoke ... particularly in the workplace.
Many smokers take egregiously long smoke-breaks, detracting substantially from their work output. They huddle at the base of various buildings, in "designated" smoking areas, seeking solace in their cancer sticks, in their addictions. Non-smokers must dare to pass through their wall of smoke.
That is complete BS. "Non-smokers must dare to pass through their wall of smoke," what complete crap. I have never encountered any office building entrance in the country where there was any exterior "wall of smoke." The time most smokers use for smoke breaks is equally matched or more by the time most non-smokers sit around "chewing the fat."
As long as tobacco remains a legal substance in this country (and I believe it always will be because the consequences of prohibition are too great), smokers have as much right to smoke as you do not to. Each employee should be judged on his job performance and goal acomplishments, regardless if he is a smoker or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve
quote:
Originally posted by Trams
There is simply no fundamental right to smoke ... particularly in the workplace.
Many smokers take egregiously long smoke-breaks, . . . .
That is complete BS. "Non-smokers must dare to pass through their wall of smoke," what complete crap. I have never encountered any office building entrance in the country where there was any exterior "wall of smoke." The time most smokers use for smoke breaks is equally matched or more by the time most non-smokers sit around "chewing the fat."
As long as tobacco remains a legal substance in this country (and I believe it always will be because the consequences of prohibition are too great), smokers have as much right to smoke as you do not to. Each employee should be judged on his job performance and goal acomplishments, regardless if he is a smoker or not.
You appear to agree with my original point.
I've never questioned employees' "right to smoke" -- I have merely questioned whether an employer can legitimately impose a
consequence to the exercise of that right. The original question was whether an employee should have a right to
sue an employer for termination related to smoking. If the smoking (or the "chewing of the fat" or "the eating" or "take your pick") negatively affects the employee's work performance, then the employee
will be judged on the basis of their work performance (as you advocate). The employee will not "judged" for exercising their right to smoke, but rather, for exercising their right in a manner than conflicts with their job responsibilities.
I should also say that you should take a trip around downtown at approx. 10a or 10:30a or 2p or 2:30p -- you will find a variety of gatherings that have the cigarette in common. You'll find various walls too.
TRAMS and STEVE. So what is the solution? Should the employment at will doctrine held in most states be modified to protect smokers from being terminated for smoking? If so, then what? Creating that exception would most certainly result in all sorts of exceptions that would literally destroy the doctrine.
Or is smoking a constitutionally protected civil right, a violation of which would permit a smoker to bring a federal civil rights lawsuit?
GOODPASTURE: Spot on. This really is a slippery slope situation and your point illustrates that perfectly (although obesity will unquestionably be argued to be a "disability" for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act--remember the debate/furor over airlines making obese passengers purchase two seat tickets). Here's another thought, though. If an employee is smoking "off campus" and can be fired, can an employer request the information before the employee is even hired? In other words, could being obese or a smoker be a legitimate reason for not hiring or otherwise be a disqualifier for employment?
When I ran a construction company, obesity was certainly a reason to not hire someone. I dare not put a overweight man on a roof.
What is going to be mos interesting is when our current employment testing is going to become proactive rather than reactive. As medical testing becomes more sophisticated and accurate, are we going to exclude high cancer risk or high diabetes risk employees? We already exclude from employment position people who engage in certain behavior, such as smoking weed, smoking tobacco isn't that far off, eating the wrong foods or drinking the wrong beverages cannot be that far down the line. (Again, I picture HR telling someone: "Sorry, but you had too many Big Macs last week and our insurance department has shown that people that eat Big Macs have a 7% greater risk for heart attacks so we won't be able to cover you on our group plan.")
quote:
Originally posted by Goodpasture
When I ran a construction company, obesity was certainly a reason to not hire someone. I dare not put a overweight man on a roof.
