Fla. Companies Forbidding Smoking In Private Lives

[RamboLiberal]

Source: local6.com

A growing number of companies in Florida are forbidding their workers from smoking not only at work, but also in their private lives.

Westgate Resorts, the largest private employer in Central Florida, has banned smoking and won't budge from a policy of not hiring smokers and firing employees who do smoke.

"When I found out it was legal to discriminate against smokers, I put the policy in place," 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.

Read more: http://www.local6.com/news/14537611/detail.html

---

I'm staunch anti-smoking but this is too damn far. If the product being consumed is legal then IMHO it's no damn business of any employer if their employer uses that product off the clock. I rarely buy in to the "slippery slope" arguments, but IMHO this is one. Will alcohol or fatty foods be next?

[AX10]

1. I will not be utilizing Westgate's services since they...

are pro-discrimination!

[izquierdista]

2. Only one tool to use

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

This is predictable coming from a fascist who can only think in terms of degrees of punishment. It probably never occurred to him that there are thousands of incentives that he could put in place to help people reduce or quit their smoking. That must be the province of the liberals, to actually help people instead of beat on them for some perceived "character flaw".

I bet his anti-smoking fervor doesn't extend to not investing in tobacco companies. Anything to make a buck.

[Mountainman]

3. This should be made illegal asap! I think smokers are addicted to nicotine and it is not easy to

just give up smoking to keep your job and no one should be put in that position.

[superconnected]

21. Not only that nicotine is not an illegal drug.

They should have the choice to smoke if they want to.

What next, nobody that eats meat can work there because that causes heart disease and brings up the cost of insurance?

it is the same this. People are more likely to die from their years of meat consumption and FASTER than smoking.

I'm not a smoker, never have been. But I can see where this is going.

[Blaze Diem]

4. People have died from being assholes too.

fire Seigel.

What else doesn't Seigel like?

ok this is just a back-at-cha statement. He can forbid it on his properties. He can deny anyone found to have smoked on his properties, employment or guest services. I would challenge the "in my private life" thing tho.

[raccoon]

7. But not often enough!

" People have died from being assholes too."

[Blaze Diem]

12. lol. yep, not often enough.

wtf do you do somedays.

[SayitAintSo]

43. People die having to WORK for assholes....n/t

[seriousstan]

5. Fire them and then tax the shit out of them. Make it financially impossible to smoke.

Then go after the drinkers and fat people. Make them chose between their evil was and having enough money to live.

[superconnected]

23. You are kidding rightt?

[merwin]

28. You do see his alias, right? SeriousStan. I would guess he's serious

:)

[seriousstan]

38. What? You are against SCHIP? Taxing cigarettes helps pay for children's health care.

So smoker's are already fair game. However, when smoker's numbers start to dwindle we will have to get the money for SCHIP from someone. I say drinkers and fat people next. They all contribute to health care costs by their stupid choices. Let them pay.

[BreweryYardRat]

84. Either you're kidding, or you're a grade-A asshole.

A life without pleasure (smoking, drinking, good food) is no fun.

We could have the money for SCHIP in 5 minutes if we started seizing the assets of fraudulent military contractors.

[ThePowerofWill]

36. So then the rich can live as they want, but the poor.....

must live as their told. Wow! What a great message! We poor, and working class don't deserve the right too choose what we consume.

[Beerboy]

54. Who said anyone doesn't have a legal choice as to their decisions?

The government isn't stopping anyone from smoking, getting drunk, or pigging-out. It's some asshole suit running a company telling some idiot prospective employee that their lifestyle has to conform to corporate (not gov't/legal) guidelines. It's analogous to racist pricks not being able to call their black co-workers the N-word; if they do, it's legal to fire the POS, but the gov't won't throw the idiot in jail.

[Beerboy]

53. As long as it's legal, I'm cool w/ it.

Drinkers and fat fucks piss me off too (including me), I can't wait 'til the cops can tazer them all!

[Occulus]

6. "When I found out it was legal to discriminate against smokers, I put the policy in place,"

This is an extremely disturbing trend. Personally, I feel if companies are going to require their employees to abide by company rules when they're not actually working for the company, they should pay them 24/7/365, including overtime.

