Re: Who needs a job anyway? Oh, yeah, in order to buy the cancer sticks.
Bruce Watson
Jerry Okamura <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>"Bruce Watson" <anon...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote in message
>news:12589998...@irys.nyx.net...
>>>>
>>>> Nicotine use is not a habit. It's an addiction.
>>>
>>>Which is relevant to getting a job how?
>>
>> Nicotine comes first on the smokers' shopping list.
>
>Which is relevant to getting a job how?
If the prospective employer requires you quit smoking to get
the job and you don't quit, you don't get the job.
Duh.
Jerry Okamura
Bruce Watson
Jerry Okamura <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Bruce Watson" <anon...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote in message
>news:12590928...@irys.nyx.net...
>> In article <8EWOm.32148$cd7....@newsfe04.iad>,
>> Jerry Okamura <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>"Bruce Watson" <anon...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote in message
>>>news:12589998...@irys.nyx.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nicotine use is not a habit. It's an addiction.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is relevant to getting a job how?
>>>>
>>>> Nicotine comes first on the smokers' shopping list.
>>>
>>>Which is relevant to getting a job how?
>>
>> If the prospective employer requires you quit smoking to get
>> the job and you don't quit, you don't get the job.
>>
>But the question should be, should we allow ANY employer, to do that?
Some states don't.
Others do.
If you're a smoker and live in a state that does, you either
quit or move--whichever is easiest.
If you're not a smoker, you don't have a problem.
If you're a nonsmoker or a mover, you don't care of ANY employer can do it.
If you're a nonmoving smoker, you got bigger problems than that.
Bruce Watson
Miss Elaine Eos <misc@*Your-pants*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
>The thing we DON'T want to happen is for the government to enshrine
>discrimination. Of any kind. Including against smokers.
And you would make that happen how?
Tom S.
>
> "Bruce Watson" <anon...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote in message
> news:12590928...@irys.nyx.net...
>> In article <8EWOm.32148$cd7....@newsfe04.iad>,
>> Jerry Okamura <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>> "Bruce Watson" <anon...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote in message
>>> news:12589998...@irys.nyx.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nicotine use is not a habit. It's an addiction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is relevant to getting a job how?
>>>>
>>>> Nicotine comes first on the smokers' shopping list.
>>>
>>> Which is relevant to getting a job how?
>>
>> If the prospective employer requires you quit smoking to get
>> the job and you don't quit, you don't get the job.
>>
> But the question should be, should we allow ANY employer, to do that?
of how stupid.
Mickey
>
>"Bruce Watson" <anon...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote in message
>news:12590928...@irys.nyx.net...
>> In article <8EWOm.32148$cd7....@newsfe04.iad>,
>> Jerry Okamura <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>"Bruce Watson" <anon...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote in message
>>>news:12589998...@irys.nyx.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nicotine use is not a habit. It's an addiction.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is relevant to getting a job how?
>>>>
>>>> Nicotine comes first on the smokers' shopping list.
>>>
>>>Which is relevant to getting a job how?
>>
>> If the prospective employer requires you quit smoking to get
>> the job and you don't quit, you don't get the job.
>>
>But the question should be, should we allow ANY employer, to do that?
Of course. It's the employer's job, to fill with the person he
chooses.
BTW, you're wasting electrons trying to have a rational discussion
with Watson. He is irrational, blinded by his hatred of smokers. He is
a troll, in the purest definition. Replying to him frequently gets
people killfiled.
Tom S.
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:But the question should be, should we allow ANY employer, to do that?Of course. It's the employer's job, to fill with the person he chooses. BTW, you're wasting electrons trying to have a rational discussion with Watson. He is irrational, blinded by his hatred of smokers. He is a troll, in the purest definition. Replying to him frequently gets people killfiled.
Jerry Okamura
"Tom S." <tms...@cox.com> wrote in message
news:KNadnVljJMMvRpDW...@giganews.com...
Like not hiring blacks?
Jerry Okamura
"Mickey" <Mic...@NOSPAMFatHounds.com> wrote in message
news:vumrg5p9oabjglqk5...@4ax.com...
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bruce Watson" <anon...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote in message
>>news:12590928...@irys.nyx.net...
