What is Digg?793 Comments
- Enochyang, on 10/10/2007, -34/+247Next thing you know, companies will start evaluating our DNA to screen out those with a higher genetic predisposition to cancers and other expensive diseases. And then we'll have to impersonate Jude Law just to get a ***** job.
- danomagnum, on 10/10/2007, -95/+240I don't see why they shouldn't be able to hire/fire anyone for any reason. It's their company. If it is a publicly owned company, then let the shareholders vote, but there should not be a law against it.
- maou, on 10/10/2007, -20/+114Why is smoking so demonized, yet drinking is just peachy keen? Thats right, drinking has no ill side effects. No one ever ruins their liver with alcohol. They never drink and drive and cause accidents. No, drinking doesn't have medical side effects that might affect insurance at all. Lost productivity due to smoke breaks? Ever had to work with someone with a hangover from hell?
Of course, those problems are all caused by excessive drinking, right? Social drinking isn't so bad. People can smoke lightly as well. But they're still getting fired.
Hell I quit smoking a month ago and feel ten times better for it. I still don't think it's right though. - NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -15/+90I'm glad they started harassing obese people too. Nothing pisses me off more than a 400 pound blob of a man telling me smoking is UNHEALTHY!
- spohnj1, on 10/10/2007, -17/+89I don't think I agree with firing an employee who engages in behavior that has been proven to negatively affect their health. I DO agree with those people paying more health insurance. I am costing my company less yet they pay the same for someone who weighs 8 tons and smokes 3 packs a day??? The company shouldn't be faulted because someone chooses to eat donuts like they're going out of style or suck on cancer sticks.
- Lososaurus, on 10/10/2007, -12/+83I'm firing you because I don't like the cut of your jib, now what?
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -52/+121obesity is sometimes a medical condition. smoking is legal, just like drinking. they shouldn't be able to fire you for legal activities or because of ill health. i know some people like to suck the corporate *****, but putting companies and profits ahead of people is just stupid.
- yapa, on 10/10/2007, -2/+65Fired for being obese? Wouldn't that mean half the American population will be unemployed?
- lpmiller, on 10/10/2007, -1/+59While we are at it, lets get rid of those ***** that take all those "insulin" breaks. And I don't want to work with any one that h as a new born baby, because they get sick all the damn time. And I don't want to hire any vegans, because all that roughage keeps them in the bathroom all damn morning.
A company giving incentives for changing your lifestyle is one thing. A company dictating your lifestyle is another. We wouldn't want government to do this, why is ok for employees? Oh, it's the old "well it doesn't affect me" *****. - WakeUpToFreedom, on 10/10/2007, -8/+57Welcome to my world! My employer started doing this last year. We had to take a blood test to prove we don't use tobacco. If we tested positive they tacked on an extra $1k a year to the price of insurance. No big deal now.....but all this did was open the door to something else in the future.
- mt066, on 10/10/2007, -7/+49I'm so tired of this argument. The only reason it flies is because it's cool to hate obesity and smoking right now. Try doing this for non-P.C. cases such as people who are genetically predisposed to diseases, or to people who ride motorcycles (after all, theyre statistically more likely to be severely injured) - and they will be singing a different tune. It's not about health care costs, it's about people thinking they can stop some social demon by taking wild stabs at it.
- catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -5/+44I've found that people usually support this until it gets to something they do that's unhealthy.
Next comes alcohol. Doesn't matter if you drink off the job, because it could damage your liver and cost the company. Eventually a policy like this would move towards mandatory exercise because they wouldn't want their drones dying too young of a heart attack. - synaesthesia, on 10/10/2007, -2/+38I would say what opened the door in the first place was allowing them to screen your urine to detect off-duty marijuana usage. Nobody has a problem when its only ***** over skeevy stoners, but suddenly its threatening smokers and more people are getting nervous. Who knows where it might go from here...
- plizard, on 10/10/2007, -4/+39get a government job - after 6 months you can kill someone and just have the week off paid
- therealkdog, on 10/10/2007, -6/+40I didn’t get fat until I started this desk job 8 years ago; I blame my company for making me fat.
I don’t think what I do with myself should mater to a company, as long as I do my job for which they hired me for.