His employees should sue for back pay retroactive to the date the policy was instituted, and applied 24/7/365 from that day forward.

[SyntaxError]

17. That comment sounds like something someone would say if they were trying to point out a flaw in it..

but based on his other comments, I don't think that's the case...

[closeupready]

30. That's how the Supreme Court has ruled, I believe.

n/t

[Trillo]

33. Corporations are reminding mere employees they're the boss -- of everything. nt

[SayitAintSo]

44. Obesity discrimination is next

My company is already greasing the skids to prepare the mindset for it.

[pattmarty]

8. I have always been leary of this anti smoking bullshit.

[Beerboy]

55. Why?

You're not one of them, are you?

[pattmarty]

58. Are you paranoid? "One of them" who?

I used to smoke cigarettes (like a great many people) and quit over 10 yrs ago. I don't know exactly what you mean by your comment, but my reasoning is I don't like the government to have any more power over individuals than is absolutely necessary. No listening on my phone conversations, looking at my e mails, breaking into my house and looking in my underwear drawer, or looking at my sexual/alcohol consumption/personal habits that they have no right to look at. THAT'S WHY!!!!!!!

[Beerboy]

60. Smokers.

Now that you don't smoke, you've gone a long way in rehabilitating your legal protections regarding how your employer must treat you, and it's not legal now for agents of your private employer to B/E your home/underwear. Lol!

[pattmarty]

67. I' m not talking about my employer, I'm talking about the fucking government.

Yeah, I get the employer thing you finally made clear. If the government wasn't in your business in the first place I don't think your employer would have the power he has nowadays. Think drug testing...... Bought to all of us by St Ronnie of Reagan.

[Beerboy]

71. Gov't snooping predates by far St. Raygun.

It's important to recognize that the sphere between public/private "ownership" is nebulous indeed. The private "owner" is responsible for paying all the taxes and insurance on their land/property, and it can be taken away @ a whim by a judge or a property assessor you couldn't afford to bribe.
Government doesn't always have everyone's best interest @ heart.
edited to add: If you really want to be freaked-out about how tenuous your hold on everything your family has worked for, google "asset forfeiture".:scared:

[krabigirl]

66. moi aussi

[cstanleytech]

9. Just wondering though how many here

who oppose this companies actions would say the same if it was say crack use at home that the company opposed.
I can see the companies side of it and from an insurance standpoint as well its just cheaper to keep people healthy who don't smoke but on the other hand the company does seem to be going out of bounds since its not on company time and what you do while not on company property and or on company time should not be any of their business.

[leftynyc]

10. At the moment, tobacco is legal and

crack is not. Try again. This employer is trying to control LEGAL behavior.

[cstanleytech]

15. That was not the point which was

both cause harm to yourself.

[SyntaxError]

19. So does fatty food, jumping out of planes, driving fast, and posting on the internet.

However, none of those are illegal - that's the point. There are many legal things that cause us harm, but we wouldn't want companies using those against us because of that... I've heard that driving while black can be dangerous in some parts of this country, I suppose you have nothing against discriminating against blacks since they take part in that dangerous activity.

[Beerboy]

56. LEGAL defines how a citizen's behavior must comply with gov't,

not a private employer's policies regarding their employees.

[Zhade]

25. Companies do not own us when we're not on their clock.

Of course, they think they do. They must be taught otherwise - as painfully as possible.

[Beerboy]

57. It's efficient and very effective for China,

the 21st Century 'company store'.

[Dr. Strange]

72. But if they're paying for health care which covers us when we're not on the clock...

it becomes a dicier issue.

We need to get companies out of the health care issue. This would solve so many problems...

[pollo poco]

11. Right to privacy?

These fascists get a hard on just thinking about poking into people's private lives. And yes, drinking, being overweight, not teaching your children to be christians, having too many or too few kids, reading liberal periodicals or anything else corporations dissapprove of, certainly could be used to discriminate against employees using this argument. After all, why shouldn't the corporate expenditures on wages serve also to advance the corporate agenda? Investments in media ownership and political campaigns certainly do.

