RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:40 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 4:04 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36256
I worked for a company for 5 years that performed random drug tests and also did not hire smokers. Nobody tested for cigarette smoke but since we were a "drug free workplace" for insurance purposes we tested for drugs. If you tested positive then you were required to get treatment and were retested thereafter. If you tested positive again, you were terminated. It was posted all around the plant and it was in the handbook and was explained to each employee prior to their hire. Drug tests and background checks were performed on every new hire. I don't recall anyone complaining although I am sure some folks who were fired for failing drug tests complained.

IMO, we had folks who operated machinery that could kill them or another member of their crew in a split second. You could loose an appendage in the blink of an eye. Part of my job was dealing with workers compensation and I saw all the reports and the amount of therapy and cost associated with all types of injuries. Nobody wants to see any employee get hurt. Safety in those environments protect life and limbs but also saves time and money for the company. It's a win / win. Anything that detracts from that including drugs is going to get attention. The smoking policy arose from health insurance costs, too many smoke breaks on the factory floor and complaints of the smell and butts all over the place from fellow workers.

The business can make a business case and a health/safety case for discriminating against these activities.

Yes, a business case can be made for many things, including slavery.
Quote:
Edited to add: The company did not allow you to smoke on the premises. We did not test for cigarette use but you were asked on the application and on the health insurance questionnaire. Nobody got terminated for being a closet cigarette user unless you were caught smoking on the premises and then only after several warnings.

No, it cannot make a business case about what you do on your personal time. Unless, of course, it also refused to hire anyone who drank alcohol. Did it?

Because you cannot make the case that smoking pot on the weekend hurts your abilities when you are no longer under the influence.

Let me ask you a serious question - do you think the company has the right to tell you that you can't have a beer on the weekend?

And sorry, I was part of the safety team of the company I worked for back in the nineties. Companies can talk a big talk on safety, but when the rubber meets the road - actual safety - they rarely live up to it. Sure, they say, they "don't want to see anyone get hurt", but they are less interested in the hard work by everyone required to have an actual safe workplace. Being proactive about safety costs money and time. Policies like lockout/tagout are important, as well as fostering a true culture of safe practices, ensuring that employees aren't subject to harmful chemicals, and regular safety meetings are important.

A company that believes in safety needs to buy lifting equipment. They need to pay attention to ergonomics to prevent repetitive injuries. The good news about spending the money and time to be serious about safety is that you find that in the end, much of the issues from safety also makes the workplace more productive. Ergonomic studies will usually take out the waste in the production system, too. Sadly, most companies don't have the vision to spend that money up front for the long-term payoff.

Sounds like companies that like to turn to "Behavior-based safety". That translates to: "It's the employee's fault". Instead of engineering dangers out - which you CAN do, in improving equipment as well as a safety culture - they simply say that any accident is caused by workers with unsafe habits, and put the blame on the workers. But if you do the research, it's a large number of factors, including workplace culture, that are the real culprit.

Forklifts, for instance, are quite dangerous. I drove a forklift and had license at my job. I wasn't a full-time driver, just the one for our crew. I loved driving forklifts, always liked machinery. To drive a forklift, we required 8 hours of training in two-hour segments over a few weeks, along with testing, and you had to re-up yearly. Forklift drivers have to be vigilant and smart about what they are doing. Take a look at this forklift fail video:

www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com


Some of these folks were just stupid. But you could tell their workplace had no commitment to safety. At 45 seconds in the video, the fault was with management. The forklift was tiny and light. The loads were put WAAAAY up high, and you could tell the loads were shifted on the skids. There was no way you could get them down with the equipment they had. And the ones where they had all the racks where everything came down when they were just touched? The racks were either very old or far too flimsy to hold what they were holding.

I apologize to the board for digressing. But I've seen companies that REALLY commit to true safety on the job. And this one sounds like a company that is just using safety as an excuse for draconian policies and demanding control of employee's off-work behavior.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:24 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11387
Location: Sunny South Florida
The business can make a business case and a health/safety case for discriminating against these activities.


Drug free workplace? Absolutely. I think they can forbid you from touching alcohol during your lunch break, if that would affect you during work hours. Absolutely. Intoxication plus heavy machinery, as dangerous as intoxication plus driving. Oh, and if you're a pilot, a bus driver, a train conductor, and you've got dozens of lives in your hands -- zero tolerance policy should totally be in place. "Just a beer" before I got in the cockpit ... no way, jose, no way. Fired.

