How does it cross the line? Employers dictate all sorts of things. An employer I used to have banned all employees from using facebook and other social media. (mainly because we're a research firm that likes to remain anonymous and those things threaten that) If the restriction is germane to the business, then its perfectly fine. Having smokers at a hospital is bad for business and creates a negative perception of Baylor in their eyes. Also it costs them extra money in the form of insurance and other liabilities. That's their right as an employer. If they determine your activities are detrimental to business then they have every right to not hire you if you do said activities. I'm sure a church wouldn't hire someone to be say a receptionist if they found out he or she was moonlighting as a p*rn star. You have every right to smoke and Baylor has every right to say we don't want to hire you because you smoke. Smoking is a choice whereas race or gender isn't and consequently those are protected.
I think UH is considering banning cigarettes, too. I think it's a great idea. At the very least, they should have smoke-free areas.
I don't understand why this is a bad thing. Do dumb things with your body, pay more to insure it. Have a healthy body, pay less. The caveat is they need to be voluntary things (cigarettes, liquor, non-genetic obesity). Some ages ago before the Health Care Bill was passed, I posted a story about Safeway stores, who have a very similar insurance model. The costs were down, and the employees were healthier. Win-win. EDIT: Here's the link.
Oh I know that employers try and dictate all kinds of legal non-work activities. Your facebook example is also bs. We all (non-wealthy heirs) have to work. I, for one, don't want to have my private life dictated by my need to make a living.
When those states Attorneys General took that massive tobacco settlement in the late nineties I wonder if on some level it precluded them or their legislatures from trying to curtail employment practices like this. And yes, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the obese will be the next target; as my supportive father tried to tell me right after college.
Wait. so if you worked there. . . If you used facebook when you went home. . .you were fired??? Rocket River
Agreed. What is next? You don't jog enough? How about you can't work here because you are an ocd manager type who causes the high blood pressure of their underlings to go up? Oh, that is ok because the company makes more profit? It is all about corporations trying to make more money. Supporters of this have been had by corporate propaganda. How about arresting employees for "time theft"? They screw around reading clutchfans 20 minutes a day outside of allowed breaks. 20 minutes times $15/hr times 300 days equals a felony indictment.
Let's eliminate all welfare, unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, public housing etc. Lets encourage all private and the few remaining government employers to not hire anyone who smokes, is obese, doens't jog or floss enough, abuses caffeine or alcohol (one red wine per day is ok as it makes you healthier according to the latest study) etc. Let's also expand the private prison industry and strictly enforce theft laws, failure to have auto insurance, imprisonment for failure to pay child support etc. Hey Corrections Corporations of America will skyrocket. Buy it. Those who can still work will find it easier to get good household help. A sort of perverse liberatarian/conservative nirvana. Usually if it is a conflict between individual liberties vs corporate power you know who wins.
Since this all about health. Do those who support this( BTW I HAVE NEVER SMOKED.) Also support laws that state all employers should have to provide four weeks paid vacation, since studies show this promotes health. How about all corporations need to have only healthy food in their cafeterias? Corporations that produce food or have restaurants can't promote profits with corn syrup or excess sugar, fats or salt since they are very unhealthful?
The NBA contracts specifically bars players from non-NBA related basketball games, like pick up games, or riding mopeds or skiing (think Monta Ellis and Vladimir Radmonovich). But I don't see people complaining about that company regulation of non-working related activites.
Here's a case a catholic school won for firing a teacher fior publically declaring a pro-choice position: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n..._catholic_school_to_fire_proabortion_teacher/ Another one where a school fired a teacher for pre-marital sex, but I don't know how it was settled and there's dispute as to the real reason for the firing anyway, so it might not be relevant: http://histfiltowncc.org/2011/06/06...om-catholic-school-for-having-premarital-sex/ Maybe having the abortion would yield a different result, but I think the evidence leans toward the courts looking favorably on companies in these cases. I don't think it's really about health, but about material interests. But, yes, I support all those things too. Especially 4 weeks of vacation. But, I'm changing my tune a bit from yesterday. The hospital has 2 incentives -- creating a healthful environment and lowering their insurance costs. The first one is legitimate, but can be achieved with measures short of outright bans on smokers. You can ban employees from smoking while on duty, on the premises or in uniform (my wife's private school told them to not get into off-campus trouble while wearing the school uniform, lol), and from smelling like smoke. That would achieve the healthful environment and protect the brand's reputation, but employees would still be able to smoke at home. The second concern is also legitimate but can also be achieved without a ban by enforcing a financial incentive like they've done with existing employees: smokers get to pay an amount extra for their health insurance to cover the negative externalities of their habit (which I guess they've calculated to be $650/year). Altogether, they've made a strong disincentive for smoking since a worker wouldn't be allowed to smoke for most of the day and would have to pay a lot extra in insurance for a habit they can only engage in for a small fraction of the day. Meanwhile, the hospital doesn't ban smokers but protects it's reputation as a healthful place and is cost-neutral for employing smokers.
