Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

[Edi]

Of course, there is the part about activities that directly harm the company involved in the white supremacist case, which is an immediate objective reason for firing him.

Edi

Not necessarily; that's the point. The company should not have to PROVE that it was harmed by the employee's bad attitude. The fact that he had an attitude totally contrary to the policies of the company should be enough.

True, enough. The objectively demonstratable harm (provided some news agency finds out about the racist and publishes it, costing the company business, which is bound to happen) is just the icing on the cake in the donkey-fucker's case.

Edi

[jcow79]

But when you've already hired a smoker, and he's been doing his job, living up to your expectations, firing him on the spot when you find out he lights up at home is just silly. You've already got data on his productivity, and you were apparently satisfied with it up until the point where you found out that he engages in the heinous crime of having a cigarette on his own time.

These people were not fired on the spot. C'mon, I know you've read the article. This hasn't happened and even if this case creates a precedent for it let's stick to the facts.
This company offered these people a lifeline to not only save their jobs but likely their lives. Some of the smokers took them up on it. The ones that didn't pretty much have said "Fuck you and your job, I'd rather smoke" Which side is truly being the bigger moron here?

[Durandal]

And then I changed my mind about what I consider to be part of the job requirement. Your entire argument seems to be based on the notion that employers should never be allowed to change their expectations. I'd love to try and sell that bullshit to the people in design jobs who are suddenly told that they have to get done in 6 weeks what they used to do in 12 or they will be relabeled "incompetent" even though 12 weeks was just fine before.

Oh please. You firing people for smoking is not a matter of job competence; it's a matter of your disdain for their personal habits. These people do not do physically exhausting work, and they do not run the risk of giving the company a "bad image." The fact that they smoke on their own time has zero effect on their job competence.

You may want to arbitrarily set "not a smoker" as a job requirement, and you're perfectly allowed to, but that doesn't mean that it's one that has bearing on employee competency. It's like an employer not hiring a kid who has his ears pierced because said employer doesn't like it.

[jcow79]

Oh please. You firing people for smoking is not a matter of job competence; it's a matter of your disdain for their personal habits. These people do not do physically exhausting work, and they do not run the risk of giving the company a "bad image." The fact that they smoke on their own time has zero effect on their job competence.

I'm still trying to figure out who the hell you're debating. You've quoted several people but not really addressed anyone's argument.

You may want to arbitrarily set "not a smoker" as a job requirement, and you're perfectly allowed to, but that doesn't mean that it's one that has bearing on employee competency. It's like an employer not hiring a kid who has his ears pierced because said employer doesn't like it.

Despite rationality this is quite common.

[Justforfun000]

I'm still trying to figure out who the hell you're debating. You've quoted several people but not really addressed anyone's argument.

Ummmm, at the moment I believe Lord Wong. I think the rest of us conceded to some degree.

I'm glad. I don't want to be in the middle of the battle of the Titans.

[jcow79]

I'm still trying to figure out who the hell you're debating. You've quoted several people but not really addressed anyone's argument.

Ummmm, at the moment I believe Lord Wong. I think the rest of us conceded to some degree.

I'm glad. I don't want to be in the middle of the battle of the Titans.

Yes, but that wasn't even what Wong argued.

[Alyeska]

Just to show you how absurd some companies with the employe at will policy can become. I've heard of a company that fired employees for downhill skiing.

[Rye]

The company could've sacked all the people who were married or who had kids for some fucked up reason like not having work as their main priority isn't something you want in a workforce. It's not a "right" to have kids, and you'll be able to make tons of savings on health insurance that doesn't have kids in it, or spouses or whatever, not to mention paternal/maternal sick pay.

Of course, that would be downright douchey, just as this is.

[jcow79]

Just to show you how absurd some companies with the employe at will policy can become. I've heard of a company that fired employees for downhill skiing.

LoL. I'd be screwed.

[Darth Wong]

And then I changed my mind about what I consider to be part of the job requirement. Your entire argument seems to be based on the notion that employers should never be allowed to change their expectations. I'd love to try and sell that bullshit to the people in design jobs who are suddenly told that they have to get done in 6 weeks what they used to do in 12 or they will be relabeled "incompetent" even though 12 weeks was just fine before.

