With health care costs so high it makes no sense to hire a smoker when you can find an equally qualified non-smoker. Not smoking is the number one thing you can due to decrease risk of cancer and heart problems. Why should a company take on such a burden willingly? If I ran a company, I would never hire a smoker. I would also be more likely to hire a runner over an equally qualified sedentary person.
Then you will have a lawsuit on your hands for discrimination. That could end up costing way more. Equal opportunity for everyone!!!!!!
Everyone has an equal opportunity to not smoke and to exercise (obviously, except certain handicapped persons).
PC Enforcer wrote:
Then you will have a lawsuit on your hands for discrimination. That could end up costing way more. Equal opportunity for everyone!!!!!!
Smokers are not a protected class.
Well.... wrote:
Smokers are not a protected class.
Exactly.
PC Enforcer wrote:
Then you will have a lawsuit on your hands for discrimination. That could end up costing way more. Equal opportunity for everyone!!!!!!
Smokers are not a protected class. If they were, they could have sued over all the indoor smoking bans.
The only reason companies don't do this is because it is unenforceable. Everyone would lie about smoking.
Maybe companies should refuse to hire people who are overweight instead. Chew on that letsrunners.
Nor should they be. Unlike legitimate protected classes, smoking is entirely voluntary. Though I believe some states make it illegal to refuse to hire someone for smoking. If I ran a company, I would not be based in those states.
Well.... wrote:
PC Enforcer wrote:Then you will have a lawsuit on your hands for discrimination. That could end up costing way more. Equal opportunity for everyone!!!!!!
Smokers are not a protected class.
I think companies should refuse to hire people who eat fast food.
Fast food is a much bigger problem.
Some companies do urine tests to see if you are a smoker. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/us/11smoking.html?pagewanted=2&sq=smoking&st=cse&scp=4"The Truman Medical Centers, here in Kansas City, for example, will investigate accusations of tobacco use by employees. In one recent case a new employee returned from a lunch break smelling of smoke and, when confronted by his supervisor, admitted that he had been smoking, said Marcos DeLeon, head of human resources for the hospital. The employee was fired."
Precious Roy wrote:
Smokers are not a protected class. If they were, they could have sued over all the indoor smoking bans.
The only reason companies don't do this is because it is unenforceable. Everyone would lie about smoking.
Maybe companies should refuse to hire people who are overweight instead. Chew on that letsrunners.
The Truth Seeker wrote:
With health care costs so high it makes no sense to hire a smoker when you can find an equally qualified non-smoker. Not smoking is the number one thing you can due to decrease risk of cancer and heart problems. Why should a company take on such a burden willingly? If I ran a company, I would never hire a smoker. I would also be more likely to hire a runner over an equally qualified sedentary person.
THIS!!
And drinkers, too. Alcohol is nothing but a demotivating substance that tears apart families and leads to obesity and cancer (among other diseases).
I would never hire a drinker or a smoker if I ran a company.
Precious Roy wrote:
Smokers are not a protected class. If they were, they could have sued over all the indoor smoking bans.
The only reason companies don't do this is because it is unenforceable. Everyone would lie about smoking.
Maybe companies should refuse to hire people who are overweight instead. Chew on that letsrunners.
Sorry, if you refuse to hire non-smokers, and the person lies, then you can just fire them when you find out. If you never find out, oh well, at least you limited your risks by hiring fewer actual smokers. Same goes with people who lie about their previous employment or anything else: you will not catch everyone, but that doesn't stop you from asking about employment history.
Also, I believe companies should refuse to hire BOTH overweight ppl and smokers, but I'm sure that I am in the minority in this country. The reality is that many company execs are overweight so this would never happen IMHO.
Al Co Hall wrote:
Alcohol is nothing but a demotivating substance that tears apart families and leads to obesity and cancer (among other diseases).
Moderate alcohol consumption is none of the above. Quit being such a drama queen.
lalala wrote:
Sorry, if you refuse to hire non-smokers, and the person lies, then you can just fire them when you find out. If you never find out, oh well, at least you limited your risks by hiring fewer actual smokers. Same goes with people who lie about their previous employment or anything else: you will not catch everyone, but that doesn't stop you from asking about employment history.
Also, I believe companies should refuse to hire BOTH overweight ppl and smokers, but I'm sure that I am in the minority in this country. The reality is that many company execs are overweight so this would never happen IMHO.
You are a sad person. Let go of the hate. Your level of confidence borders on non-existent. It is obvious from your posts. I pity you.
drunk runner. wrote:
Moderate alcohol consumption is none of the above. Quit being such a drama queen.
Same with smoking. I have one or two a day and still manage to run 60+ miles a week. You guys are giant vaginas.
A two star General gave me my first cigarette. I was a medic and spent 7 months walking around a jungle trying to put our guys arms and legs and guts back on and into their bodies. We lost 18 of 35 men in two months. Got more men and lost 15 more. Not a shot was fired it was all booby traps. The kids and women were setting them. You guys can believe me or not. I got a medal for my "Medic UP" work. The acting CO and RTOs' would bring crates of cigs to the troops. Man I got to say...well won't mean crap to you boys of today. We all lost our minds. I tremble just writing this. Just think it is funny who gave me my first cig.
My confidence borders on non-existent? Several ppl in this thread have said companies shouldn't hire smokers, overweight ppl, and even those who drink alcohol--I wouldn't go that far even though I don't drink.
What about your confidence? You randomly attack a poster on letsrun (which I have not done) for what reason? And under a different screen name everytime so of course there is no theme to any of your posts since they are all under a different name.
Get some courage--use the same name, every time. Then we can talk about confidence.
Relax, I was just kidding. Think of this as pledging. I actually like your posts.
Are you kidding???!!!!!
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't like pledging...this is why I opted not to join a sorority!!!!!!!!!!
Have a nice day. I'm going to the gym to gain some more apparently desperately needed confidence. :D
I've often wondered if a company operated only by runners and endurance athletes would be great or a total failure.
lalala wrote:
Are you kidding???!!!!!
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't like pledging...this is why I opted not to join a sorority!!!!!!!!!!
Have a nice day. I'm going to the gym to gain some more apparently desperately needed confidence. :D
Sorority girls are the worst. XC girls are the best. I guess each has its own unique type of pledging. XC is definitely more difficult (and more productive).
Have fun at the gym.