I don't smoke, and I don't drink, but an industry could be created that would turn a profit on observing me all the time, just in case. More profits! Hooray! Maybe the corporation I work for could bill me for this service. That way even the act of employing me could further the corporate political agenda and defray part of the cost of my salary.

And let's not leave out the subconscious christian element of the vaule of perfecting and purifying people for their own good. Are any of us really worthy of our corporate jobs? Shouldn't we all try to be just a little better for the good of our corporate overloads? After all, they must be better than us. They make more money! God clearly favors them. They should judge us, and if we are wanting, it is their christian duty to assist in perfecting us.

And we haven't even talked about thought crime yet. You know it's a sin to think bad (anti corporate) thoughts. I'm sure a profit could be made waterboarding people until they confess to unpure thoughts. Even the waterboarders could be waterboarded! We could build new prisons! Think of the profits!

Sign me up- I need a job!

[Blaze Diem]

14. Bravo.

you are so very correct.

You state the condition of the world in a nutshell.

[krabigirl]

69. Wow, excellent post. Scary, but I could see it happening.

[NekoChris]

13. They SHOULD

ban it. It's disgusting, it's unhealthy, it kills people, it harms the people around the people who smoke who DON'T smoke themselves, it stinks, it stains both people and buildings with continued use, it's full of chemicals that shouldn't be there in the first place which is because the companies who sell it have no regard for their customers.

Simply put cigarette smoking is probably one of the worst things in this nation, a useless money sink for the masses.

Why the hell you would support a product that has NO benefits to its users other than mild feel-good buzzes while at the same time harming both the smoker and those around them is beyond me. You could be spending that money on better things, like you know, FOOD, or CLOTHES, or anything else really.

[Malikshah]

16. Cause when I take up smoking again, I will do it just to spite you.

Jeez.

Get a grip.

The point of this is the intrusion of government through laws

The lack of legal protection to a citizenry.

What about banning smokers from becoming parents?

[Beerboy]

59. What about banning smokers from becoming parents?

I like it. A lot.

[Blaze Diem]

18. Same reason people here inTexas deep fry everything they shove in their mouths.

They like it and they can. If it makes me gag at the sight of watching them and my health ins. goes up becaquse of their gluttonous habits, too bad.
When their 9 yr old kid has thighs bigger than my hip measurement, I cannot show my repulsion when I see this child shoving another deep fried gob of food in his mouth, I wonder whats contributed to his addiction.
I wish I could weeed out all the nasty habits and annoying personal bahavior that I find threatening. Best I can do is avoid it, cuz I cannot control all the really ugly things human beings do in their daily & private lives.
Smoking stinks and is all around nasty, but so is clearing phlegm from your throat and spitting it on the sidewalk next to someone else.
That cannot be healthy for ohers.
Is that legal?

[SyntaxError]

20. because people are free to fuck up their shit if they want...

I don't smoke and don't like being around it, but I don't think I have any right to tell people what they can or cannot do in their private life. I can understand the push for getting smoking out of public places, but not in personal life. It's like with weed, I don't smoke it, but I really don't think the government(or businesses) should be telling people that they shouldn't be able to smoke it in the privacy of their own home.. I'm sure someone will say something like "by that logic then crack should be legal too"... my response is that I've see hard drugs cause people to do crazy things. You don't get that with things such a tobacco and marijuana.

[superconnected]

26. I guess the people here are against banning it in your spare time

because then everything is free game to ban that we do in our private lives.

I'm sorry you're drawn to absolute totalitarian dictatorship by companies, the rest of us just are not.

[Zhade]

27. They used a lot of those arguments with Prohibition.

Just how far are you willing to go to impose your views on others' lives?

I don't smoke - hate it, in fact - but I stand on the side of personal liberty on this one. It's their lives (as long as only they are exposed to the smoke), not mine and CERTAINLY not yours.

Thank goodness you are powerless. Authoritarianism like yours is frightening.

[merwin]

29. The same thing could be said of fatty foods like McDonalds.

Or video games, or TV.

Try again.