Oh please. You firing people for smoking is not a matter of job competence; it's a matter of your disdain for their personal habits.

No, it's a matter of getting rid of somebody who obviously disagrees with the policies the company is supposed to promote.

These people do not do physically exhausting work, and they do not run the risk of giving the company a "bad image." The fact that they smoke on their own time has zero effect on their job competence.

According to you. According to the person who runs the company, anybody who is too stupid to accept the magnitude of the risk of smoking obviously doesn't get it. You can fire people for being morons, dumb-ass. It happens all the time. You can also fire people for "not being team players", having an "attitude that is not conducive to the team environment", and a host of other things that basically mean "gets up in management's face". That's the real world after university, kiddo. Get used to it.

You may want to arbitrarily set "not a smoker" as a job requirement, and you're perfectly allowed to, but that doesn't mean that it's one that has bearing on employee competency. It's like an employer not hiring a kid who has his ears pierced because said employer doesn't like it.

It doesn't need to have a bearing on your outsider judgement of employee competency! The company proudly advertises that it promotes healthy lifestyles and all of its employees practise what they preach. Obviously, by doing this, they have made their employees' smoking habits part of their job criteria. The fact that you don't think they should have done this means precisely jack shit.

The people who refused to even try quitting their drug habit are morons who obviously disagree with the very health claims that they are being paid to promote.

PS. I'm forced to wonder what your idea of a job is. Do you think it's some kind of entitlement?

[Darth Wong]

The company could've sacked all the people who were married or who had kids for some fucked up reason like not having work as their main priority isn't something you want in a workforce. It's not a "right" to have kids, and you'll be able to make tons of savings on health insurance that doesn't have kids in it, or spouses or whatever, not to mention paternal/maternal sick pay.

Actually, lots of companies prefer single employees, and will quietly push an employee out of the limelight if he won't put in the murderous 80 hour workweeks that a single guy will. Oh boo hoo, I guess this is yet another thing for the "corporations can't fire people for anything but what I deem acceptable competency criteria" bullshit peddlers to complain about.

Of course, that would be downright douchey, just as this is.

Not really; they're just trying to get good value for money. That's why people with kids should ideally try to make sure they give better value for money than the single people do.

What the fuck do you people think a job is? A charity project? A right? A handout? A government program? A job is YOU selling a PRODUCT (your services) to a PRIVATE COMPANY. They don't HAVE to buy your product if it turns out that you don't even really believe in it, which is obviously the case for some guy promoting healthy lifestyles who refuses to even enroll in a "quit smoking" program. And as for your other example, they don't HAVE to pay money to get lesser value.

[The Third Man]

What the fuck do you people think a job is? A charity project? A right? A handout? A government program? A job is YOU selling a PRODUCT (your services) to a PRIVATE COMPANY. They don't HAVE to buy your product if it turns out that you don't even really believe in it,

Depending on your locale, this is a transaction subject to contract, so in some cases there are indeed grounds for the employer being forced to continue to buy the service as per the terms of the original contract. I've never heard of this US concept of at-will employment before, and it's quite an eye-opener for me as it seems that there is effectively no contract at all. In the UK, OTOH, there must be a contract, and there are limits on how the employer may change that contract at renewal; the case in point would certainly be contestable under UK employment law and provide lots of fun for m'learned friends. Out of interest, what is the situation in Canada as regards contracts of employment?

[Edi]

Depending on your locale, this is a transaction subject to contract, so in some cases there are indeed grounds for the employer being forced to continue to buy the service as per the terms of the original contract. I've never heard of this US concept of at-will employment before, and it's quite an eye-opener for me as it seems that there is effectively no contract at all. In the UK, OTOH, there must be a contract, and there are limits on how the employer may change that contract at renewal; the case in point would certainly be contestable under UK employment law and provide lots of fun for m'learned friends. Out of interest, what is the situation in Canada as regards contracts of employment?

That's the case here as well, and probably why some of the misunderstandings in this thread cropped up. If the OP case had happened here, the company would have been summarily slapped down, fined extensively and ordered to pay damages in addition to being forced to rehire the people.

I would NOT want to work in an environment where there are no protections and the employee is subject to any whim the employer might get into his head, and it seems like a lot of the US is that way.