Oh and after losing 60 pounds, I’m no longer teh fatty. - reed311, on 10/10/2007, -17/+49Yeah, and wearing gauges in your ears and tattoos on your face is legal, but do you think any respectable place will hire you?
- andydumi, on 10/10/2007, -7/+34This is understandable to certain extent.
I worked for a small corporation and every hour on the hour, all the smoking secretaries and the receptionist went outside to smoke. For about 10 minutes of every hour, if the phone rang in those offices, it would go to messaging. Thats 3 breaks or so in the morning and 3 in the afternoon, for a total of about 1 hour of the workday. The non smoking secretaries stayed behind of course and worked.
If I were the boss, I would say thats a pretty big difference in terms of work productivity, plus they were salaried, so they didn't "clock out" for these breaks, it was all paid. As a shareholder I would say fire them, and get me better secretaries that work and increase productivity so I can have a better return.
Its one thing to get fired for something you do in private on your own time, but if it affects your work capacity and your productivity, and its a choice on top of it all, then fire away. - nismerf, on 10/10/2007, -18/+44What people do in their own lives, that don't impact the company they work for, is NONE OF THE COMPANIE'S ***** BUSINESS !!!
- Tobark, on 10/10/2007, -24/+49Sorry , but I agree with this policy. Smokers generally get 'extra' breaks from their habit , and the boss usually turns the other cheek if he smokes as well. The non smokers continue to work while smokers get these perks. Ive seen non smokers keep a cigatette with them and just go stand there with it unlit so they get the extra breaks as well. It causes frustration and agnst between non-smokers and smokers, costs the company money and adds extra headache to everyones day becuase of this. Ill prolly get dugg down but I say good.
- declawedpaw, on 10/10/2007, -24/+48Welcome to the beginning of government health care.
- Bega, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25neither is a huge belly!
I still don't agree with this though, they are cheating themselves out of a good pool of talent if they do this. The only grounds for firing an employee should be due to unsatisfactory, or unprofessional behavior/performance. - capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24On an off note, my sect of pastafarianism advocates being a morbidly obese alcoholic smoker as a core tenet of it's faith.
Let your shareholders vote, me and my parishioners are going to go binge. - spyrochaete, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21I'm pretty sure you'll get fired if you're caught drinking on your coffee break.
- Meave, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24How about the better option and start having insurance paying for non smoking aids, I have full coverage through my company but still have to pay $125 for Chantix. You would think they would help you to try and quit.
- Leo21k, on 10/10/2007, -7/+26A lot of places will fire you if you drink while working.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -8/+27That is slightly different, in the case of smoking for example you don't smoke in a clients face. A tattoo isn't something you can put away when it comes time for that important meeting.
- IHaveIssues, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21We have gov health care here in Canada and I work with a bunch of fatties so there goes your theory.
- Lorddias, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22Next thing you know they're also going to start looking at our DNA to see if we are suitable for certain jobs or not. If our DNA doesn't compare to some of the more advanced programmers, guess we're out of luck for programming.
- dobbinmon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18you have been chosen as... 'pizza delivery boy'
- RichStevenson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19So will RJ Reynolds not hire you if you smoke or McDonalds fire you if you eat their food for lunch?
- Gerz1219, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19An employee doesn't choose to be black, and being black doesn't cost the company more money.
A smoker is costing the company more in health benefits, even though being a smoker has absolutely nothing to do with job performance or potential. From a cost perspective, it's in every company's best interest to only hire healthy people, even though unhealthy people may be very well qualified to do the task at hand.
This is exactly why health coverage should be uncoupled from private employers. It inhibits job growth and gives your employer a disturbing amount of control over your personal lifestyle choices. - SpykerSpeed, on 10/10/2007, -7/+24I take my skills elsewhere and make tons of money for your competitors, as well as myself.
- Sairynn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Great movie.
- rancemo, on 10/10/2007, -7/+23That's not slavery! Nobody is forcing anyone to work for any company! If you don't like it, go somewhere else or start your own business. Having government guarantee jobs will create a bunch of lazy incompetent workers. If you can't get fired, what incentive do you have to work hard and make yourself a valuable asset to your employer?
