ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
There is a difference between factors that affect your ability to do a job (i.e. fly a plane) vs. behaviors that affect health risks. I think that is the argument here (in simplified form).
The Patriots are allowed to cut someone who can't do the job. Would you be ok with them cutting someone because they smoke?
Generally speaking, I'd be fine with them cutting whomever they want to cut, since it is ultimately their money that pays the bills. Again, generally speaking. I don't want them to cut a guy because of his/her skin color, or nationality. The thing is, if player X can help them win, then why would they cut him for being a smoker? Maybe the example of using a sports franchise is different than your average company.
I get both sides to the argument here. As an employer I'll hire whomever I think will help me make money. At the same time, as a human being, I don't want to see anyone discriminated agaist because they might be Chinese, or cuz they root for the Jets. Ultimately though, if I feel someone doesn't represent my company in a fashion that I see as being positive, why shouldn't I be able to go in a different direction? Maybe I'm in sales and I don't want a dude with 60% of his body covered in tattoo's and piercings. Maybe I do home remodelling and I don't want people who give the impression that they are untrustworthy by way of their appearance, and thus scare homeowners. Maybe I own a Hooters and I don't want anyone above 35, that doesn't have an arse I can bounce a quarter off of. By the same token, should an employee who has a reasonable expectation of employment be pink slipped for wearing a Packers tie to work? (Like that would ever happen) I think it's an interesting question of where the "rights" of an owner or (potential) employee begins and/or ends.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
So if you are driving a subway train, an aircraft a bus the business doesn't have a right to know your mental health background......really? You want to fly with a pilot with a history of suicide attempts for (an extreme) example?
So, you take an extreme example to make a general point? Of course jobs that involve the safety of others should be an exception. But NO company should ever have the right to their employees medical records. At least normal jobs where the safety of others isn't involved.
Even a company like Real World's where his employees could injure others due to handling dangerous equipment should never have the right to look at his employee's mental health records.
You could even "try" to make the point; "What about postal workers?" or "What about the potential for an office worker to bring in an automatic weapon?"
To those examples, I say "tough sh1t!"...you still don't have the right to know if somone has mental health issues. and thankfully, our laws back my opinion!
Just ask Mel Gibson!
__________________ "No one walking this earth knows what is truly righteous"
Last edited by PatriotsReign; 02-14-2011 at 07:01 PM..
I try not to comments on which I don't have knowledge unlike many here. I would guess that smoking contributes more to lost productivity than obesity and other ills? Apparently smoking impacts health care cost more than drinking and being fat.
Here, let me help you out.
In spite of high unemployment numbers, there’s a lot of fat in the workplace—and it’s costing a bundle. With studies over the past three years showing that American workers’ expanding waistlines are impacting corporate bottom lines even more dramatically than previously thought, through increased health care costs and decreased productivity, major corporations are taking action.
They can’t afford not to. Two thirds of Americans are obese or overweight today. And as their health goes, so goes that of their employers. Health costs alone are an estimated $147 billion annually according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). And private employers are hit with an estimated $45 billion a year in medical expenditures and work loss, according to a 2008 report by the Conference Board (the latest report available).
At Advocate Health Care, one of the largest health care providers in the Midwest, obesity cost nearly $6 million in lost productivity last year alone. That’s six times as much as the costs attributed to smoking. “Through our health-risk assessment, 69 percent of our population is overweight,” said Nicole Martel, senior manager for fitness and wellness at Advocate. “This is a huge focus for us.”
There are more deaths and disabilities each year in the U.S. from substance abuse than from any other cause.
Alcohol and drug abuse costs the American economy an estimated $276 billion per year in lost productivity, health care expenditures, crime, motor vehicle crashes and other conditions.
Untreated addiction is more expensive than heart disease, diabetes and cancer combined.
Every American adult pays nearly $1,000 per year for the damages of addiction.
According to public health reports, expenditures in the United States directly related to smoking total $72 billion per year. These reports indicate that costs not related to health but caused by tobacco use include property losses from fires caused by cigarettes or cigars (more than $500 million each year), work productivity losses ($40 billion a year) and the costs of extra cleaning and maintenance required because of tobacco smoke, smokeless tobacco and tobacco-related litter (about $4 billion annually).