Edi

[jcow79]

What the fuck do you people think a job is? A charity project? A right? A handout? A government program? A job is YOU selling a PRODUCT (your services) to a PRIVATE COMPANY. They don't HAVE to buy your product if it turns out that you don't even really believe in it,

Depending on your locale, this is a transaction subject to contract, so in some cases there are indeed grounds for the employer being forced to continue to buy the service as per the terms of the original contract. I've never heard of this US concept of at-will employment before, and it's quite an eye-opener for me as it seems that there is effectively no contract at all. In the UK, OTOH, there must be a contract, and there are limits on how the employer may change that contract at renewal; the case in point would certainly be contestable under UK employment law and provide lots of fun for m'learned friends. Out of interest, what is the situation in Canada as regards contracts of employment?

This is a good point. Even in at-will states contractual obligation can supercede the right of the employer to fire for any reason if the language of the contract specifies it. Sometimes something even as simple as an employee handbook can be grounds for an "implied contract" So for instance if said handbook says you will only be fired for reasons X, Y and Z if you are fired for any other reason then you sometimes have a case.
However, most companies in these states understand these potential pitfalls and have their lawyers proof read their employee literature carefully. And like I've mentioned earlier, any corporate environment is going to have you sign something that states the employer has the right to terminate your employment for any reason at any time without prior notification. Not because it's necessary, but just in case.

[Crown]

And then I changed my mind about what I consider to be part of the job requirement. Your entire argument seems to be based on the notion that employers should never be allowed to change their expectations. I'd love to try and sell that bullshit to the people in design jobs who are suddenly told that they have to get done in 6 weeks what they used to do in 12 or they will be relabeled "incompetent" even though 12 weeks was just fine before.

Oh please. You firing people for smoking is not a matter of job competence; it's a matter of your disdain for their personal habits.

No, it's a matter of getting rid of somebody who obviously disagrees with the policies the company is supposed to promote.

That arguement I can agree with (still distastefull if their work performance isn't affected though), but not the 'self control' arguement you first posted (IIRC). I'm sorry but I couldn't agree with that reasoning.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This is a good point. Even in at-will states contractual obligation can supercede the right of the employer to fire for any reason if the language of the contract specifies it. Sometimes something even as simple as an employee handbook can be grounds for an "implied contract" So for instance if said handbook says you will only be fired for reasons X, Y and Z if you are fired for any other reason then you sometimes have a case.
However, most companies in these states understand these potential pitfalls and have their lawyers proof read their employee literature carefully. And like I've mentioned earlier, any corporate environment is going to have you sign something that states the employer has the right to terminate your employment for any reason at any time without prior notification. Not because it's necessary, but just in case.

Actually that's not the case all the time either. A mutual friend of ours was fired even though a certain company didn't fulfill the guidelines laid out in the employee handbook. He later tried to sue them, and it was struck down because of case law.

[Darth Wong]

What the fuck do you people think a job is? A charity project? A right? A handout? A government program? A job is YOU selling a PRODUCT (your services) to a PRIVATE COMPANY. They don't HAVE to buy your product if it turns out that you don't even really believe in it,

Depending on your locale, this is a transaction subject to contract, so in some cases there are indeed grounds for the employer being forced to continue to buy the service as per the terms of the original contract. I've never heard of this US concept of at-will employment before, and it's quite an eye-opener for me as it seems that there is effectively no contract at all. In the UK, OTOH, there must be a contract, and there are limits on how the employer may change that contract at renewal; the case in point would certainly be contestable under UK employment law and provide lots of fun for m'learned friends. Out of interest, what is the situation in Canada as regards contracts of employment?

That is a legal argument which is not relevant in the district where this case is taking place, not an ethical argument. Ethically, there is no reason why an employer should be forced to buy a product he's unhappy with.

[Darth Wong]

No, it's a matter of getting rid of somebody who obviously disagrees with the policies the company is supposed to promote.

That arguement I can agree with (still distastefull if their work performance isn't affected though), but not the 'self control' arguement you first posted (IIRC). I'm sorry but I couldn't agree with that reasoning.