- ornellasm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+18I would just find another job in that case, a blood test is way too invasive for an employer to force that on their employees.
- Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16Well firing someone for being fat is stupid, unless it's to the point where it interferes with the work. But I can completely understand firing a smoker for that reason alone. Have you ever worked with a smoker? Because I have - and smokers spend a TON of time out on the loading dock or wherever burning the cancer sticks. You wouldn't keep someone around if they showed up to work hung over, so I don't see the need to keep around people just because they're unproductive due to a different (and worse smelling) habit.
If they didn't feel the need to waste the employer's time smoking, or didn't get paid for said time, or worked extra to cover it, fine. But I've seen guys waste 20% or more of their day smoking, especially once you figure in the productivity loss of interrupting your activity every half hour. And as far as I'm concerned, that's more than a valid reason to get rid of someone. - jellygraph, on 10/10/2007, -8/+23Hey guys, I have a great idea. Lets punish everyone who drinks coffee. I hate those *****. Don't they know that drinking coffee will raise the risk of heart disease? Someone in my family died of a heart attack. He lived a healthy life otherwise, so its no doubt because of the coffee. And its addictive as well.
Lets ban coffee shops, drinking coffee in public places, fine or fire coffee drinkers for wasting company time making / buying coffee.
The only people I want in this world are people who act, think and live like me.
I drink tea. it's not the same thing. Now drinking tea, _thats_ ok.
***** you, everyone. Good bye - reed311, on 10/10/2007, -6/+21Discrimination is not illegal, if that's what you're getting at. When you go in for an interview, they discriminate to see which candidate will best suit their company. If you apply for a job as a lawyer and you haven't passed the bar or been to law school, they will discriminate against you by throwing your resume in the trash.
- leth4l, on 10/10/2007, -9/+24Smoking is a choice - being black isn't.
- jeylux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16michael jackson disproved that theory years ago.
- zombiedepot, on 10/10/2007, -9/+23Just what we need in a ***** economy, another reason to get fired.
- noahhoward, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14Not that easy, smoking once a month or so vs. smoking three packs a day is a big difference.
- dime, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Welcome to subjective application of morals.
See, in an ideal world, I could open a business where smoking was a requirement. On premises! All my employees would be puffing away happily all day long. Those who didn't like it could leave, with everyone enjoying the advantages of free association. I can't do that, though, cause the government says so.
As a business owner, I can't let my employees smoke on the property I pay for, yet I can fire them for things that they do on their own time and have no bearing on their job performance. Odd. Either a business owner has rights or they don't. - Myonosken, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16If you smoke, fact is you WILL smell of cigarettes. That is a big problem for many corporations that have meetings or face the public. You also cost companies far more in health cover.
- maximusrex, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Where does it end though? Sure someone that is obese or is a heavy smoker is an easy target but it doesn't have to end there. I agree with catalysis that alcohol is the next obvious target but I could see motorcycle riding, a car that has too much horsepower, sky diving, active (gay or just anything not deemed missionary) sex life, sports or anything that would be considered "risky". Pretty soon we would be pre-screened by the companies insurance company before employment. The biggest problem with that is that there is no over-site on how these tests will be preformed. Then what if you add a religious view onto those tests or a political one?
- spasticjedi, on 10/10/2007, -30/+42Can someone explain to me how that's NOT discrimination?
- trippinlikegod, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Well I think that's a steaming pile of horse *****. People are entitled to have some job security. If these employees were being fired solely because of the color of their skin this would be a front page story in the NY Times not some under read article on digg.
- MrMetal, on 10/10/2007, -6/+17I have 1 1/2" lobes and I work for a very large and successful technology company. There are lots of modified people here, good companies hire people based on brains, not looks. I'm in plenty of meetings and people are always curious, but respectful. A good college education is what counts.
- kahjah, on 10/10/2007, -8/+19Hell yeah they should fire the smokers. They are hardly working anyway because they are all huddled outside on "smoke breaks". What's with that, i dont get a beer break, people don't get coke breaks. Get inside and work dammit
- gmerin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Given the calorie content and selection of food supplied in my employer's cafeterias, they should share part of the blame for their employees being obese.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 787 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is