Smoke = Unemployed
One company in Ohio, who has stores in a lot of states, has told it's employees that if they smoke, they will be fired. Now I completely support a company's right to hire they people they want -- MUCH more than they have the freedom today.
For example, non-discrimination laws and equal protection laws should only apply to government, NOT to private companies. Many people will support this company because they don't like smoking. What I really wonder about is where this could lead. If the company can not hire or fire someone because their smoking makes their health insurance more expensive, who else can they fire or hire based on medical conditions? Can they fire gays because they have a higher degree of health risk? What about single people? Can they fire pregnant people because they are more expensive? Me, I'm for the free market. If it's your business, you hire and fire any damn person you please, and I don't really care why. But then, that's me.
Comments
1
Oddly enough, Ogre, you'r post title is true in TWO ways. First, the one you wrote about, and the second Smoke (me, Smokey) = (is) unemployed!
Posted by: Smokey at December 12, 2005 03:36 AM (K7uqT)
2
Ah, the double-entendre...works every time 
Posted by: Ogre at December 12, 2005 10:32 AM (uSCkp)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0058 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0048 seconds, 10 records returned.
Page size 4 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.