What is going to be mos interesting is when our current employment testing is going to become proactive rather than reactive. As medical testing becomes more sophisticated and accurate, are we going to exclude high cancer risk or high diabetes risk employees? We already exclude from employment position people who engage in certain behavior, such as smoking weed, smoking tobacco isn't that far off, eating the wrong foods or drinking the wrong beverages cannot be that far down the line. (Again, I picture HR telling someone: "Sorry, but you had too many Big Macs last week and our insurance department has shown that people that eat Big Macs have a 7% greater risk for heart attacks so we won't be able to cover you on our group plan.")
Another good point. In the future I envision employers and insurance companies using DNA testing to weed out potential employees/insureds based on a predisposition of medical illness or condition. Thus, it will not only be what an employee personally does or medically has now, but what they might do or develop in the future. Kinda scary stuff...
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
TRAMS and STEVE. So what is the solution? Should the employment at will doctrine held in most states be modified to protect smokers from being terminated for smoking? If so, then what? Creating that exception would most certainly result in all sorts of exceptions that would literally destroy the doctrine.
Or is smoking a constitutionally protected civil right, a violation of which would permit a smoker to bring a federal civil rights lawsuit?
The easy answer here is no ... there is no constitutionally protected civil right to smoke ... and hence no need for a federal civil rights lawsuit. And it is simply not reasonable to modify the employment at will doctrine in order to encompass terminations where smoking is a factor. I understand the frustrations with slippery slope arguments ... but this slippery slope is more real than imagined. I mean, seriously, there is no end in sight. What truly makes smoking so unique? It is a
behavior and not a
status -- smoking is a result of a person's conduct. Unlike race and gender (and probably other factors), smoking is a result of an employee's decision-making abilities (...unless we go down the "smoking is a disease" route ... and then we get into the disability argument, which leads to forced results).
I need to think a bit further on the DNA issue .... I can see problems there, seemingly related to invasions of personal dignity and privacy. (Notably, the same concerns are not present with respect to smoking -- a sport that is unique in its ability to legitimately offend (harm?) persons other than the one doing the smoking.)
I got so excited when I read this I dropped my cigarette burning a hole in my pants.
The easy answer here is no ... there is no constitutionally protected civil right to smoke ... and hence no need for a federal civil rights lawsuit. And it is simply not reasonable to modify the employment at will doctrine in order to encompass terminations where smoking is a factor. I understand the frustrations with slippery slope arguments ... but this slippery slope is more real than imagined. I mean, seriously, there is no end in sight. What truly makes smoking so unique? It is a behavior and not a status -- smoking is a result of a person's conduct. Unlike race and gender (and probably other factors), smoking is a result of an employee's decision-making abilities (...unless we go down the "smoking is a disease" route ... and then we get into the disability argument, which leads to forced results).
I need to think a bit further on the DNA issue .... I can see problems there, seemingly related to invasions of personal dignity and privacy. (Notably, the same concerns are not present with respect to smoking -- a sport that is unique in its ability to legitimately offend (harm?) persons other than the one doing the smoking.)
[/quote]
I can understand a company/employer having a non-smoking enviroment 'on campus', but If an employer can dictate what an employee does 'off campus', like smoking.. is that not an invasion of privacy of some sort?
It certainly is an invasion of privacy. However, companies can fire you for coming up positive on a drug test even though you did the drugs in the privacy of your home. Same goes for getting intoxicated at home and showing up to work drunk (and so on and so on...). I think TRAMS is right about the reality of the slippery slope. I just do not know how it can be stopped.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
It certainly is an invasion of privacy. However, companies can fire you for coming up positive on a drug test even though you did the drugs in the privacy of your home. Same goes for getting intoxicated at home and showing up to work drunk (and so on and so on...). I think TRAMS is right about the reality of the slippery slope. I just do not know how it can be stopped.
I don't think that young man could win the case under a "civil rights" umbrella. Right to privacy & / or Lifestyle discrimination maybe.
I've read that several states already have laws in place that protect employees from "lifestyle discrimination".
