Hospitals will not hire smokers

[Cinderella]

http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2010/11/hospital_group_1.html?rss_id=Top+Stories

This is, after all, Massachusetts. So the Massachusetts Hospital Association has announced they will immediately start discriminating against smokers. They will refuse to hire qualified, hard-working, accomplished job applicants if said applicant smokes OFF THE JOB.

Why? Because if you smoke, there’s a higher risk you’ll get sick and need medical treatment.

OK, but if you overeat, isn’t there a higher risk that your obesity will mean YOU’RE at higher risk, too? So it’s OK for me to refuse to hire fat people, right? And to fire employees I catch becoming fat—I can fire them, just like the MHA can fire smokers, yes?

And what if you engage in risky sexual activity? Maybe you frequent hookers, or you’re single and gay—statistically speaking a group that engages in more high risk sexual contact. You’re fired too, right?

How about people who ride motorcycles to work? People who serve in the National Guard or Reserves? Sky divers? Hunters?

Or what if you live in a neighborhood where you are—literally—5,000 times more like to be injured by violent criminals just from living there? Can I refuse to hire you, too?

If the formula is “more risk = no job,” then how are any of these other non-smoking risky behaviors significantly different? A smoker is an overeater is a single, gay, spelunking Guardsman from the hood.

Whats next, regulation of coffee, candy, etc. I have a brain, and I know whats good and bad for me. I dont need the govt telling me what to do!!!!

[FrankRep]

Don't worry, Big Government will fix this!

:rolleyes:

[specsaregood]

//

[Cinderella]

Discrimination on the basis of non-work related factors should be illegal period. I don’t care whether it’s race, sexual orientation, hobbies, beliefs, or whether or not someone smokes. (And I most certainly do not.)

The MHA needs to remember they employ their workers. They do not own them.

[amy31416]

That's their prerogative.

Nurses and doctors who come in to work stinking of smoke, then put patients in the position of having to smell their smoke (or perfume, or animals or whatever), can either change or find another job. Some patients are allergic to smoke, animal dander, perfumes, etc. I worked in an aseptic manufacturing area, where we had to have such strict environmental controls, that we couldn't have people who wore perfume, makeup, lots of hair products, worked extensively with animals, smoked, etc., because it caused failures/false positives in the products and set off environmental controls. Sometimes, it wasn't any of the above, and some folks were just "natural shedders" (sounds gross, I know, but it's life.) If we couldn't discriminate, we couldn't make the medical devices. It's probably the same in the semi-conductor industry.

I also think that airlines should have the right to have weight/size restrictions on stewards, if that's what their market (and safety) calls for.

But they'll probably change their minds--tons of nurses smoke and it'll make finding qualified people much more difficult.

[specsaregood]

Discrimination on the basis of non-work related factors should be illegal period. I don’t care whether it’s race, sexual orientation, hobbies, beliefs, or whether or not someone smokes. (And I most certainly do not.)


Well aren't you just a big government lover.

[Cinderella]

Questions come to mind. Totalitarian government intrusions? I know a few crazy bungy jumpers, rock climbers, skydivers who could take a chunk out of our state budget if injured. Or how bout those people who eat GMO ’round up’ corn, or aspartane(poison), or BPA plastics, or Fluoride in city water, or breath aluminum and barium oxides in our air(from the Government’s Weather Modification programs), or the ‘harmful to health’ medications and vaccines? If people only knew how ridiculous the hypocracy has become. Massachusetts also has ‘no hire the obese’ laws. Recently, it was suggested by the research studies that the obese may have been exposed to a virus, which caused some to have the condition. Wow. Maybe getting old will be outlawed due to high cost to the state, as well. Food for thought, folks!

The reasons for such a decision reeks of “Big Brother” control of a persons rights. An employer has every right to restrict smoking on their property but they have no right to inflict these rules once your work day is done. This is exactly why it is illegal to discriminate against smokers in 29 states. Once you allow an employer to get away with this practice they will just continue down this very dangerous path until you are trading your very soul for a paycheck. I hope that anyone who wishes to work within the MHA and happens to be an over 21 smoker challenges this in a court of law. They can only take away your freedoms if you let them.

