They Can Kiss My Butt

Or the many butts I have created.  I am not trying to justify smoking, a particularly nasty habit, BUT it is not illegal.  Hiring and firing people based on behaviors not performed at the workplace and are not illegal is traveling down quite a slippery slope.

Butt Out

More after the jump

The company says it's acting for the good of its workers and to lower health care costs. But refusing to hire smokers, or firing them for lighting up in the privacy of their homes, crosses a line between promoting health and meddling in people's lives. If companies can dictate whether employees can smoke, why not dictate what they can eat, or bar them from sky diving? Obesity affects health costs. Dangerous activities do, too.

Much as you might abhor smoking, can you see a justification for disallowing people from engaging in perfectly legal activities away from work which does not affect their work performance?

In a rebuttal from the company own in question he says:

Not a Civil Right

Employment is not a right, either. Businesses can hire whomever they wish based on desirable skills and characteristics, so long as the selection factors are lawful.

Nor is health insurance a right, but it's darned expensive. Businesses generally need not provide it, and many don't, thanks to years of double-digit cost increases - and a big reason for those is self-destructive behavior by a small percentage of employees.

This starts to sound like businesses are going to be able to not hire you for pre-existing medical conditions because "gosh darn, but medical is expensive and it isn't a right you know."

Maybe we will not hire fat people due to the increased risk, or maybe older people since they get sick more.  Bah, this sort of thing makes me so angry!