>>> In article <8EWOm.32148$cd7....@newsfe04.iad>,
>>> Jerry Okamura <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>"Bruce Watson" <anon...@nyx.nyx.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:12589998...@irys.nyx.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nicotine use is not a habit. It's an addiction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Which is relevant to getting a job how?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nicotine comes first on the smokers' shopping list.
>>>>
>>>>Which is relevant to getting a job how?
>>>
>>> If the prospective employer requires you quit smoking to get
>>> the job and you don't quit, you don't get the job.
>>>
>>But the question should be, should we allow ANY employer, to do that?
>
> Of course. It's the employer's job, to fill with the person he
> chooses.
>
job, they should be free to not hire any black person?
Mickey
If that's their choice, then yes. Electing NOT to hire someone simply
because they're black is as ignorant and wrongheaded as, say, electing
someone simply because they're black.
Wrong either way.
Mickey
Yes. If they think a fat person is incapable of doing the job, ditto.
Tom S.
Tom S.
How about one with poor hygiene?
Alex W
> "Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>So, "if" the employer thinks that black people are incapable of doing the
>>job, they should be free to not hire any black person?
>
> Yes. If they think a fat person is incapable of doing the job, ditto.
-ish. "If they think" is not good enough. "If they can
demonstrate good cause to think" is a higher standard and
one we should enforce. It would force them o find and
present arguments and reasons for their hiring practices
rahter than express personal bias, prejudices or plain
ignorance.
Tom S.
Ain't none of your business or anyone else's.
Manuel
wrote:
Of course, the employer can decide what are the requirements for the
job. But he can't refuse a smoker as candidate, because it would be
discrimination and intolerance.
All he can do is require that you don't smoke at work, but not that
you change your habits.
I think this to be acceptable by anyone, it's very logic.
--
http://NewOnlineShopping.net Read the article about the Star Wars Jersey!
http://TechGamesBlog.com USB Gadgets, Music, a Magic Wand and... Star Wars.
Jerry Okamura
"Mickey" <Mic...@NOSPAMFatHounds.com> wrote in message
It may be wrong, but the simple fact is that government tells you it is not
okay not to hire blacks, but it is okay for an employer not to hire someone
who smokes.
Jerry Okamura
The government has not stuck their noses into either one of
these.....yet......
Jerry Okamura
"Mickey" <Mic...@NOSPAMFatHounds.com> wrote in message
Then all that has to happen is to change the law that requires employers to
hire blacks, and any number of "protected" classes?
Norm
"Jerry Okamura" <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dQTPm.6635$Lq5....@newsfe20.iad...
>>>>>>>>>> Nicotine use is not a habit. It's an addiction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is relevant to getting a job how?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nicotine comes first on the smokers' shopping list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is relevant to getting a job how?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the prospective employer requires you quit smoking to get
>>>>>> the job and you don't quit, you don't get the job.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But the question should be, should we allow ANY employer, to do that?
>>>> It's their company, they can put any requirements they want, regardless
>>>> of
>>>> how stupid.
>>>
>>>Like not hiring blacks?
>>
>> If that's their choice, then yes. Electing NOT to hire someone simply
>> because they're black is as ignorant and wrongheaded as, say, electing
>> someone simply because they're black.
>>
>> Wrong either way.
>
> It may be wrong, but the simple fact is that government tells you it is
> not okay not to hire blacks, but it is okay for an employer not to hire
> someone who smokes.
Thats because there is no demonstratable reason why skin colour could
preclude you from accomplishing anything any other person could, but there
are many reasons why an employer might get less than fair value from a
person who smokes. therefore it is not discrimination, its a valid business
decision.
>
Richard Evans
>>
>> It may be wrong, but the simple fact is that government tells you it is
>> not okay not to hire blacks, but it is okay for an employer not to hire
>> someone who smokes.
>
>Thats because there is no demonstratable reason why skin colour could
>preclude you from accomplishing anything any other person could, but there
>are many reasons why an employer might get less than fair value from a
>person who smokes. therefore it is not discrimination, its a valid business
>decision.
Care to cite a couple of those "many reasons?" Please be sure that
they are reasons that apply exclusively to smokers and not any of a
number of groups in the general population, such as women who might
get pregnant, people with chronic diseases like diabetes, people who
are overweight, etc.