[Cinderella]

Well aren't you just a big government lover.

:rolleyes: riiiight

[specsaregood]

:rolleyes: riiiight

You want the government to decide who a business can choose to hire. I don't see any other possible definition for that other than you want more government. You certainly aren't supporting private property rights of the business owners.

[Madly_Sane]

Massachusetts has always been the odd one out of the bunch.

[Cinderella]

You want the government to decide who a business can choose to hire. I don't see any other possible definition for that other than you want more government. You certainly aren't supporting private property rights of the business owners.

no. Im just tired of smokers being picked on. if im qualified for the job and I DONT smoke on the job why do they have a right to fire me or not hire me becuase of what i do on my free time? were not talking about smoking crystal meth here. lets fire big fat nurses because all the fat nurses ive worked with are lazy and move very slow, which is dangerous during full codes. sometimes theyre so fat they cant fit in the room with the rest of the medical team during a code. theyre too fat and get in the way. im a smoker and i can run circles around a fat nurse any day! thats my gripe....this policy goes hand n hand with big government and healthcare reform. im against it

[amy31416]

So, Cinderella, you want gov't to force hospitals to hire smokers, even though there is often good reason for a hospital to not hire them. Okay. There's also good reason for a hospital to restrict hiring of obese people. You can't perform the job, you breathe toxins all over them, yeah, they shouldn't hire you.

Have you ever been in an ICU ward? A really large person could NOT work there. One patient can have 20 tubes hanging all over the place, equipment filling up the room, and you have to be small and agile to get around and take care of a patient in that environment. Oh wait! Maybe hospitals should gear the ICU to really large employees--gov't enforced, of course!

What next, a gov't-enforced quota that hospitals must have certain "types" of people?

You do know that your comparison to someone who bungee jumps, eats GMO's, etc in their off-time is bullshit, right? That doesn't affect the care they give to the patient.

[amy31416]

Discrimination on the basis of non-work related factors should be illegal period. I don’t care whether it’s race, sexual orientation, hobbies, beliefs, or whether or not someone smokes. (And I most certainly do not.)

The MHA needs to remember they employ their workers. They do not own them.


no. Im just tired of smokers being picked on. if im qualified for the job and I DONT smoke on the job why do they have a right to fire me or not hire me becuase of what i do on my free time? were not talking about smoking crystal meth here. lets fire big fat nurses because all the fat nurses ive worked with are lazy and move very slow, which is dangerous during full codes. sometimes theyre so fat they cant fit in the room with the rest of the medical team during a code. theyre too fat and get in the way. im a smoker and i can run circles around a fat nurse any day! thats my gripe....this policy goes hand n hand with big government and healthcare reform. im against it

No need to lie about it, eh?

[specsaregood]

no. Im just tired of smokers being picked on.

That's how it always starts. Oh noes, I'm getting picked on, let me get nanny government to beat down those meanies and force them to like me.

It is ok, you can admit it. You love big nanny government.

[Cinderella]

No need to lie about it, eh?

what i meant was i certainly do not care what their poison is...not that i dont smoke...i do smoke...a pack every 3-4 days.....

[Cinderella]

That doesn't affect the care they give to the patient.


youre missing the big point. their reasoning behind this is that smokers get sick and will call out...this has nothing to do with patient care and the care that a smoking nurse and a non smoking nurse provides. i guess im not a perfect libertarian like the rest of you all :rolleyes:

[Madly_Sane]

i guess im not a perfect libertarian like the rest of you all :rolleyes:
ha, that makes me laugh :D

[specsaregood]

//

[amy31416]

what i meant was i certainly do not care what their poison is...not that i dont smoke...i do smoke...a pack every 3-4 days.....

Mmm hmm...you've come on the boards before with some outrageous stories, looking to scare up sympathy.

Something about being attacked by someone last time, IIRC.