In regards to the "wall of smoke" in public places & smelling of monkey a@s [xx(] : An enhanced no-smoking law in Santa Monica enforced a few weeks ago -
Any building open to the public - Smoking is prohibited "within 20 feet of the entrance, exit or open window of any building open to the public.
Outdoor Service Areas - Smoking is prohibited at any "outdoor service area" – "a place where people use or wait for services..." including "bus stops, ATM lines, information kiosks and theater lines."
Outdoor dining areas - Smoking is prohibited in any "non-residential location where food or beverages are served by a business or routinely consumed by customers."
Citations for violation of the new provisions carry a $250 fine for the smoker.
I just served Jury Duty in Los Angeles & it was announced that smoking had to be 50 feet from the entrance of the courthouse.
Maybe a similar policy/ordinance could be enacted? It's just the beginning. Smoking bans are becoming more popular & stricter by the minute.
^ As smokers everywhere raise their yellowed middle finger in protest.
Hello all, short-time lurker, first-time poster. Just saw an article that's somewhat on point, thought I'd provide the link. OSU is considering a total ban on tobacco on campus.
CLICK HERE FOR STORY (//%22http://www.newsok.com/article/2980756/?template=news/main%22)
Guess I'm okay with that... it is a school after all. My pet peeve is the ban on hospital grounds. They should at least have a shack SOMEWHERE for the poor souls who not only smoke, but also have a lot of extra stress in their lives at the moment -- since they're at the hospital!
quote:
Originally posted by Artiem
Hello all, short-time lurker, first-time poster. Just saw an article that's somewhat on point . . . My pet peeve is the ban on hospital grounds. They should at least have a shack SOMEWHERE for the poor souls who not only smoke, but also have a lot of extra stress in their lives at the moment -- since they're at the hospital!
Yes, the hospital. The place designed to help people recuperate from their diseases and illnesses. Allowing people to smoke.
That's irony right there, people!!
If the hospitals were really serious about the health of their employees and patients they would serve healthier food and limit the junk sold in their vending machines. Are there any studies on the obesity levels of health care workers?
Could you imagine the lawsuits if employers suddenly started firing overweight employees because of their unhealthy lifestyle? The collective howls of discrimination by the throngs of Oklahomans squealing like pigs would be deafening. Smokers are easy targets, if these "so called" healthy lifestyle advocates had any real backbone they would focus on the #1 health problem in the U.S., people killing themselves with junk food. You know, it bugs the **** out of me that the junk fast food agribusiness industry kills more people than the tobacco companies every year, yet they don't even have warnings on the side of their products or when lawsuits have been filed against these companies they are thrown out while tobacco companies have been forced to shell out milllions.
As far as the guy getting fired for having nicotine in his system goes... it's a sad day for Americans if the government or employers are allowed this far into our private lives. If it is allowed, I say put the fat fux on the unemployment line too! They cost a hell of a lot more in lives and dollars than the smokers.
Smoke 'em if ya' got 'em!
I dont care if you smoke or if you engage in any other activity for that matter. AS LONG AS IT DOESNT NEGATIVELY EFFECT ME. Go forth and smoke, shoot some white powder into yourself, snort some coke... I dont care. As long as it doesnt effect me.
The problem is, down the road those things do effect me. Obvisouly I dont want some jackass hyped up on cocain driving towards me, nor do I want to pay the icnreased healthcare premiums caused by smokers on my plan. Sorry. You can smoke all you want to, but YOU accept the consequences. Pay more for your healthcare and please dont stand right next to the entrance ofa smoke-free building and smoke (in exchange, I promise not to be the jackass who complains aobut the smoke ina bar/bowling alley/cigar shop).
On the same topic, a private employer should be able to set nearly any rules for working in his establishment. If you dont like it quit. In a perfect world, insane rules, racist or sexual discriminating practices will harm that employer to the point they are no longer competitive. Obviously, some things still need the government to help control, but most things should be left to the owner. Smoking among them (else we may end up with men at hooters, fat women as strippers, and unqualified people in important jobs).