Why not? We ditch drug addicts, don't we? And before someone pipes up with the "that's totally different because hard drugs are illegal" idiot retort, consider the fact that the legality or illegality of the substance has nothing to do with the employer's decision to fire the junkie employee in the first place, so this distinction is irrelevant to the analogy. Do you really think that employers who fire drug-addict employees are doing so in order to self-righteously uphold the law? They're doing it because they don't want a fucking junkie on staff. If it was speeding or some other illegal act which they didn't care about, they wouldn't fire the person.

[Crown]

Why not? We ditch drug addicts, don't we? And before someone pipes up with the "that's totally different because hard drugs are illegal" idiot retort, consider the fact that the legality or illegality of the substance has nothing to do with the employer's decision to fire the junkie employee in the first place, so this distinction is irrelevant to the analogy. Do you really think that employers who fire drug-addict employees are doing so in order to self-righteously uphold the law? They're doing it because they don't want a fucking junkie on staff. If it was speeding or some other illegal act which they didn't care about, they wouldn't fire the person.

Drug addiction, and smoking, generally don't produce the same quality of work, wouldn't you agree? If someone's brain is fried from drug use they will be measuribly different from someone who has a 'craving' during work hours, but who can control it by will power, or a nicotine patch/gum/whatever.

If the employer had a 'no smoking police during work' and they were adhering to it, then what's the bid deal? It's not as if smokers go on a psychodelic boat ride everytime they light up, lose control of their higher motor functions, or reasoning capabilities.

I don't find your analogy to be correct, and no not because of the legality issue.


Oh, and check the fanfic forum would ya!

[Darth Wong]

Why not? We ditch drug addicts, don't we? And before someone pipes up with the "that's totally different because hard drugs are illegal" idiot retort, consider the fact that the legality or illegality of the substance has nothing to do with the employer's decision to fire the junkie employee in the first place, so this distinction is irrelevant to the analogy. Do you really think that employers who fire drug-addict employees are doing so in order to self-righteously uphold the law? They're doing it because they don't want a fucking junkie on staff. If it was speeding or some other illegal act which they didn't care about, they wouldn't fire the person.

Drug addiction, and smoking, generally don't produce the same quality of work, wouldn't you agree? If someone's brain is fried from drug use they will be measuribly different from someone who has a 'craving' during work hours, but who can control it by will power, or a nicotine patch/gum/whatever.

Based on what evidence? You know that a lot of professionals do drugs and do a good job covering up their addiction at the workplace, don't you? As long as they're not doing it on the premises, how do you know that it will affect them? By your own logic, shouldn't the company wait until it has some evidence that their cravings are affecting their on-the-job performance before taking action?

If the employer had a 'no smoking police during work' and they were adhering to it, then what's the bid deal? It's not as if smokers go on a psychodelic boat ride everytime they light up, lose control of their higher motor functions, or reasoning capabilities.

So? By your logic, companies should never fire druggies as long as they don't snort or inject on the premises.

I don't find your analogy to be correct, and no not because of the legality issue.

Your distinction is the claim that all junkies are fried at work, which is simply false. There are many professionals who are addicted to drugs and who do a good job of covering up, not doing it in the office, etc.

[aerius]

You may want to arbitrarily set "not a smoker" as a job requirement, and you're perfectly allowed to, but that doesn't mean that it's one that has bearing on employee competency. It's like an employer not hiring a kid who has his ears pierced because said employer doesn't like it.

In the real world, companies have employee dress codes and grooming standards. If for example, I decided to grow a beard at my current job they can fire me. Same thing if I grow my hair too long. If I got more than 2 ear piercings they can fire me, if I wore anything other than a stud in those piercings, I'm gone. If a woman gets more than 2 piercings per ear, she's gone. If I didn't want to wear black or navy blue suits & pants to work, I'm gone. If I refused to wear a tie, yup, I'm fired. If I had sex before work and went in smelling raunchy, they can shitcan me for that too.

In the real world, employers regularly refuse to hire people who don't meet their dress & grooming standards, and can and will fire existing employees who fail to meet those standards.

[Crown]

Based on what evidence?

That addiction to drugs leads to decreased work performance?

You know that a lot of professionals do drugs and do a good job covering up their addiction at the workplace, don't you?