And this is another ridiculous plea, for one--you're looking for gov't to intervene on your behalf. For another, so many nurses smoke that a total ban by hospitals, on smoking, would decimate their potential workforce.

Oh, and you never know--maybe the gov't would side with the hospital and make them fire all the smokers, on the spot, and ban hospitals from hiring them because they're a danger to all patients, even if they just push paperwork.

Unintended consequences, dearie. Call upon the gov't to save your ass at your own (and many others) risk.

[ChaosControl]

Should be the hospitals right. I don't see the issue.

[amy31416]

youre missing the big point. their reasoning behind this is that smokers get sick and will call out...this has nothing to do with patient care and the care that a smoking nurse and a non smoking nurse provides. i guess im not a perfect libertarian like the rest of you all :rolleyes:

I'm hardly a perfect libertarian, I'm quite fond of libraries.

If a hospital doesn't want to hire you, they don't have to. If they want to fire you, they can.

Get over it. If you, as an individual, have a case for discrimination--hire a lawyer.

Can you imagine the quality of employees if the hospital couldn't decide what's best for itself and discriminate? A phlebotomist with tourettes? A dwarf doctor in the ER? An ICU nurse who needs to use a walker? How about a surgeon with Parkinson's? A nurse who wears lots of makeup, perfume and smokes working in the preemie ward...great.

Go work somewhere else or petition the hospital you work for to change their policy. You want sympathy for gov't intervention--you're in the wrong place.

[Cinderella]

Mmm hmm...you've come on the boards before with some outrageous stories, looking to scare up sympathy.

Something about being attacked by someone last time, IIRC.

And this is another ridiculous plea, for one--you're looking for gov't to intervene on your behalf. For another, so many nurses smoke that a total ban by hospitals, on smoking, would decimate their potential workforce.

Oh, and you never know--maybe the gov't would side with the hospital and make them fire all the smokers, on the spot, and ban hospitals from hiring them because they're a danger to all patients, even if they just push paperwork.

Unintended consequences, dearie. Call upon the gov't to save your ass at your own (and many others) risk.

lol amy you are like an internet bully lol....i dont lie on here...and my incident at CEC was very real and very traumatizing. I am still in litigation over this. all I was doing was bringing awareness to this issue. Im not perfect and im def not asking for big brother to come to my rescue.

I am saddened that the patients will be denied the best medical care available when 20-25% of would-be future applicants are not permitted to join the staff at MHA.....I would not entrust my own or a loved one’s health care to an organization that hires medical professionals based upon their smoking status rather than their talents....Perhaps MHA received one of those large grants from the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation contingent upon enacting such a policy

[specsaregood]

I'm hardly a perfect libertarian, I'm quite fond of libraries.


I thought the first library in the US was founded basically on libertarian principles. ie: all donations.

[Cinderella]

this is why alot of people have left these forums...its a great place for news etc, but the minute a person posts something you dont agree with, members go on attack mode and ridicule or "bully"....this is why i dont post anymore and now just "lurk"....take care everyone....it would have been easier to present your points rather than point the finger and call me a big government lover...a simple explanation with examples etc would have been great! istead i feel i was put down but you all. i have been a member since 2008 and it seems the rudeness etc gets worse. maybe i am misinformed on this issue but ridiculing and insulting me does not get me to better understand your points...take care!

[Theocrat]

http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2010/11/hospital_group_1.html?rss_id=Top+Stories

This is, after all, Massachusetts. So the Massachusetts Hospital Association has announced they will immediately start discriminating against smokers. They will refuse to hire qualified, hard-working, accomplished job applicants if said applicant smokes OFF THE JOB.

Why? Because if you smoke, there’s a higher risk you’ll get sick and need medical treatment.

OK, but if you overeat, isn’t there a higher risk that your obesity will mean YOU’RE at higher risk, too? So it’s OK for me to refuse to hire fat people, right? And to fire employees I catch becoming fat—I can fire them, just like the MHA can fire smokers, yes?

And what if you engage in risky sexual activity? Maybe you frequent hookers, or you’re single and gay—statistically speaking a group that engages in more high risk sexual contact. You’re fired too, right?

