Smokers need not apply

[bdt]

So on that basis, it's cool to discriminate on the basis of religion? That's something one can choose. as well.

Ah no, that's a logical fallacy: you're attempting to link the stated support for the position that people choose to be smokers with the subsequent but unrelated observations about "race/culture/gender/sexual orientation" where none exists. To then follow on with the an attack on the entirely separate and unrelated point you've now created is both specious and small minded.

 

[jabulani]

Ah no, that's a logical fallacy: you're attempting to link the stated support for the position that people choose to be smokers with the subsequent but unrelated observations about "race/culture/gender/sexual orientation" where none exists. To then follow on with the an attack on the entirely separate and unrelated point you've now created is both specious and small minded.

You know bdt, I enjoy your ever-articulate posts, but you're being a real misery about this smoking thing. Who cares! I smoke, and fark anyone wot don't lark it! Including the friggin EU!

/me blows smoke rings at bdt!

 

[IanC]

Ah no, that's a logical fallacy: you're attempting to link the stated support for the position that people choose to be smokers with the subsequent but unrelated observations about "race/culture/gender/sexual orientation" where none exists..

Uuuh no, I didn't mention race/culture/gender or sexual orientation, I brought up the subject of religion. Religion is something you choose ... or do you disagree on that point?

To then follow on with the an attack on the entirely separate and unrelated point you've now created is both specious and small minded.

Specious and small-minded indeed ... is not freedom of religion one the freedoms we are "guaranteed"? If so, why did Dominic fail to mention it? By my reasoning, it's because religion is something you choose and hence did not fit his argument (or yours).

 

[bwana]

Don't you think that your employer's ability to dictate your lifestyle ends when you go home? To the best of my knowledge (Debbie2, feel completely free to chip in and correct me) you provide your employer with your labour (whatever that may be), said employer pays you for said labour (there the contract ends). I have never seen a contract that would allow an employer to sack me because I smoke at home, watch too much television, have 3 beers instead of 2, hell if I decided to get blitzed on a Friday evening, etc, etc.

Does anybody else here think employers are having a wee bit too much their own way???

Personally I dont agree with what was done but there are some fair arguments if you listen to the podcast - sick time, job performance and medical costs etc all place a burden on the employer.

According to the broadcast in most states an employer can sack you for whatever reason so there is little they can do but give up or leave.

bwana: I seem to recall a similar show on carte blanche or something a while ago

Couldnt find it on their site but they do get a fair number of stories from overseas so it's possible.

 

[IanC]

/me blows smoke rings at bdt!

/me joins jabulani in blowing smoke rings at bdt.

 

[IanC]

According to the broadcast in most states an employer can sack you for whatever reason so there is little they can do but give up or leave.Couldnt find it on their site but they do get a fair number of stories from overseas so it's possible.

I think it's time to nail my colours to the mast, I am a smoker (and continue to be) of many years.

• My non-smoking colleagues always exceed me in days off due to sickness (this isn't difficult since I haven't had a sick day in 5 years)
• The Medical Aid used to love me (stil does) because I never had cause to visit a doctor.
• My performance has never been faulted.

 

[bdt]

You know bdt, I enjoy your ever-articulate posts

Well thank you kindly, it's nice to be appreciated

but you're being a real misery about this smoking thing. Who cares! I smoke, and fark anyone wot don't lark it! Including the friggin EU!

It should come as no surprise that I'm just a ..teeny.. bit militant about smoking, specifically of cigarettes, mind you. It really comes down to choices: I don't do anything that impinges on your health and you don't do anything to affect mine.

While I still have the same anti-passive smoking stance about pipe tobacco, I find it nowhere NEAR as irritating (literally, I'm talking about the effects on my eyes and nose) and really don't mind being in the company of people who indulge in wacky weed (but no bloody cigarette tobacco in there, the chemicals that make it what it is really get up my nose). And of course if you can't take braai smoke, you're not truly Seffrikan!

/me blows smoke rings at bdt!

Taken in the spirit in which it was offered

 

[jabulani]

/me joins jabulani in blowing smoke rings at bdt.

Whew - getting a bit stuffy in here!!

Taken in the spirit in which it was offered

No offence I hope.

 

[IanC]

Whew - getting a bit stuffy in here!!

Turn the heater off

 

[bdt]

Uuuh no, I didn't mention race/culture/gender or sexual orientation, I brought up the subject of religion. Religion is something you choose ... or do you disagree on that point?

Ah, it helps to read ALL the words - and in context! Fair enough, I misread the specifics, but I reckon got the gist. But on whether religion is something you can choose: ask that same question in the middle of Iraq and San Francisco and see what answers you get. Essentially: it depends on the cultural milieu where you'rea asking it.

Specious and small-minded indeed ... is not freedom of religion one the freedoms we are "guaranteed"?

