Airlines hiring smokers???

[Gorilla]

Ot: is that a picture of a brown recluse on your id gorilla? that thing is fricking heinous! I buddy of mine got lit up by one of those beasts, nasty!

Yes, a Brown Recluse: They're all over my house, I am at war with them!
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=68402 What happened to your friend? Is he OK, or did he get one of those flesh-eating open wounds?

Back to corporate fascism - the pure capitalists believe in absolute, unfettered freedom of operation for a business, meaning child labor, hiring only aryans, only men, only Catholics, no OSHA, no environmental controls, etc. Federal law prohibits operating like this. At the other extreme is the French model. Can't fire anyone, and there's 8 weeks paid vacation the first year. Somewhere inbetween is a good balance.

I firmly believe a corporation cannot and must not prohibit the use of a legal product, or the pursuit of less than healthy activities. If I can pass a 1st class medical, that should be good enough. It is tempting to say that "you knew what the rules were when you signed on," but given the subjectivity of the rules, who is to decide what activities/substances to prohibit? A special board?

There are just too many examples one can come up with of parallel substances and activities that are not healthy. Why aren't those "outlawed" as well? Finally, just curious, does Alaska prohibit alcohol on a layover? Can I have a beer with a steak 18 hours before my flight departs?

 

[flx757]

For all those opposed to this policy, you are all welcome to take your battle to the courts. If you truly believe this is illegal (I'm afraid just unjust or it pisses you off won't cut it), then you should be doing something about it other than complaing on an anonymous message board.

So Scott, are you just a complainer, someone telling others what THEY should do, or someone willing to back it up with action? No doubt the former, but then your words become just that. And with that, there is very little credibility left in them.

You also seem to talk alot about things at Alaska, something you know nothing about. Do you KNOW that there are "random" nicotine tests? Do you KNOW of anyone hired before this policy went into effect then "fired because they wouldn't give it up"? Since you are fond of calling others either lemmings or sheep, which are you? Are you going to challenge this policy in court or just tell others what they should do?

Smokers can justify and rationalize their existance all they want. That's what they do. If they want to justify and rationalize their existance here, then they'll have to challenge this policy in court. So unless you are ready, willing and able to do successfully do so, there is very little left to talk about, now is there?

 

[Sctt@NJA]

Do you work for Alaska? You talk like maybe you do. So why don't you clear it up for us then?

I have no idea if they have actually fired anyone. Are you saying they don't claim the right to do it?

Do they conduct random nicotine tests? You tell me. I heard they do. If you have some first hand info why not share?

I think there is plenty to talk about. My question that has not been even broached by anyone on the side of "Alaska is within its rights", is this:

How much control can an employer exercise on its employees when they are not on the job? How much???? Anyone?

You know, you better be careful, because I have heard vegetarians talk the same way about meat-eaters that you talk about smokers. Hope you don't get one of those guys running your company thinking they can make all you guys give up meat.

Then again, it would be for your own good wouldn't it smarty.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

By JEREMY W. PETERS (NYT) 1190 words
Published: February 8, 2005

Warning: Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your job.

That is what employees at Weyco, an insurance benefits administrator in this small central Michigan town, found out.

Under a new policy that legal specialists say is the first of its kind, Weyco began testing its 200 employees for smoking in January. And the company put workers on alert: In the future, they will be subject to random testing. If they fail, they will be fired.

Rather than take the mandatory breathalyzer test, four employees left the company.

And while Weyco's strict no-smoking policy is drawing the ire of civil liberties groups, it is within the bounds of employment law in Michigan. The state is one of 20 that has no laws preventing employers from firing workers who smoke even when they are not at work.

''What's next?'' Kary L. Moss, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, said, speculating on other behavior that could cost workers their jobs. ''Sitting in the sun? Getting pregnant?''

In fact, employers in 46 states have significant legal leeway to tell workers what they can and cannot do once they leave the office. As a result, companies have done more than tell workers not to smoke.

Until the mid-1990's, the airlines enforced policies that limited how much a flight attendant could weigh. In the 1980's, Electronic Data Systems, the computer software company founded by Ross Perot, had a policy barring facial hair, and fired an employee who said that he wore a beard for religious reasons. In 1989, a company in Indiana fired an employee for drinking after work, a violation of the company's no-alcohol policy. And just last September, a company in Alabama fired a woman who drove to work with a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker.

