Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
employer forces smokers to quit or lose their jobs. he says fatties are next!!
- Thread starter Devastation
- Start date
bluepeter said:
no cuz fatso would be shitcanned too
bluepeter
New member
Devastation said:
Should be if you're against hiring/employing health risks but he's not nailing fatty. Just the smokers. This particular employer I believe says he's going after fatties next. But even then there are plenty of other employees that are just as much or more of a health risk. Does he fire all those too?
bluepeter said:
not if they can't help their condition. it's a fine line but a guy has to start somewhere
NB is on today.
I had a really good conversation about this on the way to lunch. The guy was like, what's stopping employers from doing genetic testing on everybody, and not hiring people that are prone to certain diseases? I was like, I'm fine with that. And he was like, what if everyone got tested, and for someone with a genetic heart defect, there was no health insurance? I was like, I'm fine with that. He was like, no, you have a moral obligation to care for that person. And it's the purpose of government to enforce that moral obligation. And I was like, excuse me? The job of the government is to protect our borders, protect me from violence from my compatriots, and foster an athmosphere of trust in business and life (like not be scared to walk down the street, and not be afraid when you buy some food it's going to make me sick). It is NOT their job to make sure I pay for the medical tratment of someone I don't know.
I had a really good conversation about this on the way to lunch. The guy was like, what's stopping employers from doing genetic testing on everybody, and not hiring people that are prone to certain diseases? I was like, I'm fine with that. And he was like, what if everyone got tested, and for someone with a genetic heart defect, there was no health insurance? I was like, I'm fine with that. He was like, no, you have a moral obligation to care for that person. And it's the purpose of government to enforce that moral obligation. And I was like, excuse me? The job of the government is to protect our borders, protect me from violence from my compatriots, and foster an athmosphere of trust in business and life (like not be scared to walk down the street, and not be afraid when you buy some food it's going to make me sick). It is NOT their job to make sure I pay for the medical tratment of someone I don't know.
maxpain
New member
bluepeter said:
It's bullshit that this business owner can determine how and who works for his company. That's like me coming in your house and you saying this is how it is in my house. Whatever that may be. And me going that's bullshit. It's your home, and you should be able to say how it's done there. Jus tas this man should be able to say how it's done. It's no different.
maxpain
New member
bluepeter said:I'm on my way out so having trouble thinking of another example
How about someone who drinks heavily? He can certainly help it. Do you fire him?
How about someone with terrible eating habits that just happens to not be hugely fat? You fire them?
etc. etc.
If it's YOUR company that you have spend YOUR time and YOUR money building. Then YOU should be able to hire and fire whoever you want to. No matter what the reason.
bluepeter said:I'm on my way out so having trouble thinking of another example
How about someone who drinks heavily? He can certainly help it. Do you fire him?
How about someone with terrible eating habits that just happens to not be hugely fat? You fire them?
etc. etc.
alcohlism is a disease but also a choice. peopel with bad eating habits go on probation? i dunno
it's radical what he's doing no doubt. it'll be interesting whats happening with this a year from now
