Employer asked employee to quit smoking is it discrimination? - employee smoking
It is a rhetorical question, I want to hear only the point of view:
If smoking is a choice and religion is a choice, why is OK to discriminate against smokers, but not religion?
Employee Smoking Employer Asked Employee To Quit Smoking Is It Discrimination?
10 comments:
Smoking Technically, there is discrimination because the federal government - EEOC (not) www.eeoc.gov as the basis for the discrimination identified. No state does not recognize as a basis for discrimination. Thus, in the legal world, if the event can be used as grounds for discrimination bill in a process of discrimination are used. Dept In fact, the state office of the EEOC and the situation of human rights / comm / a complaint about the smoke.
There are other things that are unfair but not illegal. For example, a supervisor may demote hire / fire / promote / and harass someone because of their weight. It's called fat, is fired because the boss said, so far there is no discrimination of workers --- why has not seen since the Fed and the government of the state-to-weight as a basis for discrimination.
Can I assume that this country goes into the campaign against fat. Assurances that the employees with health insurance, make noise, "it is wrong to have to make sure that all the ****** these people fat." You can see where our health care premiums increasily as if we are in an ideal weight. Currently there are no legal means to fight against them.
Never heard of religion at second hand, but I've heard of secondhand smoke. Yes, it is an option, but the selection is that the smoker or the person standing next to him.
They do not give us enough detail to make a fair assessment.
If you smoke just before the window is open and blowing, and everyone has the smell of smoke, as it is fair to others? I asked her cigarette smokers delete or move.
If smoking a person look bad, and enterprise customers and / or customers, then I will his desire to understand the best for your business.
So compare smoking - religion is not even on the verge of the same. Smoking affects everyone around him (uh, yes, it could make other and) for cancer, while religion is not often - unless you have someone so powerful and arrogant in their beliefs - in this case, even they are asked to terminate (sermon) in order to avoid disturbing others, too.
because tobacco affects the health and safety of everyone. Religion is not about the health and safety.
In Canada, there are federal and state laws that control where you can smoke. Most smokers are now forced breaks to smoke outside.
The two are not comparable. Discrimination on grounds of religion is against the law. Smoking is not legally protected so that no discrimination occurred.
Religion has no influence on the performance of workers or their health insurance premiums. Religion is not a health risk for people sitting in adjacent stalls.
I used a department that was run open on the weekends. The changes were strictly on seniority. Christians do not receive special treatment so they can attend the Sunday mass. They had to travel on their own time. Neither the members of all other religions special treatment so they can attend religious services. Instead I had them systematically for smokers who tried to sneak extra breaks to have a cigarette. It's not fair break with their colleagues who do not smoke should continue without overtime, unauthorized. Want) I do not care if your regular smoking breaks light (outside the building, but do not think it a special treatment for their addiction.
Smoking makes me sick, even if one feels for this reason, smokers who work less (statistically) will be lost more work in general (often sick), why so many bottom of the barrel!
Well, unless the employer has an employee for smoking an intergovernmental conference, which is not only a question of discrimination.
that a smoker, I say yes choose.I its my place of justice, all damage caused by smoking causes.But not know these laws are out of hand,
It is discrimination.
Employers have the right to limit costs in the health care system. Smoking has been shown to cause damage. If damage (eg, cancer) is very expensive to treat.
To provide the health benefits of all employees, the employer must contain the costs.
There goes the religion, I know employers who discriminate against religion because it is against federal law to do so.
It is against the law so that employees are encouraged to lead a healthy life. If you do not want and you are free to seek work elsewhere.
Nobody said it was ok to discriminate against smokers, but if the employer shows that smoking affects the health and other nations, has every right to say what the smoker. People discriminate against religion, but no advertising.
Post a Comment