What Neesha said.

Today I discriminated between two different brands of pizza at the store.

Don't Joxur it up in here, Fribs. C'mon. You know full well what's being discussed here.

oh dayum! You're right... I shall back away and beat myself in shame.

How witty. I think it's safe to say that everyone here knows that there are several definitions for the word 'discrimination'. I'll help narrow it down a bit for you though beings some people insist on playing semantics.

To be even more specific, we're talking about people here, not things.

Yes, we as individuals do. However stupid and mean are subjective terms that cannot be quantified in any way. A person who comes across to you as being unintelligent or rude may not come off that way to another person. The same is not true for homosexuals, blacks, smokers, drinkers, etc.

Devyn, trying to put stupid in the same category as black seems shaky to me. I definitely do not want a stupid person to be performing surgery on me, and I sure hope that hospitals can discriminate against stupid people when hiring surgeons.

If "stupid" (In the quantifiable sense, not the opinion sense) impacts someone's job performance, then it's clearly not: "a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit" now is it?

ok, now I'm lost. That's what I was trying to point out, but you are posting it like it's a rebuttal to my point. Devyn seemed to be saying that stupid was the same kind of category as black.

Even in low skill jobs, if I'm interviewing two people with equal education (say, a high school diploma) I am going to choose the one that seems more intelligent to run my cash register / take orders / deliver my pizza. Do I have to take an IQ test to prove it?

I think we're letting ourselves get too distracted by Orme's poor example. It's entirely too hard to quantify or examine intelligence in any way in the first place and it'd be hard to argue that intelligence isn't important to most any job performance...so it's a silly example.

No one was talking about "stupid" or "mean" before he threw that red herring out there.

Sorry I wasn't more clear in what I was trying to say, and it won't help that I am still insanely tired right now.

I think that characteristics like stupid and mean, because they are so subjective, cannot reasonably merit protection from discrimination.

The big problem with this is that their requirement for the job has next to no impact as to how well the person would perform that job.

It is almost like saying we won't hire anyone that has colored their hair or has had an elective surgery. Most of the time those have zero impact to how a person can do a job. Yes there are extremes that can bring about negative impacts, but those are not the norm.

Hospitals and smoking are related though, so some of these examples (on both sides) are to the extreme. I would relate it to a dentist not hiring a receptionist because she didn't floss. I don't really know if I agree with this or not yet, but I do see merits to both sides of the debate. Where do you draw the line is the most prominant question.

There's no merit to it at all. It's just an easy way to try to connect two unrelated things with what seems like a connecting thread to try to appeal to "common sense".

I still think you guys are wrong with this general idea that you can't choose not to hire someone even if they are qualified for the job. Unless your reason for not hiring is covered specifically in the short list of "protected groups," you can hire or fire someone however you like, as far as I understand.

If I own a business and I'm hiring someone, and I just don't like someone's personality, I think I have the right to say, "no I'm not going to hire you because I don't like you." Why should I be forced to hire someone, assuming my dislike isn't based on the protected groups?

"You don't floss, so you can't work here" seems stupid to me, but seems completely legal to me.

Just move on already.

frib is trying to lastword this post

My wife is an RN and works in the surgery department at our regional level 1 trauma center. She sees some cool shit. Anyways, she said that it's common for patients to complain about their nurses/doctors/whatever smelling like smoke when they come in to care for them. To me this is one reason why you might not hire a smoker.

I imagine their jobs can be stressful at times. Though I'd have to say having one of them smell like smoke is preferable to having one of them a little .

Autoemotes are fuckstupid.

I didn't read the entire thread, lets face it some of you are long winded...

But what I found interesting was this line...

If it's a "Smoking" ban then fine. But this line says "Tobacco Products". What about Snuff, that doesn't affect any bystanders or the new Snuz or whatever the new shit is called that dissolves in your mouth.

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

Comment on this too. I agree whole-heartedly. Since I don't smoke anymore, it almost makes me gag going into someones office here who has been outside smoking. They just plain stink.

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

Yea, seems like if someone had a serious breathing disorder and the doctor walked in smelling like smoke you'd have a good chance of getting at least some of the stuff into the patient's lungs. I can't imagine that's a good thing by any standard.

It's not much different than many people's perfume or cologne I think. It has the same ability to disgust or make people have a negative physical reaction.

And not smelling like smoke after having a cigarette isn't that difficult. Put on a jacket while you smoke and wash your hands/use mouthwash afterwards and the smell is severely mitigated.

Residual smoke will contain significantly more harmful particles than any colonge or perfume(of which several might pose a hazard to someone with a serious lung/nasal/throat condition), and there will usually be at least some residual smoke leftover unless you wait a significant enough amount of time and/or - like you said, mouthwash/wash hands/take special care. In which case it could be argued that they're being inefficient on the job if it takes enough time.

Particles will still cling to your skin if you wear a jacket. You won't notice it as much, but it's there. People with a keen sense of smell will spot it a mile away with these precautions.

That's not say that it's particularly dangerous if you take those precautions... but, given the option? I think an employer would want to pick the person with less health risks to their patients.

If I was hiring an AA counselor, I might decide they agree not to drink socially.

Again - I get the whole "fight the power" horseshit. But the bottom line is that if someone is running a business, they can put controls in place if they feel it adds value.

If someone is putting baseless policies in place, that's a different story. But, I can tell you this from just an insurance point-of-view - many carriers give a better group rate if you have a smoke free campus. I am guessing if you have an enforced no-tobacco policy, I'm guessing the group rates are even better.

Quite different than a "no blacks" policy. And frankly, comparing the plight of smokers to people who have been truly discriminated against is a bit pathetic and insulting.

auto emotes ARE indeed stupid

I didn't realize tobacco comes through in a urine test, anyone know more specifics on how long you have to be "clean" to test negative?

I do not smoke, and I welcome a Nationwide ban on the damn stuff, but I am a strong advocate of worker rights and this seems to be a clear cut discrimination case. I am willing to bet they have current employees who are smokers, do they plan on discharging all of them?