How about people who ride motorcycles to work? People who serve in the National Guard or Reserves? Sky divers? Hunters?

Or what if you live in a neighborhood where you are—literally—5,000 times more like to be injured by violent criminals just from living there? Can I refuse to hire you, too?

If the formula is “more risk = no job,” then how are any of these other non-smoking risky behaviors significantly different? A smoker is an overeater is a single, gay, spelunking Guardsman from the hood.

Whats next, regulation of coffee, candy, etc. I have a brain, and I know whats good and bad for me. I dont need the govt telling me what to do!!!!

If the Massachusetts Hospital Association wants to refrain from hiring smokers, and the physicians of the hospitals agree with that standard, then they have every right to implement it, as a principle based on private property agreements. You don't have to agree with their reasons. Just find another clinic or hospital in another state to work at. When the hospitals of Massachusetts realize they're losing too many workers because of the smoking ban, I'm sure they'll repeal that ordinance.

[amy31416]

lol amy you are like an internet bully lol....i dont lie on here...and my incident at CEC was very real and very traumatizing. I am still in litigation over this. all I was doing was bringing awareness to this issue. Im not perfect and im def not asking for big brother to come to my rescue.

I am saddened that the patients will be denied the best medical care available when 20-25% of would-be future applicants are not permitted to join the staff at MHA.....I would not entrust my own or a loved one’s health care to an organization that hires medical professionals based upon their smoking status rather than their talents....Perhaps MHA received one of those large grants from the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation contingent upon enacting such a policy

When you call for something to be made illegal, who, exactly do you think you're calling on, if not big brother/big daddy gov't?

You've admitted that you make things up for attention. I have a decent memory for these things, and it calls everything you say into question--especially when you lied again in this thread. If calling you out on that makes me a bully, so be it.

And if you don't want to send your self or anyone else to a hospital that has those restrictions, that is your choice, the hospital also has the right to choose who they do and don't want to hire.

[amy31416]

I thought the first library in the US was founded basically on libertarian principles. ie: all donations.

Yes. Unfortunately most, if not all, of them are now taxpayer-funded. Such a shame.

[specsaregood]

Yes. Unfortunately most, if not all, of them are now taxpayer-funded. Such a shame.

Well then technically, being fond of libraries doesn't necessarily make you not a "perfect libertarian". :) /me is picking nits today.

[Cinderella]

When you call for something to be made illegal, who, exactly do you think you're calling on, if not big brother/big daddy gov't?

You've admitted that you make things up for attention. I have a decent memory for these things, and it calls everything you say into question--especially when you lied again in this thread. If calling you out on that makes me a bully, so be it.

And if you don't want to send your self or anyone else to a hospital that has those restrictions, that is your choice, the hospital also has the right to choose who they do and don't want to hire.

seriously amy its this type of attitude that pushes so many people away from this movement! its sickening! ive never admitted to making things up nor have i lied in this thread either. You my dear are making things up. please dont harrass me amy. i have seen you attack other members and i do not want to be your next victim. i am calling you out as an internet bully---plain and simple.


thank you theocrat i do understand the point of it being a private hospital etc. i am still fairly new to this movement...its issues like these that have me on the fence and i know MANY MANY other people who feel this way. people like amy will only push people on the fence to the other side.

[Cinderella]

my understanding is that i have the freedom to smoke...but i guess the hospitals have their own rights to not hire me because of my choice to smoke...its just tough for me to grasp this idea and be ok with it. i dont need to be ridiculed or called bad names because im having a hard time with this issue....no wonder they say libertarians are ruthless and heartless!!

[amy31416]

Well then technically, being fond of libraries doesn't necessarily make you not a "perfect libertarian". :) /me is picking nits today.

It does though, because I know how they work. They get gov't funding based on how many "hits" they have. Every e-mail, every patron, every book taken out is counted and the library's "value" is calculated based on usage--and public funding is determined based on these numbers (and some other things, like their location, operating costs, etc.) At least that's how Baltimore's library system worked--I suspect others do as well.

So...when you use a public library, you are (in a small way) contributing to them getting more public funding. Being fond of libraries doesn't make me an imperfect libertarian, USING them does though--even if you just walk through the door.

I'm not really striving towards being a perfect libertarian though, at least not on these sorts of issues.

[lester1/2jr]

SO many people who work at hospitals smoke though. tons. You see them outside all the time.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

this is why alot of people have left these forums...its a great place for news etc, but the minute a person posts something you dont agree with, members go on attack mode and ridicule or "bully"....this is why i dont post anymore and now just "lurk"....take care everyone....it would have been easier to present your points rather than point the finger and call me a big government lover...a simple explanation with examples etc would have been great! istead i feel i was put down but you all. i have been a member since 2008 and it seems the rudeness etc gets worse. maybe i am misinformed on this issue but ridiculing and insulting me does not get me to better understand your points...take care!

No. It's because people don't like your solutions using government forcing private business who they can or can not hire.

If your position was... we need to eliminate all licensing and regulation in health care so you can start your own competing business I would agree with you. Maybe your health care business would specifically cater to smokers.

If your position was... we need to get government out of regulating smoking in private business so business owners can decide whether they want smoking customers, non smoking customers, or both.

The solution libertarians are going to support is going to be a solution that reduces government or provides more opportunity for competition not increasing the size or scope of government telling a business what they can or can not do.

Reflect on who benefits using government to stifle competition and eliminating niche markets...

[specsaregood]

SO many people who work at hospitals smoke though. tons. You see them outside all the time.

In my area all the hospitals are now smoke free on their entire property. No smoking in your car even in the parking lot. You definitely don't see employees gathered up outside smoking.

[Cinderella]

SO many people who work at hospitals smoke though. tons. You see them outside all the time.

yes but most of these people you see smoking are not doctors and nurse---they are receptionists, and medical secretaries, dietary workers, PT OT workers, PCAs, case workers etc etc....most nurses dont get a chance to even go to the bathroom let alone go out for a cigg! and its illegal to smoke on hospital property in mass...so you wouldnt see these people by the hospital---rather youd see them across the street at honeyfarms or dunkin donuts

[Cinderella]

No. It's because people don't like your solutions using government forcing private business who they can or can not hire.

If your position was... we need to eliminate all licensing and regulation in health care so you can start your own competing business I would agree with you. Maybe your health care business would specifically cater to smokers.

If your position was... we need to get government out of regulating smoking in private business so business owners can decide whether they want smoking customers, non smoking customers, or both.

The solution libertarians are going to support is going to be a solution that reduces government or provides more opportunity for competition not increasing the size or scope of government telling a business what they can or can not do.

Reflect on who benefits using government to stifle competition and eliminating niche markets...

but i never came up with any solutions?! i simply posted a snip from a blog and the clip from the paper and everyone jumped on me saying i support big government? im still fairly new to the movement figuring out whats libertarian and whats not...i thought that banning smokers would be something libertarians would have a problem with...i thought that was a big brother type of move....and i will repeat this again, noone should be insulted for posting something you dont agree with....and amy is known for attacking people, ive seen her do it many times before, and this isnt the first time she has done it to me. calling me a liar is her way to defamate my character here...ive never lied...i love this website and its not fair that she is trying to destroy any credibility i have here. i am an honest hard working nurse and ive never treated anyone here with anything but respect!

[Vessol]

Is the hospital privately run? Then it can choose to hire or not hire whomever they like based on any factor.

[amy31416]

but i never came up with any solutions?! i simply posted a snip from a blog and the clip from the paper and everyone jumped on me saying i support big government? im still fairly new to the movement figuring out whats libertarian and whats not...i thought that banning smokers would be something libertarians would have a problem with...i thought that was a big brother type of move....and i will repeat this again, noone should be insulted for posting something you dont agree with....and amy is known for attacking people, ive seen her do it many times before, and this isnt the first time she has done it to me. calling me a liar is her way to defamate my character here...ive never lied...i love this website and its not fair that she is trying to destroy any credibility i have here. i am an honest hard working nurse and ive never treated anyone here with anything but respect!

