Is it constitutional to ban smokers from working?

Bought and paid for by major corporations...

 

This is actually a tough one, IMHO.
On the one hand it is discrimination, on the other hand I can also understand a company wanting to mitigate it's insurance costs.
As we all know, the cost of health care in this country is fucking outrageous, for the individual and employers.

Then you have the issue of trying to prove you have been discriminated against by a potential employer. The employer simply just does not have to hire the person, and there is absolutely no recourse, because employers do not have to provide any reason or explanation as to why they didn't hire a certain individual.
A company can implement policies such as no smokers, it's their prerogative, and it's perfectly legal. Smoking is a matter of personal choice and therefore does not fall under the same criteria for discrimination as the things currently protected by law.

Now if a company implements such policies they are required to provide assistance to those who wish to stop smoking at the companies expense, but would not be able to terminate employment based on that without providing means for the employee to comply with the policy.

BUT, if we are talking about a public/government institution, such as The City, than it's a whole different ballgame and I will be surprised if they can actually get away with it.
A private employer has much more control over such things.

So, for a private employer, no it would not be unconstitutional.
For a government employer, I think may be.

Please keep us informed barefootfarmgirl.

 

No, they just want to decrease insurance costs and smokers DO for the most part have more health issues stemming from smoking.

 

Good point gas. I wasn't differentiating the two properly. Still bullshit though.

It may not be unconstitutional. But if it's challenged in court and deemed so, city/state wide smoking bans should be struck down.

 

Good and true,Papa. People should avail themselves of union history from the beginning of the struggles to see what we,as working people owe those that came before. 'Robber Barons' is not something made up-they were relentless in their efforts to crush workers under their heels and resorted to beatings and even murder to put them down. 40 hour work week-overtime-child labor laws-proper breaks-ect are just a few benefits we enjoy because of unions.
I worked in the Ford plant on the line from 64 to 67 in Milpitas,Cal and the shit they pulled was despicable and if there had not been a union--I and many others would not have lasted a day.
(I have withdrawal cards from 5 unions I have been in, obtained before I got into the roofing trade.) Anyway--good post.

 

I am just beside myself happy that yall have your heads pulled out . Lots of good points made by all.

 

Here's a start=Matewan. Movie-true story.

Triangle Shirt Waist-New York=check this out to understand how cruel and uncaring some capitalist owners can be.

WW1-veterans & sympathisers camp on white house lawn for promised bonuses.

Grapes of Wrath=fictionalized account of the struggles of the working poor. GREAT MOVIE. I grew up(?) in the San Joaquin Valley where these people came looking for work and went to school with their children in the 40s.

No,I don't do links.

 

The majority of my work experience spanning 30+ years has been in management positions. In my experience as such, whenever a company introduces new policies, such as a non-smoking workplace, they have to provide accommodations for employees to be able to comply, such as designated smoking and non-smoking areas, for example. So if a company were to implement a complete ban on smoking, even outside the workplace, then they would be required to provide some type of accommodation for it's employees in order to make compliance easier and viable for it's employees.
If they did not make/provide such accommodations and started to terminate people based on the new policy, then the law suits would start to pile up.

Bear in mind that a companies responsibilities to existing employees is a completely different thing than it's responsibilities to potential employees.

And as I already stated, the rules are completely different between private companies and public/government ones.

If the city in question does implement such policies and terminate smoking employees, that would actually be rather easy to confirm in court.
If only smoking employees get terminated after the policy goes into effect, and the former employees filed a law suit, I think it would be easy to show a direct causal link between the new policy and subsequent terminations, regardless of the reason the employer puts on paper.


Personally I really wish people would stop all this "they" "them" "the man" type of shit. At some point along the line we all become part of "them" to one degree or another, it just depends on how broad and sweeping your criteria is for grouping people/business entities. Let's be specific and concise, because such broad, sweeping remarks really become rather valueless with repetition when it comes down to it.

 

just as a side note because it really doesn't pertain to the thead topic, but I'm tired of hearing smokers complain that they're treated like second class citizens. no, you're not. as a person you're probably great; but your cigarettes are gross and incredibly unhealthy to anyone that has to smell them.

you're fine, but no one wants to smell your smoke.

