|
Author
|
Topic: Smoking tests
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 28 January 2005 08:54 AM
I think some kind of a precedent was set, thank goodness not in Canada, otherwise we'd see the kind of evolving situations that Catje alludes to. I'd be interested in seeing any follow-ups to the action of the Michigan company in firing smoking employees - will there be counter-actions such as a court case, and on what grounds? It's a worrisome precedent, I think, and open to all kinds of comparative corporate actions. I thoroughly despise smoking, but I prefer to have draconian measures aimed at *prevention*, such as removing cigarettes from view in stores so folks won't be tempted (especially children), high taxation (with subsequent taxes to be channelled into health care) to discourage folks from wasting their hard earned money, and a complete ban on advertising. But that other extreme - forcing smokers to give up their habit or be removed from employment - that is just too way out there for me. If smoking, then why not all the scenarios that Catje listed? My thoughts on a very cold morning here, and before I've had my second cup of coffee.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 28 January 2005 09:00 AM
Exactly. Quite apart from the smoking, people are being encouraged to believe, by public campaigns that are partly science-based, that about half of our illnesses are "lifestyle" influenced. Now, that is probably true, if we recognize that "lifestyle" includes many environmental factors over which most people have no control -- filthy air, for instance, or high levels of workplace stress. Beyond that, it doesn't mean a whole lot to say that every health problem that isn't genetic must be ... well, something else, eh? ... which is basically all that these "wellness" campaigners are saying. I can't think that these tests and regulations would be legal in Canada. I'm pretty sure that what employees do in their private lives is off limits to investigation by their employers, yes/no?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
|
posted 28 January 2005 09:09 AM
There's been little enough of such things imposed as to not have any real precedents. In 2002, the Canadian Human Rights Commission issued a statement that random drug testing is not permissible except for safety-sensitive employees. Since there's no evidence that smoking impairs your thinking or physical abilities so as to endanger someone else, I doubt it would stand up. In the mid-90s, when I worked in the call centre at the Canadian subsidiary of an American firm, my boss told me that at the American call centre, all new hires were subject to drug testing. [ 28 January 2005: Message edited by: RealityBites ]
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