/ramble.
I don't believe smoking should ever be considered a civil right although two classes of our population enjoy it. The smokers and the undertakers. [:D][:D][:D]
Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin looking to give city government power to decide smoking lawshttp://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/governor-fallin-wants-smoking-laws-changed (http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/local_news/governor-fallin-wants-smoking-laws-changed)
QuoteOklahoma's governor is urging the Legislature to change the state's smoking laws -- by placing them in the hands of local government.
Currently the laws are dictated by the state, but Gov. Mary Fallin wants that authority to be passed on to the municipalities.
"I urge the legislature to restore local rights to allow cities to be able to pass smoke-free ordinances, as tobacco is the number one killer in Oklahoma," she said. "If a community wants to take action to improve the health of their citizens, let's let them do it."
So far, 10 cities have passed resolutions in support of this measure. Most recently, Sand Springs joined that group.
"It's time that we look at not only the rights of smokers, but we look at the rights of folks who do not smoke," said Rocky Rogers, Sand Springs city manager.
But Rogers was quick to say that even if local governments were to be given the power, smokers shouldn't be afraid of any overly strict laws.
"We're certainly not there to put down an oppressive hand, of any sort," he said. "We're there to discuss and find out what works."
One smoker, however, is a bit skeptical.
"It's my choice," said Debra Linebarger. "I don't think the government should be telling me what I can and can't do, personally."
In addition to Sand Springs, the other communities that have passed resolutions in support of this measure are Oklahoma City, Seminole, Tahlequah, Muskogee, Elk City, Hulbert, Prague, Clinton and Cordell.
I'd have to say "NO", because it affects others. Your civil rights end where my nose starts. Smoking also drives up the cost of medical bills. A person ill from smoking can run up thousands of dollars in medical costs and we all have to pay for that in one way or another. I never smoked, and I understand it's tuff to quit, but it is what it is. It has been said that Smoking is slow motion suicide.
Quote from: shadows on December 05, 2006, 10:24:38 PM
I don't believe smoking should ever be considered a civil right although two classes of our population enjoy it. The smokers and the undertakers. [:D][:D][:D]
Don't forget the cig. makers they need to hook people to that habit to keep their profits up and have a job, and don't forget the gov't tax collectors, the gov't makes a pretty penny on the taxes that smokers pay. If no one smoked the gov't would lose tax money and cig companies would be outta business.
As if we weren't already a laughingstock to the nation on so many occasions.... Failin' does it again....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on February 09, 2013, 09:09:19 PM
As if we weren't already a laughingstock to the nation on so many occasions.... Failin' does it again....
Oklahoma has been a laughingstock for a while now. When did it begin?
Quote from: guido911 on February 09, 2013, 10:20:51 PM
Oklahoma has been a laughingstock for a while now. When did it begin?
When Arkansas cleaned up their act...
Quote from: guido911 on February 09, 2013, 10:20:51 PM
Oklahoma has been a laughingstock for a while now. When did it begin?
1907
AG rules cities cannot mandate smoke-free parkshttp://newsok.com/cities-cannot-mandate-smoke-free-parks-oklahoma-attorney-general-opinion-rules/article/3754509 (http://newsok.com/cities-cannot-mandate-smoke-free-parks-oklahoma-attorney-general-opinion-rules/article/3754509)
QuoteDrive to a local city park in Oklahoma, and you might see a sign letting you know you're banned from smoking in that park. These signs are apparently irrelevant, as are the ordinances they help enforce. An Oklahoma attorney general opinion released Feb. 5 ruled that cities cannot ban smoking in outdoor areas that they own or operate. The ruling was based on the fact that Oklahoma's state law bans cities from passing smoking laws that are stricter than state law.
TW FB post:
OKLAHOMA CITY– A Senate panel on Monday killed a bill that would have allowed cities and towns to pass ordinances stricter than state laws governing tobacco use.