I say this as a smoker. I've smoked half my life, sadly. I'm not smoking now and I haven't been a pack a day smoker in years, but I'll probably always enjoy the occasional cigarette. I just don't expect anyone else around me to find my smoking pleasing and aromatic.

 

Most work places are now smoke free , as I believe they should be . While it's not a federal law against work place smoking . Most states now have laws prohibiting it .

While your company may have been nice enough to pay for smokers to quit , or accommidate them with places to smoke . They aren't "required" to do anything . Nor are they required to give smoke breaks .

Any employee that filed a N.L.R.B. complaint for smoking issues would never hold up . Because an employer doesn't have to allow it or accommidate it at all . Even if they terminated all the smokers . It's not under e.e.o.c. discrimination protection laws . An employer has the right to terminate who they want .

And if you think we should stop all the "they" , "them" ," the man type of shit " . Inferring it's not we vrs. them , the 99% vrs. the 1% , or that we down the line become "them". Then you're mistaken there too .

 

Not disagreeing with the fact that there are unbalanced dichotomies in the present system. Just saying that the type of rhetorical speech you and others use really ends up falling on deaf ears of those you might want to be reaching simply because of the stigma that type of speech has garnered.

If you start touting phrases such as "we vs them", "they do this" or "the man" , "the 99%er's, etc. more than likely a good portion of your audience will just sigh "Oh God, another one of "them"" and never hear what you have too say.
If you want people to actually listen to what you have to say, then say it on their level using their own words. That is how you get people to actually listen.

Same with spokespeople for legalization of cannabis, for example. I would much rather have the guy with the short hair and three piece suit doing the talking than some guy in tie-dye with dreadlocks down to his ass.
Do dreadlocks mean the person isn't a good speaker well versed in the law and topic? Does a suit and short hair mean he is?
No, of course not, but the perception of the audience is influenced by appearances and speech patterns, whether it's right or not, whether we like it or not.

 

The only dichotomy I see is ignorance vs critical thinking and research on the part of those that do not know and do not care to know how deep we are in the shit now and why.
I don't give a shit about smoking vs non-smoking. Means nothing relative to what is important. So yeah--I shouldn't have posted in a thread about smoking. Too bad.

 

I hope your not saying I'm ignorant of the situation and where it is leading in this country. I am fully aware and just as upset and scared by what I see going on as you are. I guess because I also attempt to look at both sides of an issue from a neutral standpoint I'm ignorant.
At it's heart this issue isn't about smoking or not smoking, but rights and freedoms and the erosion of the constitution.
Sorry if I tried to interject a little rational thought concerning the specifics of this one incident into a controversial conversation.
Sorry if I don't have automated emotional knee-jerk reactions to stories such as this, but prefer to see it from different perspectives.
In my mind that is the opposite of being ignorant.

Maybe if I told you that I have been threatened with termination, received written warnings, (which I ripped up and laughed at) and generally given shit by my district manager because I encouraged employees to join the union, supported a near strike, and always counseled my employees concerning the rights they have and how to work through the company red tape, and informed the union of violations of the union contract. All of which led to my being put into shittier and shittier locations (retail) with shittier hours until I finally quit.
Does that make me more worthy or less ignorant in your eyes?

 

More worthy. Don't take what I say too personally--I don't like to insult people in here. It's that I've been alive for 72 years(oooooo-73 may 3rd) and I just don't have patience with the right side of the political spectrum,so I tend to go a little strong sometimes. I get lit up ,occasionally to my detriment. But no--I don't look at certain situations in a neutral manner--so it goes.

And by the way--way to go!

 

I think the simple solution is single payer.

We can have proper education to help reduce smoking (knowing is enough for most to not do it), and the smokers help paying in the end, and employers can get the hire they need without factoring in things that should have NOTHING to do with workplace performance..... Unless it increases it. Maybe employers could start demanding applicants take meth, chainsmoke, and drink cup after cup of coffee, to boost performance.....

 

I agree with that-as a smoker. I definitely refrain from smoking around those who don't! Being respectful isn't everyones strong suit though.

 

Well they ban weed smokers from working, so why not tobacco? They ban a lot of things, like not being too weird or outside society's rules and expectations. Most of all they ban being yourself.

 

^^^ THIS ^^^

If you aren't one of the "sheeple" forget it....