[woodsprite]

31. I'm anti-smoking, I don't smoke - never even tried it, BUT

I'm against anyone saying what I can or can't do in my own home when I'm off the clock.

[matcom]

40. boy are YOU a fucking idiot!

EOM

[NotGivingUp]

50. because it's THEIR goddam choice!! i say people like YOU are unhealthy to a free and democratic

society. i think YOU and everyone LIKE you should be banned to live in your own little country and direct each others lives until you puke...or kill each other...whichever comes first.

[krabigirl]

65. zzzzzz your faux health nazi morality is so stifling

[NeedleCast]

93. Yeah!

Why should people be allowed to do what they want within the bounds of the law! They should all do what you want them to do! I'm off to buy some shirts.

[superconnected]

22. I sooo hope they get sued bigtime.

Next, NO FAT PEOPLE.

[Zhade]

24. I hate smoking, especially when it's forced on people secondhand.

But I absolutely despise authoritarianism like this.

They aren't hurting me. Let them smoke, you fucking assholes.

How is this even legal?

[truthisfreedom]

32. As an ex-smoker, I'm thrilled. As a freedom-loving American, I'm saddened.

Smoking, although legal, somewhat sexy, cool and dangerous, sucks. It's inevitiable that smokers will be treated this way, all over the country. I'm an employer, and too many of my employees smoke, but unfortunately for me, my very best employees are smokers so I can't even consider discriminating.

on edit: I think I'm going to offer a bonus to employees who quit smoking at work.

[Occulus]

35. But this isn't just about smoking

It's about them getting their foot in the door to force employees into living like their employer wants. One Michigan company went further; family members weren't allowed to smoke, either, IIRC.

But who's to say it'll end there? Who is to say a company won't next require a "proper" body mass index, or some other equally intrusive "proof" of "living right"?

I don't have time to go into everything I'd like to regarding this issue, as I'm on my way to work myself, but where will it end? Will employees eventually have to face roving "wellness teams" from their employers knocking on their door to make sure everyone's "living right"?

It's not really about smoking, to me- it's all about precedent.

[RamboLiberal]

39. Wasn't there a newspaper publisher who did this a couple

of months back? Either it was a ban on smoking for all including family members or an increase in health insurance. I couldn't find it on a quick search but I remember reading something like this.

[SayitAintSo]

45. You cracked me up with 'roving Wellnes Teams' ...

But I do see the writing on the wall.

[Crayson]

48. Definitely! Don't let this shit even start off !!

Next it's the obese, gays, tv junkies, and it won't be longe before it's thought police!

[alarimer]

91. Some company was already trying to do that too

I can't remember where.

And somebody proposed a bill here in Texas to fine state employees $40 a month if they did not do all of the "wellness" things - get their blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. checked and prove you were working out. Now the blood pressure and other tests would have been done AT THE WORKPLACE by a nurse or someone there. And I guess it would have been reported back to management if you did not do that.

But it didn't pass, fortunately, or I, as a state employee, would have told them to shove their wellness program up their ass.

[Arugula Latte]

81. I've never thought smoking looked cool or sexy.

I always thought/think: Why is that person doing that to themselves?

[midlife_mo_Jo]

34. It's probably legal to say don't come to work smelling like cigarette smoke

which is kind of hard to do for a smoker, but I can't believe it would be constitutional to place an outright ban on smoking outside of work.

Most smokers don't realize how much they reek of cigarette smoke, and how that stuff just permeates everything they're around, unfortunately.

[14thColony]

37. If this holds up

I would expect some company to try an alcohol ban next. Alcohol has myriad health concerns as well, and adds a dimension of social problems that smoking doesn't.

[slackmaster]

41. The 20th Century's original Big Brother did things like that

[guruoo]

42. "if you are obese and there is a way for us not to hire you or to fire you, we will do that, too."

"Anything we can do that is legal and not discriminatory, we will do," Seigel said. "If you are an alcoholic and we have the right 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 will do that, too."

[BreweryYardRat]

85. *checks article to confirm* Well, fuck him.

I hate petty little tin-god wannabes. Who does he think he is to tell his employees what they can/can't do, or how their bodies can look?

