![]() |
|
| *Home>>>Employment Law |
Should smokers be prevented from being hired for employment in public service by the government? |
If so, why? If not, why? It is a step in order to stop smoking, no? No, I would personally consider it to be discriminatory or a breach of rights. No, that's discrimination. It is not illegal to smoke, and before these past few years, it was very common to smoke just about everywhere. Interesting point that you make. As a smoke-free person for 1 year and 12 days, 8 hours and 52 minutes, I think this is something to consider as smokers do cost more to insure, are sick more (as a general rule) take more and longer breaks to leave to smoke, and one study, over 30 years ago when smokers could smoke at their desks they/we were shown to be less efficient (I believe it too). No. They are already not allowed to smoke in public places so what are you saying? that they shouldn't be employed because they smoke out of public places? Give the smokers a break. The anti smoking brigade have already got what they wanted. Now leave the smokers alone. No, they should not. Some of the best employees are smokers. What the government needs to do since they are always stepping in people's business, is make cigarettes illegal. That would do some good. How would this work? no, that is prejudism personified, who are you to to dicatate if a person smokes or not, it is banished from the workplace, dont see you have a valid arguement no way you're discriminating just because someone smokes. It isn;t there fault the government decided to sell a product so highly addictive that it's near impossible to stop the habit. When the Government bans cigarettes from sale then maybe yes. Up until that time which is decades away then they have no right to stop anyone while is is legal to smoke. well, since the government taxes and sells cigarettes, no. STOP SMOKING BY STOP SELLING IT, D'UH! Who is making all the money = the government,they will never totally ban it because they would stand to lose billions of dollars. We need 90% less government, by any means possible. No this would be discrimination, smokers have rights just as much as non smokers. no that's discrimination at it's worse, what an employee does on their own time is their choice. and their breaks are their own time!!!!! and waterboarded too..McBush in 08 for more war and tax cuts |
| Tags |
| Health Care Law General Civil Litigation Family Law Estates Law Environmental Law Entertainment Law Employment Law Elder Law Education Law DUI Law Drunk Driving Law Divorce Law |
| Related information |
Let someone loose with a pen, a bit of paper and a whole lotta power ...That just means the potential employer is going to verify the info on your resume by actually contacting each former employer to ensure that you really worked there - because people lie on resumes ... I鈥檓 guessing that you are in the UK? The letting agent is acting on behalf of the landlord i.e. the letting agent retains some of the rent (10-12%) for introducing new clients and for the administ... simple you have to make them feel as if theyre getting somthing out of it. law 15 of the 48 laws of power. ...If you're in the US (or even if you're not) this _may_ be illegal. Your father should consult a good attorney who specializes in workplace discrimination or First Amendment issues. Yo... 驴C贸mo consigo un permiso de conducci贸n restricto (RDP)? Un uso para un permiso de conducci贸n restricto se puede hacer con una audiencia informal o con un pedido escrito una audiencia formal. Refier... It probably means that if you give them 4 weeks notice, they can accept your resignation but make it effectively immediately, or in two weeks, or at any time shorter than the full 4 weeks and not h... Whatever the reason, you can be barred from the establishment. ... |
Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |