I didn't say they were, I was responding to the comments in that post.
Richmond, VA Hospital System will no longer hire nicotine users, including vapers...
- Thread starter drumtrip
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I didn't say they were, I was responding to the comments in that post.
I'll take this as a non-answer. No problem, end of discussion.
Oh, I bet it does too. Maybe even starting hotlines to turn people in.
Typical liberal response (I see you're from NJ too). First you connect two different point into one causation statement that would paint me to be prejudice.
You try to use the second point I made as a justification or origination of the first, connecting it only to race and not to the "discrimination" which may actually beneficial in lowering costs. Regardless, the right to "discriminate" does not come from a monetary savings, I'll explain. The first point...
... is that as an individual with natural rights, outlined in our Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other documents, recognize rights such as freedom of association and property rights. That is where the right to discriminate as one sees fit comes from.
My second point...
... is simply stating economic facts. The more you regulate, tax, apply restrictions and penalties, etc... The more expensive that service becomes. Perhaps in regards to the new laws you will need to hire additional HR employees and occasionally have audits. Look at what affirmative action has done. It is additional HR overhead which adds cost to business owners to ensure compliance and document in case of audit or lawsuit based on this terrible law. Furthermore, HR will hire minorities and specifically look for minorities to ensure they meet quotas, regardless of skill, ability, and experience. I have observed this first hand in several companies. It is how HR works under restrictive and unconstitutional laws. In the case of hospitals, this increases the cost to the end user of the services, which is to say you.
You might say 'Well I have insurance so I don't pay for it'. Well yes, you do pay eventually when those costs are absorbed and noticed by your insurance carrier they increase your premium. You might see some of this or your employer might see some of it, or some combination. Most companies will only eat so much in increasing health insurance costs before it gets passed to you, the employee. Either in less coverage, less benefits (be it health insurance or other benefits), lower/no raises, lower/no bonuses, firings/downsizing, etc. At the end of the day, you will eventually pay for every law restricting a business you use the services of.
In this regard, a blanket discrimination against hiring nicotine users is a simple HR policy to reduce costs. With the new unconstitutional healthcare laws and mandates for many employers it's cheaper to not offer medical insurance at all and just pay the fine (tax) per head (employee) to the government. Many employers still want to offer some level of insurance to their employees though, but may not be able to afford higher risk employees without lowering benefits or generating additional revenue. Unfortunately us nicotine users are an easy line to draw and enforce to lower costs. In this job market there are plenty of skilled people (this is not just doctors, but nurses, office staff, accountants, IT, etc.) who don't use nicotine and are looking for work. They have their choice and are likely drawing the easy lines to keep costs down. Without restrictive healthcare and insurance laws combined with a weak economy and high unemployment rate, restrictions like "no nicotine users" on hiring would never fly and would be suicide for a business as it would cut out good talent that couldn't be easily found.
I hope this clarifies my points for you and you will not view this as a "non-answer". I'm happy to continue this here or via private message or email or you want further clarification.
Then why is it that all the bars and restraunts that would like to allow smoking cannot in most parts of the country. They say that they are losing business because of not being able to allow it and it should be their choice as a business owner but is not. Seems to me that government wants to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to tobacco. They don't want to lose the tax money they make off of it so they don't outlaw it but have no problem allowing discrimination against those that use it.
This does suck, vapers should not be included in this there is no logical reasoning behind that.
as for smokers, I love them, but they do not care about their health... why should I believe they care about mine?
I am not saying that discriminating is a good thing but sometimes it just makes sense, smokers+hospital jobs= lolwut?
You know when I was working in my hospital in Yokosuka there was a pulmonary specialist that smoked a pack a day, now that's funny imo.
as for smokers, I love them, but they do not care about their health... why should I believe they care about mine?
I am not saying that discriminating is a good thing but sometimes it just makes sense, smokers+hospital jobs= lolwut?
You know when I was working in my hospital in Yokosuka there was a pulmonary specialist that smoked a pack a day, now that's funny imo.
Great points. Here in NJ most places allowed smoking with varying degrees of separation between sections. There were a few smoke free diners and such around though, and they all did very well. Just last year I noticed two of them closed down. Why? Because they no longer had a market incentive or edge to cater to non-smokers, a large part of what made them a success. They didn't last long. I used to go to bars fairly often with some friends. Now we rarely go out. Good for us as we save money and drink less, but bad for businesses as there has been a sharp drop in sales that hasn't come back nearly as strong as it was prior to the government ban. This means less jobs for the people who need them most, lower income folks who work at these types of jobs.
I also used to go bowling once or twice a week, every week. I wasn't about to take off my shoes every 20-60 minutes to go have a smoke in the cold or rain. So I stopped bowling, as did all the guys I went with. That alley closed down about a month or two ago. Another bowling alley had installed smoke/air scrubbers about a year before the ban. They actually worked very well since they sent smokers towards one end and non-smokers to the other end to further the separation. It was a popular alley for that reason. A year later the ban took effect and they were out all that money they invested in air scrubbers which had initially helped their business and attracted new customers. They lost a lot of their smoking regulars and a lot of their non-smoking regulars as well, since they no longer offered anything special. They are still open but word on the street is they're not doing very well.
These are some examples of what government intervention and regulation does. It cripples businesses and eliminates jobs by stifling innovation and other market forces that entrepreneurs count on to make their businesses thrive. The only thing government can do to help businesses and this economy is eliminate regulations, laws, statutes, etc. and lower taxes, anything else is detrimental and costs jobs and income for businesses and individuals.
If that's how you feel it's your choice to use a certain doctor, you can easily choose another who doesn't smoke. The free market will decide what actions are acceptable or not. If business was dropping at hospitals with the doctors who smoke, or staff who smoke, then not hiring smokers would become a standard policy at many hospitals for that reason. In this case, I suspect it has more to do with insurance, healthcare costs, and a large selection of unemployed people. Furthermore it seems to me you're making the assumption that these no nicotine user hiring policies only apply to doctors. Doctors and specialists who smoke will be hired if in demand, as there are relatively few of them. Some kids struggling to get by with those huge student loans from school or getting accounting, business or other degrees, or the poor folks who work counters, run security, etc. are the ones who will not be hired as there is an abundance of unemployed people who will do those jobs.
Blanket statements like yours against any group of people are wrong. Treat everyone as an individual and judge their character and skill as an individual, not by lumping them into a group based on a single trait or behavior. Do you like being lumped in with smokers?
That would be like saying that anyone overweight shouldn't be in health care. If they're overweight they obviously don't care about their health so they wouldn't care about yours. That's ridiculous! There are plenty of good nurses, doctors, etc. that smoke, drink alcohol, eat saturated fats, etc. on their own time and shouldn't be discriminated against for doing it. I haven't smoked for almost a year now but don't think that those that do should be discriminated against for it.
My, my... how we love to have it both ways. Oh, the irony...
Not all that long ago, I recall when the no smoking laws passed and the few protested (self included), "It should be the bar/restaurant owners' decision!"
Just an observation from the mountaintop...
And yes, grasshopper, I do have four PVs...
Not all that long ago, I recall when the no smoking laws passed and the few protested (self included), "It should be the bar/restaurant owners' decision!"
Just an observation from the mountaintop...
And yes, grasshopper, I do have four PVs...
- Status
Similar threads
