employer forces smokers to quit or lose their jobs. he says fatties are next!!

[maxpain]

I agree. It's fucking Naziism and I hate smoking. What if your employer said, "If you take steroids you're fired and we're gonna test you?" I can't believe people actually support this. Well, except for the conservative Repubs. BUt they are idiots.

WTF ??? If live by rules don't you? You have rules in your house don't you? Your employer has rules too. If you don't like them you are free to find another job. And what the fuck does being from one political party have to do with anything? Typical liberal !! It's always someone's else's fault.

 

[maxpain]

lol

I'm just saying that you can't fairly do what Finland has apparently done. You are grouping every person who lights up a cigarette into the same category and giving everyone that doesn't a considerable benefit. It's not that simple.

Who told you life was fair ??? Whoever it was LIED !

 

[bluepeter]

Who told you life was fair ??? Whoever it was LIED !

lol

Life isn't fair but when implementing policy/law etc. it needs to be.

 

[maxpain]

lol

Life isn't fair but when implementing policy/law etc. it needs to be.

I agree. But rarely if ever does that happen. Someone or a group of people always feel like they were stepped on. It's a case of you can't make everyone happy.

 

[Devastation]

You'll love it until they fire all men with hairy backs. I really thought you people were smarter than this. Oh well. I see how Bush got elected.

 

[bluepeter]

I agree. But rarely if ever does that happen. Someone or a group of people always feel like they were stepped on. It's a case of you can't make everyone happy.

No doubt but this is a clear case of discrimination. Like I said, maybe you can make a case for not wanting to pay healthcare for someone that smokes but you MUST then do the same thing to anyone else that lives an unhealthy lifestyle. We all know that's not possible so this should be turfed.

P.S. - this would also include anyone who posed a 'risk' healthwise. Someone with any kind of precondition. You think someone should be denied employment because they have a greater chance of having a stroke than someone else? Obviously not.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

It's not discrimination.

If I buy my clothes at Neiman Marcus instead of Saks, is saks going to sue me and say I have to "treat them the same way?" of course not. It's my money, I can do whatever the fuck i want with it.

The owner of this company also spends his money on employees. It's his money...he owns it, they're private, so again, he can do whatever the fuck he wants with his money.

What's the difference?

 

[maxpain]

No doubt but this is a clear case of discrimination. Like I said, maybe you can make a case for not wanting to pay healthcare for someone that smokes but you MUST then do the same thing to anyone else that lives an unhealthy lifestyle. We all know that's not possible so this should be turfed.

Why is it discrimination? Since it's his company he determines what is unhealthy.

P.S. - this would also include anyone who posed a 'risk' healthwise. Someone with any kind of precondition. You think someone should be denied employment because they have a greater chance of having a stroke than someone else? Obviously not.

No, but it happens everyday. Whether it be at work, school, home whatever the case may be. As a employeer he can determine the risk he is willing to take. Discrimination happens everyday in so many ways and to most of us.

 

[the nature boy]

I'd like to know he will go about firing fatties. What will the criteria be? BMI? Looks? Some other innacurate measure of fatness?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

I'd like to know he will go about firing fatties. What will the criteria be? BMI? Looks? Some other innacurate measure of fatness?

How about you, you and you...you're terminated effective of this conversation .

Sounds about right to me.