With any luck, he'll step in front of a speeding bus.

[guruoo]

87. At very least, he's not being a very smart businessman, IMHO. n/t

[Crayson]

46. ONLY SOLUTION

Stay in school, learn, become smart and pick a highly demanded occupation where YOU have a say.

It's all "supply and demand".

I'm a non-smoker. But I could blow smoke in the faces of my colleagues and wouldn't be fired.
They wouldn't be THAT insane.
^_^

[Beerboy]

73. I lurve the word 'solution' when it's about smokers. n/t.

[HuckleB]

78. Don't bet on that.

A little humility goes a long way toward avoiding shocking discoveries about how little each of us is actually worth.

[brook]

47. I'm sure

David Seigal is applying the same fascist rule to the paying guests at his Westgate Resorts. Aren't you? I mean, he's mad at smoking, right? Surely he wouldn't hesitate to impose his righteous indignation across the board?

[Naturyl]

89. LOL, not a chance. You make a good point (n/t)

[NotGivingUp]

49. Westgate will NOT be seeing me at their resorts...and I am NOT a smoker. n/t

[Beerboy]

51. Sometimes legal discrimination is cool;

"When I found out it was legal to discriminate against smokers, I put the policy in place", Westgate president and CEO David Seigel said.

I know I sound like a broken record on this, but it will be a happy day when it's legal to tazer smokers on sight. Then post it on YouTube.

:evilgrin:

[NotGivingUp]

52. i think we should taser beer drinkers...you twit. n/t

[Beerboy]

61. You say it like it would be a bad thing! n/t.

:beer:

[inMD]

62. Anyone have any environmental concerns?

I understand the defense of having the freedom to choose, but I'm surprised that noone has brought up smokings effects on the environment (I am on DU, right?). Smokers are throwing crap into the air we breathe and burning produces carbon. I am also against using wood fireplaces to heat your home as it is the least efficient method and spews carbon ash into the air while most of the heat escapes up the flu. Charcoal grilling too.

My dad told me the other day he was concerned about global warming. So I asked him what he's done. His response, "nothing, I don't use that much, but people have to cut back". Dad, get a more efficient car than your SUV, replace lightbulbs, stop grilling with charcoal, heating your home with a nice cozy fire, leaving (even low watt) lights on 24/7 as decoration, running water when brushing teeth, going on faraway trips frequently....the list goes on.

We must clean up our environment and stop spewing crap into our air and we must all cut our own personal carbon production by 50%. We gotta get serious and we gotta start by looking at our own habits.

[Beerboy]

63. Welcome to DU, inMD! I don't think you're responding to the right post,

but you make some very sound observations. Dirty filthy smokers' cigarette butts take hundreds of years to decay, unless they've started thousands of fires costing billions from everyone.
Welcome to DU!:thumbsup:

[inMD]

64. yeah

Meant to respond to the original post to make a new point. I could delete and repost, but I think my point gets across either way.

[NekoChris]

80. I love your points

They just add on top of all the other reasons to get people to quit.

[Naturyl]

90. Dirty filthy fascism takes even longer to decay.

Unless you're just playing around (which is possible), you need to be tasered yourself.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

95. I'm against drivers. nt

[High Plains]

75. What an asshole you are.

[Beerboy]

79. No more than you. How do you figure?

Ass-holiness begins @ home, in the mirror. Where do you get off saying I'm an a-hole? All you've got is an emotional utterance backed-up by nothing.
If you can actually prove it, go ahead.

[krabigirl]

68. Well, since unions are mostly dead, execs can do whatever they want

and it sucks! I will never go to a Westgate resort. I don't ever go to Florida anyway...have no reason to, so here's another reason to stay away. Screw this guy and his fascist ways. I never was a chain-smoker, just a social (clove) smoker, and it pisses me off to know that this asshole would have discriminated against me because of a legal acitivity I used to do in off-hours. I quit the social smoking three years ago and haven't touched one since. This, however, makes me want to take up smoking again just to piss people like this off! (I won't, but...)