Apparently, but beyond the critical question of freedom of choice this isn't something I care about. You can file me under areligious ..which is notably different from irreligious!

If so, why did Dominic fail to mention it? By my reasoning, it's because religion is something you choose and hence did not fit his argument (or yours).

Can't help you there, I reckon Dominic would have to field that one.

 

[jabulani]

Turn the heater off

Lol!

Have a Texan!

 

[IanC]

Ah, it helps to read ALL the words - and in context! Fair enough, I misread the specifics, but I reckon got the gist. But on whether religion is something you can choose: ask that same question in the middle of Iraq and San Francisco and see what answers you get. Essentially: it depends on the cultural milieu where you'rea asking it..

Ah, but I'm asking it of you in the middle of SA, not the EU, Iraq or San Francisco for that matter (wasn't aware that SF was such a religious hotbed) ?????

Apparently, but beyond the critical question of freedom of choice this isn't something I care about. You can file me under areligious ..which is notably different from irreligious!

File me under agnostic

Can't help you there, I reckon Dominic would have to field that one.

Fair enough.

 

[bdt]

No offence I hope.

Oh, none taken, I assure you, this is great stuff! And I'm more than big enough to take anything you can throw at me (that I can't tear down in turn) . Bottom line: "disputatious contumely will be answered in kind" as the editor of Scope (yes, I've been around awhile!) used to say.

 

[bdt]

Ah, but I'm asking it of you in the middle of SA, not the EU, Iraq or San Francisco for that matter (wasn't aware that SF was such a religious hotbed) ?????

That you can even ask me, here in sunny .za, whether religion is something you can choose is a resounding statement as to the fact of a nominally functioning democracy (for now), and all that that means. Surely you can appreciate that this is a luxury that you'd unlikely to enjoy in an environment like Iraq?

(wasn't aware that SF was such a religious hotbed) ?????

Heh, I was going for the polar opposite of a violently oppressive regime - and SF, with its wildly multi-culti melting pot of so many different scenes, is the first one I came up with.

 

[IanC]

That you can even ask me, here in sunny .za, whether religion is something you can choose is a resounding statement as to the fact of a nominally functioning democracy (for now), and all that that means. Surely you can appreciate that this is a luxury that you'd unlikely to enjoy in an environment like Iraq?

Sure ... the sublime to the Cor Blimey

We digress however, within the EU freedom of religion is "supposed" to be guaranteed, and as you've agreed, within these hallowed borders religion is something you can choose (for now).

In my book, the EU has just stated it's cool to discriminate, so long as those being discriminated against, had a choice.

 

[nocilah]

ha ha ha - rich people with too much time on there hands and multitudes of carrots stuck up there ass.

smokers work just as well as non-smokers and to say otherwise is the same as to say white people work better then black people.

effciency in work has little to do with bad habits. I can see podgy bosses gleaming at this and prolly turning down very experienced workers based purely on their personal preferences of smoking.

one word covers this new discrminatory regulation: pathetic

 

[Nom Chompsky]

IanC: Just a little fyi - some religions (i.e. Muslims) don't really have a choice. They're fiercely religious and I haven't met 1 Muslim who has converted to a non-Muslim religion. Then again, "Christians" seem to convert to a wide range of other religions (Scientology) or simply be an atheist.

But on the matter of choice: Although it [religion] is a choice, it doesn't really harm anyone in the workplace unlike smoking which can have adverse effects.

 

[SlickNick]

Bah humbug! Scientology is not a religion.... it's a cult.

As far as I know if there are lots of work to I do it and I do it untill I am done. Then I go smoke. Especially if the work is important and urgent. For non urgent stuffs, I decide that I will take 5 minutes and go have a smoke. It helps with boredom, and you will find us smokers a lot less stressed than non smokers. I think some fancy scientist like people have also proven this point.

 

[Tassidar]

The world has gone crazy against smokers. People who play rugby will need knee replacements, hip replacements etc... when they grow old. Essentially, like smokers, they are also choosing to destroy their body, but in a different way. The same could be said to apply for marathon runners, who put immense strain on their knees. Why not discriminate against them?

Blanket discrimination against all smokers is downright stupid. I appreciate employers not wanting employees to smoke on the job, as certain (not all) people will abuse it, and will waste company time (which is unethical), but it would not be unreasonable for a company to ban smoking on the job, while still employing smokers. Even better, clauses regarding excessive smoke breaks should be written into the code of ethics of the company, to allow the company to act on excessive smokers.

For my own part, I smoke on average less than one cigarrette per day, and am much healthier than most non-smokers (I am currently training for a marathon) and never smoke at work. I would resent not being employed on the grounds of smoking.

 

[supersunbird]

Does freedom of religion include freedom to be areligious?