Well not to be an ass, but if they are doing such a good job at covering it up, how would I know? All the cases I've ever heard about regards those who have either been caught (generally with their actions including stealing from the company to support their habit), or those that checked themselves into a clinic. And lets define 'drugs' and 'junkies' here, are we talking 'users' or 'jonesing druggies'? Or both?

As long as they're not doing it on the premises, how do you know that it will affect them? By your own logic, shouldn't the company wait until it has some evidence that their cravings are affecting their on-the-job performance before taking action?

To be frank; since the word 'drug' covers everything from cold and flu tablets, to alcohol, to cocaine it is difficult to answer that question with a moral absolute answer. The world is a little more complicated than that. If we are discussing alcohol, then we are discussing a legal and free to buy drug, so you can't fire somebody you've seen drink once, that's not proof of drug use. If we are discussing cocaine, then seeing them use it once (or just possesing it), is a case for dismissal. However those that are addicted to drugs usually broadcast clear and present signals;

• Drug abusers often exhibit similar aberrant behavior. Certain signs and symptoms may indicate a drug addiction problem in a health care professional.
• Work absenteeism –absences without notification and an excessive number of sick days used
• Frequent disappearances from the work site, having long unexplained absences, making improbable excuses and taking frequent or long trips to the bathroom or to the stockroom where drugs are kept
• Excessive amounts of time spent near a drug supply. They volunteer for overtime and are at work when not scheduled to be there
• Unreliability in keeping appointments and meeting deadlines
• Work performance which alternates between periods of high and low productivity and may suffer from mistakes made due to inattention, poor judgment and bad decisions
• Confusion, memory loss, and difficulty concentrating or recalling details and instructions. Ordinary tasks require greater effort and consume more time
• Interpersonal relations with colleagues, staff and patients suffer. Rarely admits errors or accepts blame for errors or oversights
• Sloppy recordkeeping, suspect ledger entries and drug shortages
• Progressive deterioration in personal appearance and hygiene
• Uncharacteristic deterioration of handwriting and charting
• Wearing long sleeves when inappropriate
• Personality change - mood swings, anxiety, depression, lack of impulse control, suicidal thoughts or gestures
• Increasing personal and professional isolation

source

Interestingly, even if these signs weren't caused by drug use, they would also be grounds for dismissal.

So? By your logic, companies should never fire druggies as long as they don't snort or inject on the premises.

That would be rather stupid of me since my arguement is that equating a smokers habit to a drug addicts is patently a false analogy, as one doesn't result in the same massive character shifts as the other.

Your distinction is the claim that all junkies are fried at work, which is simply false. There are many professionals who are addicted to drugs and who do a good job of covering up, not doing it in the office, etc.

Yeah, and they all eventually get caught Mike, the get caught because there is only so much they can hide. My contention with your analogy of equating smokers to drug addicts (totally not caring about legality here), is that you try and pass it off as having the same affect on the person and their work performance. You cite some analogy of professionals who can hide it better than others, and can control their cravings as if this is somehow the representative of the bulk of drug users, it generally isn't. Or is it?

[Darth Wong]

Based on what evidence?

That addiction to drugs leads to decreased work performance?

So your evidence of your claim is to simply restate your claim? I hate to break it to you, but that ain't evidence. It can lead to decreased work performance. It does not necessarily do so.

You know that a lot of professionals do drugs and do a good job covering up their addiction at the workplace, don't you?

Well not to be an ass, but if they are doing such a good job at covering it up, how would I know? All the cases I've ever heard about regards those who have either been caught (generally with their actions including stealing from the company to support their habit), or those that checked themselves into a clinic. And lets define 'drugs' and 'junkies' here, are we talking 'users' or 'jonesing druggies'? Or both?

So you're conceding that you basically think drug addiction is not a viable criteria to fire someone? You have to wait until they start stealing from work or something?

As long as they're not doing it on the premises, how do you know that it will affect them? By your own logic, shouldn't the company wait until it has some evidence that their cravings are affecting their on-the-job performance before taking action?

