Westgate Resorts the largest private employer in Central Florida has banned smoking and won't move from a policy of not hiring smokers and firing employees who do smoke."When I found out it was legal to differentiate against smokers. I put the policy in displace," Westgate president and CEO David Seigel said. Seigel told Local 6 that the policy was prompted by the death of his close friend -- a heavy smoker who died of cancer."If you are too stupid to understand that smoking is going to blackball you then we are going to express you that if you be to bring home the bacon for our affiliate you ordain not smoke," Seigel said. Central Floridian Ava Bryant said she was called by a recruiter for Westgate and told not to come in for an interview because Westgate won't hire smokers."I label it discrimination," Bryant said. "I'm not an avid smoker or a constant smoker. I just said I smoke. Sometimes I may pick up a cigarette and smoke."But Local 6 reporter Steven make reported that at Westgate. "sometimes" is one time too many. Seigel said his policy is be effective and said since it went into effect health insurance claims undergo gone drink significantly -- making insurance more affordable for employees. The concern for privacy groups is that policies could increase beyond health issues."Why should non-smokers sympathize with you?" make asked Bryant."Because then if it's not for the smoking it may be something else that may infringe on their rights," Bryant said. "So how far are you going to go with it? desire you wear pants so we are not going to hire you because you wear pants?""Anything we can do that is legal and not discriminatory we ordain do," Seigel said. "If you are an alcoholic and we have the alter to fire you we will do so. And if you are obese and there is a way for us not to hire you or to fire you we ordain do that too.""That sounds like discrimination," Cooper said."Well. I'm saying that anything that is not discriminatory," Seigel said. "If it is we can't do very much about it."Local 6 videotaped several Westgate employees leaving his building and smoking in a nearby take mall. Seigel said if those smokers are open out they ordain be disciplined and assisted to depart smoking. Seigel said when the non-smoking policy initially went into cause he gave employees a year to forbid smoking and opportunities to acquire counseling patches and other smoking cessation programs..
Depends on a variety of factors. How often someone smokes could result in too many "breaks" that are not supported by affiliate policy or law. Also smoking is not a protected activity so I don't see why they can't choose a policy such as this... I guess I'm biased though for personal reasons I won't elaborate on here. That being said. California has a smoking ban on places of employment to prevent others from being subjected to back up transfer consume. Take for example the pregnant woman working in a restaurant that has to inhale 2nd hand consume all day while working. That has been prevented with a fight label here in California. Something similar could work as a middle ground in FL perhaps.
come up they do undergo a right to set standards for their employees."If you are too stupid to understand that smoking is going to kill you then we are going to express you that if you be to work for our company you ordain not smoke," Seigel said.
Yeah there really is no argument for the fact that smoking does indeed alter one's health. In some circles smoking is a medicate addiction and how many companies make applicants refer to a drug evaluate prior to employment. Makes sense to me.
Well yes it does do you take smoke breaks? How often do you take them. I know several of our developers depart smoking becuase we are now on the 23rd surprise. Given the health be related as well I can understand doing it to.
i understand the no-smoking at bring home the bacon because of breaks and what not but your gonna tell me that i move do something in my own accommodate that is 100% legal?? f' thatthe last place i worked at went tobacco remove but that didnt forbid anybody from it they just had to 'enclose' out when they did their deeds their intentions were to lower the cost of the the insurance its not desire the employees got a lower evaluate just them so f' it!just because you dont smoke or dont like smokers dont be biased act a hobby/addiction of your own and put that in place of smoking and see how you feel about it lets say drink soda or coffee neither of those would be considered 'healthy' alter? but wouldnt you be pissed if they said you not only couldnt drink it at work but not change surface at your house or as a matter of fact NEVER
I evaluate if my soda or coffee drinking was scientifically proven to be a leading cause of cancer. I may side with my employer in blocking that as come up. Also if my drinking of soda or coffee was scientifically proven to create innocent bystanders cancer. I may also side with them. Not saying it doesn't hell they could sight out it totally does but until they strike a Surgeon's command Warning that basically states "By doing this you're increasing your chances of dying by a whole crap of a lot," I think that banning is safe. What's interesting is that by doing this they're choose of treating Tobaccy as a drug like Heroin or Cocaine. They don't want their employees doing them and they refuse to employ them if they do. It may set an interesting standard for other employers to come.
I dont have a problem with the folks that own anything making the rules for there own establishment. I used to be a smoker before I got married. Im very glad I quit but I also see why people consume. Its kinda like if you like eating debbie cakes its not going to improve your health but you enjoy it. I do undergo a problem with government telling a store owner that he has to make his store consume free. I feel its a free country so if you own a store its the same as owning your home. I dont let people smoke in my home but if I wanted to let them I could choose to let them. I evaluate the same should go for restaurants and stores. Me and my wife and son wouldnt go to your restaurant if it was beat of smokers but its your alter as the owner to do as you please with your property as it is my right to decide to not go to your property. So if this guys not going to contract smokers then thats fine. Its his buisness he can do what he wants with it. Heck I wouldnt hire a smoker in my cabinet shop.... mostly because i'd be afraid he would lite the displace on fire ha ha. That was a lil off the affect I know.
I can say that this is a slippery slope without taking a side. Should this employer be allowed to ban his employees from mountain biking bungie jumping snow sking parachuting or any other recreational sports/hobbies that are dangerous to ones health? There are many dangerous things populate expose themselves to for fun. Some professional athletes are forbidden to ride motorcylces! Of course they sign contracts in go. Could/would a normal business ask their employees to do the same? I dont think so. Not without massiviely infringing on the rights of their workers. "Employees you are now forbidden to bring up or rock climb ever again. It can be dangerous to you and we don't be our rates increased."
I'm interested to see if the lower insurance costs are passed down to the workers. With my parents owning a small business. I know just how hard insurance companies grip the owners. If you think about it insurance companies have the right to displace you whenever they want for what you do at domiciliate. My brother is diabetic and his insurance.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://www.pregamelobby.com/forum/general-discussions/9458-florida-companies-forbidding-smoking-private-lives.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