But firings for behavior away from work have been isolated, and legal specialists say that no company has ever gone as far as Weyco.

''They're actually testing,'' said John F. Banzhaf, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the executive director of Action on Smoking and Health, an antismoking group. ''Most of the companies as far as I know simply passed the policy and rely on the fact that employees made the pledge.'' Employers have targeted smokers for years. Since the mid-1980's, Alaska Airlines has refused to hire smokers and tells job applicants that they will be tested for nicotine use. In 2004, Union Pacific decided to stop hiring smokers and now asks applicants to disclose whether or not they smoke. But these companies and others that prohibit their workers from smoking rely on their employees to honor the policy. As long employees have said they do not smoke, that has been proof enough.

Activists for workers rights argue that unless employees are engaging in off-duty behavior that interferes with their work, employers have no business stepping in. In 30 states and the District of Columbia, it is illegal for companies to impose smoking bans on their employees when they are off duty. And while 13 states prevent companies from banning alcohol use off the job, only California, Colorado, New York and North Dakota have broader worker privacy laws that prohibit employers from regulating most legal activities when their workers are off the job.

''Once you cross the line and allow employers to control any type of behavior that's not related to job performance, there's no limit to the harm that can and will be done,'' said Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, an employees' rights organization based in Princeton, N.J.

 

[flx757]

Then again, it would be for your own good wouldn't it smarty.

Until you prove otherwise by actually DOING something about it, you are just another big talker telling others what they should do "for their own good". Not much different than you are accusing Alaska of doing, now is it..."smarty"?

I have nothing further to add to this discussion or with you until you have something legitimate to talk about. Something other than just telling people what they should and shouldn't do. Worry about yourself. That's what I am doing.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

Ok see ya later then.

Your last post actually made me laugh! I am telling people what to do? Oh yeah I said people should feel outrage... Well you know what I guess I will be real generous and let them keep their jobs even if they don't feel outrage. There, I am officially much more open minded than Alaska Airlines.

So only people who have ongoing lawsuits are qualified to have an opinion now? No use talking about anything if we don't have our lawyers lined up and ready for battle?

Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

 

[mach none]

They do random nicotine tests just like drug tests and yes they claim they can fire you for using it.

I don't know the history of it, but I am sure this policy has not always been in effect there. So you could have been hired as a smoker, and then fired after the policy was created because you wouldn't give it up.

At the interview they ask if you have used any tobacco products in the last 6 months. A YES answer means no job.

We don't do random nicotine screenings. That is cost prohibitive. If you have the occasional cigar on the road or while playing poker, no one is going to turn you in. Alaska just does not want to hire people that already smoke or use nicotine. Lets face it. If you are in your late 20s and on...you probably will not start smoking or chewing. As far as this being test in a court of law, good luck. These are the rules we have chosen and with the new anti smoking law in Washington state, I don't think you would get any traction.

 

[flx757]

Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

Thank you for making my point with this brilliant quip.

Good luck in helping make the world what YOU think it should be. In fact, everyone should do the same. Do something about what you feel strongly about...instead of just talking crap.

I'll worry about me, but I appreciate your concern.

 

[Sctt@NJA]

Thank you Mach for the info. I saw in one article that says Alaska tells applicants that they will be tested for nicotine. Not random, but perhaps a one time thing for newhires? The story almost made it sound as if they are only TOLD they will be tested. It didn't say they actually DO test.

I guess the real point here isn't Alaska or even smoking at all. It also isn't about existing state laws. Its about what is right. Most laws get passed because people see a problem that needs fixing. The problem I see is companies starting to get the idea that they can impose themselves on peoples private lives.

It is a trend I find very disturbing and despite what 757 thinks, I think it is a great topic for public debate.

When I was little the first seatbelt laws were passed. There was actually public debate over the matter because it seemed to many people to be a fundamental change from "laws to protect you from others" to "laws to protect you from yourself".

Somehow the debate turned into whether wearing a seatbelt was a good idea. And of course it is. And we have the laws to prove how that debate turned out. What the debate should have been about is: How much control do we want the government to have over us?

Same thing here: How much control do we want our employers to have over us?

 

[erj-145mech]

Where's There's Smoke, You're Fired

From KPRC-TV, Houston, TX

Company To Workers: Light Up And You're Fired



http://www.click2houston.com/health/5508409/detail.html