So, you take an extreme example to make a general point? Of course jobs that involve the safety of others should be an exception. But NO company should ever have the right to their employees medical records. At least normal jobs where the safety of others isn't involved.
Even a company like Real World's where his employees could injure others due to handling dangerous equipment should never have the right to look at his employee's mental health records.
You could even "try" to make the point; "What about postal workers?" or "What about the potential for an office worker to bring in an automatic weapon?"
To those examples, I say "tough sh1t!"...you still don't have the right to know if somone has mental health issues. and thankfully, our laws back my opinion!
Just ask Mel Gibson!
An employer doesn't have the "right" to it, I agree -- but why shouldn't they have the right to ask for it as a condition for employment? Why can't I, as a private employer getting zero dollars from any government entity in any form, decide I want to know that information before entering into an agreement to hire somebody -- and that person can then make the decision of whether to provide it to us?
Put it another way: why should the government interfere b/t the 2 parties?
(I'm playing a little devil's advocate here, sort of anyway -- I'm on the fence on this stuff, so I want to hear people's arguments if they feel strongly either way, like you clearly do)
(Does this go for other personal info, too? How/where do we draw the line? Do employers have the right to know about convictions, if the ex-con has served his time, for ex?)
So, you take an extreme example to make a general point? Of course jobs that involve the safety of others should be an exception. But NO company should ever have the right to their employees medical records. At least normal jobs where the safety of others isn't involved.
Even a company like Real World's where his employees could injure others due to handling dangerous equipment should never have the right to look at his employee's mental health records.
You could even "try" to make the point; "What about postal workers?" or "What about the potential for an office worker to bring in an automatic weapon?"
To those examples, I say "tough sh1t!"...you still don't have the right to know if somone has mental health issues. and thankfully, our laws back my opinion!
Just ask Mel Gibson!
You just reminded me that I have to send my medicals to the Department of Public Safety in order to renew my hydrolics operators license. They now require my doctor to fill out a stack of forms. Not sure where that fits in here, since the DofPS isn't a company, but a government agency.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
An employer doesn't have the "right" to it, I agree -- but why shouldn't they have the right to ask for it as a condition for employment? Why can't I, as a private employer getting zero dollars from any government entity in any form, decide I want to know that information before entering into an agreement to hire somebody -- and that person can then make the decision of whether to provide it to us?
Put it another way: why should the government interfere b/t the 2 parties?
(I'm playing a little devil's advocate here, sort of anyway -- I'm on the fence on this stuff, so I want to hear people's arguments if they feel strongly either way, like you clearly do)
(Does this go for other personal info, too? How/where do we draw the line? Do employers have the right to know about convictions, if the ex-con has served his time, for ex?)
You can run a CORI check on them. Here in MA the governor wants to make it so employers can't find out.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
It is wrong.......and I applaud the hospital.
Cigarettes are addictive, increase health insurance costs, and cause death. Did I leave anything out? Oh yea, bring in boatloads of money in the way of taxes, thus, they will be around longer then the penny (which is pretty useless). Hey, here's an idea. Call the tobacco CEO's to court and have them raise their right hand and swear to tell.......Hmmm, market candies which look like cigarettes! I know, to make up for their losses from shrinking profits, they can sell their product to third world countries. Gee, I'm all out of original ideas.
Death to cigarettes. Don't really care about discrimination, because if you truly look at the big picture, it is not cigarettes that are getting short changed.
It is wrong.......and I applaud the hospital.
Cigarettes are addictive, increase health insurance costs, and cause death.
Alcohol and junk food are addictive, too. And, as I've pointed out and verified, they both cost the American employer more than cigarette smokers do.
Are you ready to have companies decide not to hire anyone overweight or anyone who enjoys a beer now and then, too, or do you think your personal bias outweighs cold hard fact?
Re: Hospitals Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban
By the same token, should an employee who has a reasonable expectation of employment be pink slipped for wearing a Packers tie to work? (Like that would ever happen) I think it's an interesting question of where the "rights" of an owner or (potential) employee begins and/or ends.
Linear Mode