You've been here over two years, you're not really new anymore.

I am not trying to "defamate" your character, when I'm quoting you. No, it isn't the first time I've had an argument with you, it's the second. The first time is when I goaded you into admitting that you make things up for attention, because your stories always sound a bit "off."

However, this really isn't that important, so good luck.

[puppetmaster]

I do not hire smokers for my small PRIVATE business.

and smokers do not have to patronize my store.....simple

[specsaregood]

Smoking is bad, you should really quit.

[Cinderella]

You've been here over two years, you're not really new anymore.

I am not trying to "defamate" your character, when I'm quoting you. No, it isn't the first time I've had an argument with you, it's the second. The first time is when I goaded you into admitting that you make things up for attention, because your stories always sound a bit "off."

However, this really isn't that important, so good luck.

no amy you are a liar, ive never admitted anything to you in regards to making things up? i dont even like you let alone speak with you. you have not quoted anything of mine and even when i offer corrections you simply dismiss them and try to destroy any and all of my credibility. yes i have been a member for 2 years and i have 2000 posts...youve been a member for 3 years and have over 12,000 posts...yes i am still considered new to the movement and yes i am still trying to understand everything that it means to be libertarian. keep your assumptions to yourself. by calling me a liar and claiming im making ive made up stories is nothing but an attempt to defamate my character! what have i ever done to you? you dont like me personally? then dont coment in my threads. id prefer reading constructive criticism than insults and assumptions on your part.

[Krugerrand]

Is the hospital privately run? Then it can choose to hire or not hire whomever they like based on any factor.

Non-smoker here.

Generally, I agree that the private business should be able to hire and fire at will.

The concern I have is that the health care industry is becoming more like education. The line between public and private gets more and more blurry as time passes on.

Do I want laws telling employers who to hire? No.

Nor do I want government do-gooders using their government enabled private industry to control their employees.

[Vessol]

Non-smoker here.

Generally, I agree that the private business should be able to hire and fire at will.

The concern I have is that the health care industry is becoming more like education. The line between public and private gets more and more blurry as time passes on.

Do I want laws telling employers who to hire? No.

Nor do I want government do-gooders using their government enabled private industry to control their employees.

Fight at the root of the problem, not the causes.

[Cinderella]

Do I want laws telling employers who to hire? No.

Nor do I want government do-gooders using their government enabled private industry to control their employees.


that is my point!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

youre missing the big point. their reasoning behind this is that smokers get sick and will call out...this has nothing to do with patient care and the care that a smoking nurse and a non smoking nurse provides. i guess im not a perfect libertarian like the rest of you all :rolleyes:

Once you give the Government the power to mandate to property owners who they can hire and who they can't, it will affect more than your tiny immediate issue. If you believe the Government can mandate against any and all forms of discrimination, well, you have just opened up a can of worms you will regret (Unless you are also of course -- in favor of making businesses hire 50/50 Women/Men, even ratio of minorities (Affirmative Action, etc.), disabled for jobs that are difficult for them in the first place, etc.). Moreover, you have just sanctioned off and saying to the Government you have full power over all property. Nothing is safe once you unleash the beast.

Not to mention if a certain property owner wishes to not associate or hire a smoker, and you force them to, how is that liberty? Seems to me like an act of violence and aggression (Best know that if they don't comply a squadron of heavily armed State-agents will bust down and take their property from them).

With all that said, I understand and completely agree with the position that this isn't nearly black and white in situations involving heavy subsidies, and other State-ameliorated gifts to 'private' hands. However, my view is that I err on the nominally private side deciding how to use that property (reason being it is easily then used to start foisting mandates on fully private property owners) instead of fully nationalizing it. It's a mucky situation.