To be frank; since the word 'drug' covers everything from cold and flu tablets, to alcohol, to cocaine it is difficult to answer that question with a moral absolute answer. The world is a little more complicated than that. If we are discussing alcohol, then we are discussing a legal and free to buy drug, so you can't fire somebody you've seen drink once, that's not proof of drug use. If we are discussing cocaine, then seeing them use it once (or just possesing it), is a case for dismissal. However those that are addicted to drugs usually broadcast clear and present signals;

• Drug abusers often exhibit similar aberrant behavior. Certain signs and symptoms may indicate a drug addiction problem in a health care professional.
• Work absenteeism –absences without notification and an excessive number of sick days used
• Frequent disappearances from the work site, having long unexplained absences, making improbable excuses and taking frequent or long trips to the bathroom or to the stockroom where drugs are kept
• Excessive amounts of time spent near a drug supply. They volunteer for overtime and are at work when not scheduled to be there
• Unreliability in keeping appointments and meeting deadlines
• Work performance which alternates between periods of high and low productivity and may suffer from mistakes made due to inattention, poor judgment and bad decisions
• Confusion, memory loss, and difficulty concentrating or recalling details and instructions. Ordinary tasks require greater effort and consume more time
• Interpersonal relations with colleagues, staff and patients suffer. Rarely admits errors or accepts blame for errors or oversights
• Sloppy recordkeeping, suspect ledger entries and drug shortages
• Progressive deterioration in personal appearance and hygiene
• Uncharacteristic deterioration of handwriting and charting
• Wearing long sleeves when inappropriate
• Personality change - mood swings, anxiety, depression, lack of impulse control, suicidal thoughts or gestures
• Increasing personal and professional isolation

source

Interestingly, even if these signs weren't caused by drug use, they would also be grounds for dismissal.

Which only reinforced my earlier point that you're basically arguing against the use of drug addiction itself as a cause for termination, and saying that you should wait until they do something that would normally get them fired.

So? By your logic, companies should never fire druggies as long as they don't snort or inject on the premises.

That would be rather stupid of me since my arguement is that equating a smokers habit to a drug addicts is patently a false analogy, as one doesn't result in the same massive character shifts as the other.

Bullshit. Again, you are taking studies that say A can sometimes lead to B and saying that A always leads to B. Smoking is also correlated with countless social factors, including low education, not to mention crime. It is a perfectly accurate correlation to say that smokers are generally dumber and more likely to be criminals than non-smokers. So by your logic whereby an elevated likelihood = moral right to punish for the correlation, there's no problem firing smokers just for being smokers.

Your distinction is the claim that all junkies are fried at work, which is simply false. There are many professionals who are addicted to drugs and who do a good job of covering up, not doing it in the office, etc.

Yeah, and they all eventually get caught Mike, the get caught because there is only so much they can hide. My contention with your analogy of equating smokers to drug addicts (totally not caring about legality here), is that you try and pass it off as having the same affect on the person and their work performance. You cite some analogy of professionals who can hide it better than others, and can control their cravings as if this is somehow the representative of the bulk of drug users, it generally isn't. Or is it?

Yet again, you try to bullshit about the purpose of the analogy in order to evade it. Is a company permitted to fire someone for off-the-job activity or not? And don't talk to me about "likelihoods"; you can't fire someone for a likelihood. Why do you think companies fire drug addicts?

I say it's because of the trust issue. An employee, particularly one in an important position, is someone you entrust with a certain amount of responsibility. SO WHY THE HOLY LIVING FUCK SHOULD YOU NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONCERN YOURSELF WITH HIS COMPLETE LACK OF SELF-CONTROL?

[Crown]

That addiction to drugs leads to decreased work performance?

So your evidence of your claim is to simply restate your claim? I hate to break it to you, but that ain't evidence.

Last time I checked the purpose of a question was to elicit information. In this case my question was as to what you were asking when you said; 'Based on what evidence?' I was asking you on what 'issue' you wanted 'evidence' on.

It can lead to decreased work performance. It does not necessarily do so.

When you can post evidence of any kind of similar risk with smokers, the analogy would make sense.

Well not to be an ass, but if they are doing such a good job at covering it up, how would I know? All the cases I've ever heard about regards those who have either been caught (generally with their actions including stealing from the company to support their habit), or those that checked themselves into a clinic. And lets define 'drugs' and 'junkies' here, are we talking 'users' or 'jonesing druggies'? Or both?