I'm retired now, but when I was working I lost more days to
recuperating from motorcycle accidents than from anything smoking
related. Should employers exclude potential employees with dangerous
hobbies such as motorcycling, sky diving, bungee jumping, etc?
Mickey
There should be no protected classes. People should not be viewed as
members of this class or that class, they should be viewed as
individuals.
I don't care if you're a one-eyed deaf mute Eskimo lesbian with
Tourette's Syndrome and OCD, if you're the best person for my job,
you're hired. If not, it's not because of any of your qualities beyond
your ability to do the job.
Yes, it really is just that simple.
Bruce Watson
Richard Evans <inf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>I lost more days to recuperating from motorcycle accidents
>than from anything smoking related.
You should get professional help for your suicidal tendencies.
MLF
>> I lost more days to recuperating from motorcycle accidents
>> than from anything smoking related.
>
> You should get professional help for your suicidal tendencies.
No, he just needs to learn to ride just a little better. Motorcyclists
IMO are the most cautious and skilled drivers on the road. They have
to be. I started buying, fixing up, and riding motorcycles when I was
13 - long before I was legal. I quickly learned that if you aren't a
competent driver you'll soon become a competent stiff.
Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA ferm...@REMOVEsprynet.com
========================================================
Jerry Okamura
"Norm" <normgr...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:a9UPm.53590$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
been valuable to the people who hired me, by continuing to tell me I was
doing a great job (I never had anyone tell me I was doing a lousy job) and
continuing to give me raises. Besides, how do you know if someone is going
to be lousy at the job or great at the job, if you don't give them a chnace
to do the job?
Jerry Okamura
"Mickey" <Mic...@NOSPAMFatHounds.com> wrote in message
I would agree with that, but that is not about to happen is it?
Alex W.
That's the theory, Mickey.
Now let's look at reality ... where Human Resources doesn't
necessarily look for the best person for the job, and where a
particular corporate image or culture shows itself in
discriminatory hiring practice. As long as the labour pool is
large enough, any negative effect from not hiring the best person
but simply someone who is "good enough" but has the right
religion, skin tone or the right shape urinary tract will be
negligible.
Most of those hanging out in asc -- and for that matter, most
cigar smokers in general -- happen to be highly skilled, white,
male and quite often self-employed. As such, I am not sure we
have enough experience with this sort of thing to accurately
judge such discrimination. But how about another, similar type:
age. How hard is it to compete with young morons with
qualifications so recent the ink on their degree is still damp?
How does it feel to be told that you're not suitable for the
position despite good CV, good experience and a willingness to
compromise on salary because you're the wrong side of 50?
Mickey
That's the way it has been at any time I've been involved in the
hiring practice. I can't control what others might do, all I can do is
stick to my own principles when I have the chance.
>Now let's look at reality ... where Human Resources doesn't
>necessarily look for the best person for the job, and where a
>particular corporate image or culture shows itself in
>discriminatory hiring practice. As long as the labour pool is
>large enough, any negative effect from not hiring the best person
>but simply someone who is "good enough" but has the right
>religion, skin tone or the right shape urinary tract will be
>negligible.
>
>Most of those hanging out in asc -- and for that matter, most
>cigar smokers in general -- happen to be highly skilled, white,
>male and quite often self-employed. As such, I am not sure we
>have enough experience with this sort of thing to accurately
>judge such discrimination. But how about another, similar type:
>age. How hard is it to compete with young morons with
>qualifications so recent the ink on their degree is still damp?
>How does it feel to be told that you're not suitable for the
>position despite good CV, good experience and a willingness to
>compromise on salary because you're the wrong side of 50?
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. It sucks, but you won't hear
me whining about it, and demanding recompense.
Not only did I not sue, I wound up testifying FOR the company that
fired me, because it was the right thing to do. It was difficult, but
I stuck to the facts, and I sleep better knowing I did what was right.
Norm
You don't know. But you do know that smokers, on average, are more likely to
have poor health and take more time off work. Not only that but they wear
the evidence of at least one bad decision.
Alex W.
That's fine and commendable.
But is it not true that such an attitude is far from universal?
That companies still hire with one eye on race, sex, creed, age
or disability?
>
>
>>Now let's look at reality ... where Human Resources doesn't
>>necessarily look for the best person for the job, and where a
>>particular corporate image or culture shows itself in
>>discriminatory hiring practice. As long as the labour pool is
>>large enough, any negative effect from not hiring the best person
>>but simply someone who is "good enough" but has the right
>>religion, skin tone or the right shape urinary tract will be
>>negligible.