[Cinderella]

Once you give the Government the power to mandate to property owners who they can hire and who they can't, it will affect more than your tiny immediate issue. If you believe the Government can mandate against any and all forms of discrimination, well, you have just opened up a can of worms you will regret (Unless you are also of course -- in favor of making businesses hire 50/50 Women/Men, even ratio of minorities (Affirmative Action, etc.), disabled for jobs that are difficult for them in the first place, etc.). Moreover, you have just sanctioned off and saying to the Government you have full power over all property. Nothing is safe once you unleash the beast.

Not to mention if a certain property owner wishes to not associate or hire a smoker, and you force them to, how is that liberty? Seems to me like an act of violence and aggression (Best know that if they don't comply a squadron of heavily armed State-agents will bust down and take their property from them).

so it would be correct in saying that this is kinda like rand pauls argument of the civil rights act? sort of same principal right? if so, then i understand....

[Krugerrand]

Fight at the root of the problem, not the causes.

It's a tough spot. Do you ignore back-door regulation of people's personal lives while you perpetually lose the battle to be rid of the back-door?

Similar situation to the Civil Rights legislation. If you take government funds you have to play by their rules. Except, the rules are then setup where you can't survive unless you take "BACK" some of the funds that are stripped from you.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

so it would be correct in saying that this is kinda like rand pauls argument of the civil rights act? sort of same principal right? if so, then i understand....

Indeed. I would caveat by understanding the frustration with "private" hands feeding at the trough of the State, then expecting to have all the same ownership rights that completely private entails. It is an ugly situation, but like I said above, I think it is dangerous to let the Government tell employeers who even take 1$ of State money who to hire, how to run the business, etc. since it always does lead to the Government telling totally private enterprises who to hire, etc. It's a horrible situation either way.

[Krugerrand]

Once you give the Government the power to mandate to property owners who they can hire and who they can't, it will affect more than your tiny immediate issue. If you believe the Government can mandate against any and all forms of discrimination, well, you have just opened up a can of worms you will regret (Unless you are also of course -- in favor of making businesses hire 50/50 Women/Men, even ratio of minorities (Affirmative Action, etc.), disabled for jobs that are difficult for them in the first place, etc.). Moreover, you have just sanctioned off and saying to the Government you have full power over all property. Nothing is safe once you unleash the beast.

Not to mention if a certain property owner wishes to not associate or hire a smoker, and you force them to, how is that liberty? Seems to me like an act of violence and aggression (Best know that if they don't comply a squadron of heavily armed State-agents will bust down and take their property from them).

With all that said, I understand and completely agree with the position that this isn't nearly black and white in situations involving heavy subsidies, and other State-ameliorated gifts to 'private' hands. However, my view is that I err on the nominally private side deciding how to use that property (reason being it is easily then used to start foisting mandates on fully private property owners) instead of fully nationalizing it. It's a mucky situation.

I generally agree with this.

Around our parts, many of the health care groups are unionized. These are the organizations that should fight this to the brutal end.

I believe it was Penn State that tried to make the campus smoke free. (My recollection is that) the unions put an end to that.

[silentshout]

Corporate tyranny is just as bad as governmental tyranny, in my view. I agree with you, op, but i just don't know what the solution is. I don't think it's the government's job to step in. I still don't like it. What you do outside of work hours is none of their business.

[Cinderella]

I have a friend who works at the Cleveland Clinic and they have had this same rule in effect. As an employee she was not part of the rule..only new hires. so we are talking online and this is what she said:
"I dont like this rule but what can I do. The CEO also has banned trans-fat from the cafeteria. He got Taco Bell removed from the hospital but could not get rid of McDonalds. They fought back. Now they are offering free Curves or use of the fitness area and free weight watchers or a consultation with a dietition..can you see where this is going??? "

i dont know what the solution is....i just enjoy a good discussion and different points of view..

[Krugerrand]

Corporate tyranny is just as bad as governmental tyranny, in my view. I agree with you, op, but i just don't know what the solution is. I don't think it's the government's job to step in. I still don't like it. What you do outside of work hours is none of their business.

In our parts, all of the health care is being consolidated into one/two companies. People don't even have much in the way options to "protest" by going to the competition.

It's sad that unions don't fight this fight.