So you're conceding that you basically think drug addiction is not a viable criteria to fire someone? You have to wait until they start stealing from work or something?

Whoa, hold on, how did you get from point A to Z? I think you missed some letters there mate. Since when did I even come close to arguing that drug use isn't a valid criteria for termination of employment? I'm arguing that the analogy of a smoker to drug adict is wrong.

To be frank; since the word 'drug' covers everything from cold and flu tablets, to alcohol, to cocaine it is difficult to answer that question with a moral absolute answer. The world is a little more complicated than that. If we are discussing alcohol, then we are discussing a legal and free to buy drug, so you can't fire somebody you've seen drink once, that's not proof of drug use. If we are discussing cocaine, then seeing them use it once (or just possesing it), is a case for dismissal. However those that are addicted to drugs usually broadcast clear and present signals;

• <snippy listy>

source

Interestingly, even if these signs weren't caused by drug use, they would also be grounds for dismissal.

Which only reinforced my earlier point that you're basically arguing against the use of drug addiction itself as a cause for termination, and saying that you should wait until they do something that would normally get them fired.

Rubbish, I am providing symptomes of drug addicts that can identify them as drug addicts even if there is no physical proof (the drugs) there, and mearly pointing out that they also remarkably coincide with behaivour that would lead to termination of employment anyway. I'm showing you that drug use can and does affect the performance of a worker, even if their brains 'aren't fried at work' like you asked me to.

That would be rather stupid of me since my arguement is that equating a smokers habit to a drug addicts is patently a false analogy, as one doesn't result in the same massive character shifts as the other.

Bullshit. Again, you are taking studies that say A can sometimes lead to B and saying that A always leads to B. Smoking is also correlated with countless social factors, including low education, not to mention crime. It is a perfectly accurate correlation to say that smokers are generally dumber and more likely to be criminals than non-smokers. So by your logic whereby an elevated likelihood = moral right to punish for the correlation, there's no problem firing smokers just for being smokers.

Again, I'm doing no such thing. I am showing how drug use manifests itself in the professional output of a worker, even if they're not using it at the time. I'm giving you concrete examples how it's detrimental to the company. I would like similar examples of smokers in order for the analogy to work.

Yeah, and they all eventually get caught Mike, the get caught because there is only so much they can hide. My contention with your analogy of equating smokers to drug addicts (totally not caring about legality here), is that you try and pass it off as having the same affect on the person and their work performance. You cite some analogy of professionals who can hide it better than others, and can control their cravings as if this is somehow the representative of the bulk of drug users, it generally isn't. Or is it?

Yet again, you try to bullshit about the purpose of the analogy in order to evade it. Is a company permitted to fire someone for off-the-job activity or not? And don't talk to me about "likelihoods"; you can't fire someone for a likelihood. Why do you think companies fire drug addicts?

I don't understand what you are talking about. I agreed with you here, that a company is more in than right to fire an employee for their out of work activities if it conflicts with the companies image. I certainly am against out right termination on any kind of out of work activity that the employer doesn't agree with, say religion, sexual orientation. What I disagreed with, and what I contiue to disagree with is you equating a smoker's habit to a drug adict.

I say it's because of the trust issue. An employee, particularly one in an important position, is someone you entrust with a certain amount of responsibility. SO WHY THE HOLY LIVING FUCK SHOULD YOU NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONCERN YOURSELF WITH HIS COMPLETE LACK OF SELF-CONTROL?

The fact that they aren't using, or smoking, while at work is self control, isn't it?

You've made this blanket statement, smokers=drug adicts, and you've never justified it (well at least to me, if you've done so earlier, then I apologise), other than terms of 'self-control', while I would agree that the analogy does work on a very superficial sense (where you reduce a complex issue like addiction to nothing but self control), the analogy is still inherently flawed since there are other reasons to fire a drug addict besides your distaste for their weak wills.

Equating smokers to sex addicts, now there I wouldn't have an arguement.

[Crown]

Ghetto Edit :: this line at the end; The fact that they aren't using, or smoking, while at work is self control, isn't it?

Was a joke, and I forgot to put in the emoticons and 'joke' part in the actual post.