Comments | benchilada: (без темы)

benchilada

(Untitled)

Jul 03, 2007 12:52

Cleveland Clinic will no longer hire smokers
By Phil Galewitz
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 29, 2007
The Cleveland Clinic, which runs a hospital in Weston and a new outpatient health center in West Palm Beach, will no longer hire smokers, the company announced today.

The world famous health institution ( Read more... )

ban, hospital, nicotine test, cleveland clinic, rights, smoking, legality, employees, employers, all done, discuss, cleveland

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

redbeard13 July 3 2007, 18:28:06 UTC

Consider someone who visits a place where smoking pot is legal. Such as Amsterdam. They return here and have to take a drug test to get a job, and get found out ( ... )

benchilada July 3 2007, 18:41:12 UTC

I'm afraid your examples don't really stand up, though.

Yes, blogging on one's own time has gotten one fired, but the only instances I've heard of are ones where the person was complaining about or insulting their place of work or fellow employees. I've heard of one or two that have happened because of the person spewing hate online, but that's an extreme event.

As for pot, you've done something that's illegal in this country, but you've done it in another country. But since you can't PROVE that you did it in another country...you = screwed.

Also, being overweight and having high cholesterol is "a choice..."

redbeard13 July 3 2007, 19:01:53 UTC

My examples were intended to demonstrate past precedents, not be the main point. My main point still stands. There is no 'right to work'. No employer is required by law, ethics, or morality, to hire any given individual. There are a handful of protected classes (sex, religion, age, race) for which they cannot chose not to hire you. Everything else is at their discretion ( ... )

benchilada July 3 2007, 19:10:58 UTC

An article that relates to our discussion.

It's important to bear in mind that all of the things you've mentioned have to do with the "appearance" of the business. Hooters proved their case by saying that the concept of the business is "attractive" women in tight outfits, and that to alter that business model would be detrimental to them.

Other places say you can't have tongue rings because they don't like that to be seen by clients.

These, and all the other examples, are things that HAPPEN or ARE OCCURRING on company time. Drug use and other illegal activities? Of course a company can discriminate based on illegal things.

What the big deal is is that a company is publicly stating that a legal activity which does not occur at the place of employment is reason for them to not hire you. You keep speaking of this "right to work" argument as though it actually applies to this situation. It's not whether there is a "right to work" it's whether there's a "right to deny employment."

redbeard13 July 3 2007, 19:24:29 UTC

I believe right to work does apply. But as for reasons not to hire someone? They didn't iron their suit at the interview. They acted like a chump during the interview. They were late to the interview ( ... )

benchilada July 3 2007, 19:30:18 UTC

And if one person quits smoking in order to get that job, they'll live a healthier life as well.

OBJECTION! Irrelevant!

SUSTAINED!

I think you and I can agree to disagree at this point. :)

(The comment has been removed)

luzclarita July 4 2007, 04:26:40 UTC

Well, if we as a society decide that there is no right to work, then perhaps we should create a not just reasonable, but excellent support system for those that are un-hirable based on whatever way the whims of commerce blow.

benchilada July 4 2007, 07:20:15 UTC

Man, I like you, girl...

(The comment has been removed)

luzclarita July 4 2007, 20:18:25 UTC

Re: jobs

I live in Portland, Oregon. The streets here are more or less lined with homeless people. I think it's a major issue.

Also, I do not think having a job in our society is a voluntary option as there is not another option other than being homeless or independently wealthy or, as I was proposing, getting help from an outside source like the government -- and here, where I live, in Portland, there are many laws against things that are necessary for homeless people to live. For instance, it is illegal to lie down anywhere in the city. I guess the homeless people have the "choice" to go to another city -- but most other cities have or are proposing similar rules. Sounds like a problem worth discussing to me.

Re: choice

Giving up smoking was an option that I mentioned in another post to you where I explained that, while it is an option, the company saying that you cannot smoke on your own time is still taking away an option.

kali921 July 3 2007, 19:31:18 UTC

Yes, blogging on one's own time has gotten one fired, but the only instances I've heard of are ones where the person was complaining about or insulting their place of work or fellow employees. I've heard of one or two that have happened because of the person spewing hate online, but that's an extreme event.

Oh, man. Soooooo NOT true. People have been fired for blogging about their place of employment, period, whether the content is neutral, positive, or negative.

Employees have been fired for blogging about their places of work and mentioning things that their employer considers to be covered under an existing confidentiality agreement with said employee. For example, if I journaled about the specifics of a project my company is developing, and my employer found out, they'd probably fire me, regardless of whether the content was negative or positive, period. It's big news out here on the West Coast when people get fired for blogging, particularly in the Bay Area, since we're so high tech oriented.

benchilada July 3 2007, 19:41:42 UTC

We're on the same page here, I just didn't elucidate as much as you did.

It's one of the reasons that I don't talk about work online.

redbeard13 July 3 2007, 19:52:42 UTC

So you're willing to restrict your blogging activities because of your employment, even during your offtime?

Blogging is legal isn't it? It is still your offtime, isn't it?

I think you've just proven my point. You willingly make compromises in your personal life because you like your job. Even with regard to things that are otherwise legal.

How does that differ from smoking?

benchilada July 3 2007, 19:57:22 UTC

...

I haven't proved anything with that, sorry. You're taking a very specific instance and you're trying to broaden it to include a vast number of acts in order to prove your point.

Smoking while not at work /= saying stupid things about your work while not at work.

Smoking while not at work /= effect on job
Blogging about work = effect on job.

Besides, I'm not restricting my life outside of work by not doing something I don't/wouldn't do anyway!

Seriously, you're really reaching here.

kali921 July 3 2007, 20:05:32 UTC

See, I'm very much against employers targeting, harassing, and firing their employees for exercising their right to freedom of speech; I think we should be able to blog ALL WE WANT about work, unless we're breaching an existing confidentiality agreement with our employer. Even then, there are documented instances of a employers harassing and firing employees for blogging about what the company cites is a breach of confidentiality, but what doesn't turn out to be one. But since most fired employees are too intimidated by the process of hiring an attorney and sueing for wrongful termination, employers get away with this.

Also, to use one example, if an employee writes on their own personal time on a journal about the documented poor performance of a product that their employer makes, that's not saying negative things about the company, that's simply telling the truth. Let's say that I work for Ford, and I look at the annual crash tests that the national association of auto insurers does on a sampling of vehicles, and true to form, Ford ( ... )

Back to all threads