>>
>>Most of those hanging out in asc -- and for that matter, most
>>cigar smokers in general -- happen to be highly skilled, white,
>>male and quite often self-employed. As such, I am not sure we
>>have enough experience with this sort of thing to accurately
>>judge such discrimination. But how about another, similar type:
>>age. How hard is it to compete with young morons with
>>qualifications so recent the ink on their degree is still damp?
>>How does it feel to be told that you're not suitable for the
>>position despite good CV, good experience and a willingness to
>>compromise on salary because you're the wrong side of 50?
>
> Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. It sucks, but you won't hear
> me whining about it, and demanding recompense.
I don't think anyone is whining for recompense.
A fair go is all, the right to be treated the same and to be
judged by qualifications rather than other considerations.
Alex W.
OTOH, smoking does not impair job performance itself, unlike
alcohol, obesity or drugs (both illegal and medical). I have yet
to see jobs denied because the employee or applicant has
hayfever.
Also into the calculation must go the lesser drain on pensions.
Company pension schemes are troublesome at the best of times, so
just imagine what it would do to the balance sheet if a quarter
of retired employees live and draw pensions for seven years
longer....
Mickey
It's true that it's far from universal, but, again, it's their choice.
The job they have belongs to them. They should be allowed to fill it
with whomever they choose.
Alex W.
Property rights -- if one wants to extend it to this issue -- are
not absolute. We accept limitations. For instance, we do not
tolerate people mistreating their animals even though they are
property under the law. We restrict the rights of children and
the confused of mind to make decisions regarding their property.
So there is precedent for also placing conditions on how and who
you hire.
This does not mean, though, that one can stray in the other
direction and mandate who has to be hired. To ensure that
employment is determined by ability is one thing, but to dictate
quotas is quite another.
Jerry Okamura
children? Who is more likely to do badly on the job, a smoker or an
alcoholic, or a drug addict?
Tom S.
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:25:53 -0600, Mickey wrote:don't care if you're a one-eyed deaf mute Eskimo lesbian with Tourette's Syndrome and OCD, if you're the best person for my job, you're hired. If not, it's not because of any of your qualities beyond your ability to do the job. Yes, it really is just that simple.That's the theory, Mickey.That's the way it has been at any time I've been involved in the hiring practice. I can't control what others might do, all I can do is stick to my own principles when I have the chance.That's fine and commendable. But is it not true that such an attitude is far from universal? That companies still hire with one eye on race, sex, creed, age or disability?It's true that it's far from universal, but, again, it's their choice. The job they have belongs to them. They should be allowed to fill it with whomever they choose.
If their ownership is merely a chimera, ala fascism, then ...
btorvik2
>
> It may be wrong, but the simple fact is that government tells you it
> is not okay not to hire blacks, but it is okay for an employer not to
> hire someone who smokes.
What about a black person who smokes?
bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
Jim Beard
> Jerry Okamura wrote:
>
>> It may be wrong, but the simple fact is that government tells you it
>> is not okay not to hire blacks, but it is okay for an employer not to
>> hire someone who smokes.
>
> What about a black person who smokes?
On the subject of discrimination and color, circa 1965 the Anchor
Inn in Monterey California was owned and operated by a
rock-ribbed Republican, doubled and redoubled in spades.
The Anchor Inn was a drinking establishment, a bar to put it
plainly, which had a jazz combo that provided background music in
the evening except for Friday and Saturday, when a stage show of
one group or another of travestites held the stage.
I have heard the owner declare that the idea of discrimination in
the United States was nonsense, rubbish from those unwilling or
unable to measure up to proper standards and intent on getting
from others what they have not earned and do not deserve.
To illustrate, he would cite himself: He was black as coal, he
was flagrantly homosexual, and he was in the entertainment
business, the most cut-throat business he knew of. He was
honest, intelligent, and willing to work, and he made a very good
living, despite the "discrimination" that others might claim
imbued American society.
He could find none of it. All he could find were complainers not
willing to accept responsibility and earn what they wanted, be it
money or respect or whatever.
Cheers!
jim b.
--
UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
expects users to be computer-friendly.