[inMD]

70. glad you aren't going to pick up smoking again

Glad you are not going to pick up smoking again out of spite. That would be a terrible reason to smoke.

But if we don't get serious about cleaning up the environment ourselves by changing our polluting habits (and I don't just mean smoking), it will all be regulated by someone in government who takes global warming seriously (obviously not Bush) and then smoking (amongst other things) won't be legal. That may be fascist but it may become necessary to save our planet.

[Beerboy]

74. Way cool krabigrrl isn't going to smoke,

but I think smokers need and are begging to be made an example of.

[superconnected]

86. I'm pretty sure if we do what the big bad companies want us to

there will be more pollution not less.

Don't less this company dicatate lives. People should be dictating the companies polution. You can bet it's not going to work both ways though.

[johnnie]

76. Boy, didn't see this coming

:eyes:


This is what the anti-smokers wanted so they are getting it. Good for them. This is only the beginning people.

[HuckleB]

77. This isn't new.

Company's in Arizona have been doing this since the 1980s, in order to save money on health insurance. Karsten Manufacturing, which makes Ping golf clubs, led the way in that state.

[Lorien]

82. I hate, Hate HATE David Seigel!!!!

I used to live in a very nice apartment complex in Kissimmee called "Oak Plantation" ; very quite and serene-and eco conscience too. The huge live oaks there had been carefully built around; there were even cut outs in the roof lines to allow massive branches to pass through. Seigel came around and bought up the place. He gave us 30 days notice to get out and started felling our beautiful oaks at once! Night and day the chainsaws were going as his team worked to destroy hundreds of years of old growth lives oaks and plant scrawny little palm trees in their place to try to force the forested area into looking coastal. I watched as a mother squirrel desperately tried to save her babies from being bull dozed one day. Seigel doesn't give a flying fuck about anyone but himself and his profits. I can't imagine that he has a friend, so I'm sure that his story is bullshit.

[OhioChick]

83. What a Bunch of BS....

Soon companies will be monitoring people's diets. Bad idea.

[Naturyl]

88. Ridiculous and tyrannical

But those are both typical qualities of the American workplace, sadly.

[eyesroll]

92. This would be illegal in WI.

Use or non-use of legal products off-premises, during non-working hours is a protected activity under Wisconsin employment law.(It's legal for employers to give incentives for employees to quit smoking -- and it may be legal to charge smokers more for employer-based health insurance, I'm not sure -- but smoking is off-limits for hiring, firing, promotions unless it's a legitimate job qualification. I think the American Lung Association is allowed to choose non-smokers, for instance.)

[Honeycombe8]

94. Yes, I hate then thar smokers, too! I say we string 'em up, boys!....

Waddya say? We can't have these folks just walking around amongst us, like they're one of us, can we? What's scary is that you can't even tell 'em apart from the good folks! They blend right in....until you get close enough to smell 'em, that is.

Then after we hang all the smokers, why we oughtta go after the fatties, the gluttons. At least we can spot them, so it oughtta be easier.

Then after them, we can go after the fornicators. They spread all kinds of diseases amongst us normal folks. Not to mention poisoning the minds of our childrens.

Then after them, we can go after...well...anyone who isn't as good as us! Yeah, that's the ticket!

But wait...what if they start comin' after me? Who will be left to defend me?

:smoke:
Sign me...a reformed smoker who believes in tolerance of others' habits. And who does NOT think that smokers are the ones with the most health problems and the cause of the high insurance rates in America.

[kelligesq]

96. Drinking causes esophegeal cancer. Anybody banning vodka or beer ? n/t

.

[treestar]

97. How can they enforce that?

They're just asking for wrongful termination lawsuits if they ever terminate anyone on that ground.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

98. There is NO excuse for any corporatation to excercise this kind of power

over the private lives of its employees. If this is allowed to stand, where will it stop? The prescient this sets threatens ALL privacy. And if corporations are allowed to hold this kind of power, you KNOW there will be serious abuses in the future.

Will the company hire morale agents to visit homes to enforce this?

This just has bad news written all over it.

[sakabatou]

99. That's Bullshit!

Stupid rules like that...