.... what I've never understood is why they may not hire you because a drug test showed you used something three years ago ... or, as goU asked, what you use on the weekend. That, I think, is not your employer's business. Even IF the substance is illegal.

Anti smoking policies, from my experience, are basically totally about saving on having to provide health insurance for the employee. Not about how it might bother other non-smoking workers, or the cigarette butts, or "caring about their workers and their safety". They probably also know especially if they can't smoke in regular spaces, they're constantly going outside or into the potty to take their smoke fixes.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:10 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12645
Quote:
gounion

Forklifts, for instance, are quite dangerous. I drove a forklift and had license at my job. I wasn't a full-time driver, just the one for our crew. I loved driving forklifts, always liked machinery. To drive a forklift, we required 8 hours of training in two-hour segments over a few weeks, along with testing, and you had to re-up yearly. Forklift drivers have to be vigilant and smart about what they are doing. Take a look at this forklift fail video:

www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com


Some of these folks were just stupid. But you could tell their workplace had no commitment to safety. At 45 seconds in the video, the fault was with management. The forklift was tiny and light. The loads were put WAAAAY up high, and you could tell the loads were shifted on the skids. There was no way you could get them down with the equipment they had. And the ones where they had all the racks where everything came down when they were just touched? The racks were either very old or far too flimsy to hold what they were holding.

I apologize to the board for digressing. But I've seen companies that REALLY commit to true safety on the job. And this one sounds like a company that is just using safety as an excuse for draconian policies and demanding control of employee's off-work behavior.

I agree with you about forklifts being dangerous. I learned to drive them in the AF and our training wasn't as long as your training. If fact, we could qualify for our forklift operator's license in less than an afternoon of training. I've was qualified and operated 4K, 6K, 10K forklifts, and a 13K all terrain forklift as well as the forklifts for a pallet racking system in which the forklifts and cab can rise over 20 feet and from my experience you have to be very aware of your surroundings. Not just the equipment and objects but of the people who will walk in front or behind you while you're operating the forklift. The most dangerous area for operating a forklift, IMO, is on a loading dock where it's easy do drive off. Fortunately, I never had an accident but there were times the loads I was lifting were nearly at the forklift's capacity and my heart was racing.

We used to have field exercises where we'd set up a "field hospital" which was mainly tents and some equipment. Our tents were stored across base and we'd have to have transportation meet us at our storage facility very early in the morning. I'd check out a 10K forklift and arrive to our facility before transportation flatbed truck arrived. After loading the truck, I'd have to drive the forklift "backwards" (in reverse) 2 miles to our site. The requirement to drive "backwards" was so we didn't ram a car with our forks. It was a pain driving backwards because you have adjust your point of view to driving. Looking backwards what you see on your right means it's actually on the left side of the forklift so the turn you see is on your right you have to turn left which only increased the possibility of an accident.

Still, I loved operating forklifts.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 2:30 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338
Yes, a business case can be made for many things, including slavery.

No, it cannot make a business case about what you do on your personal time. Unless, of course, it also refused to hire anyone who drank alcohol. Did it?

Because you cannot make the case that smoking pot on the weekend hurts your abilities when you are no longer under the influence.

Let me ask you a serious question - do you think the company has the right to tell you that you can't have a beer on the weekend?

And sorry, I was part of the safety team of the company I worked for back in the nineties. Companies can talk a big talk on safety, but when the rubber meets the road - actual safety - they rarely live up to it. Sure, they say, they "don't want to see anyone get hurt", but they are less interested in the hard work by everyone required to have an actual safe workplace. Being proactive about safety costs money and time. Policies like lockout/tagout are important, as well as fostering a true culture of safe practices, ensuring that employees aren't subject to harmful chemicals, and regular safety meetings are important.

A company that believes in safety needs to buy lifting equipment. They need to pay attention to ergonomics to prevent repetitive injuries. The good news about spending the money and time to be serious about safety is that you find that in the end, much of the issues from safety also makes the workplace more productive. Ergonomic studies will usually take out the waste in the production system, too. Sadly, most companies don't have the vision to spend that money up front for the long-term payoff.

Sounds like companies that like to turn to "Behavior-based safety". That translates to: "It's the employee's fault". Instead of engineering dangers out - which you CAN do, in improving equipment as well as a safety culture - they simply say that any accident is caused by workers with unsafe habits, and put the blame on the workers. But if you do the research, it's a large number of factors, including workplace culture, that are the real culprit.

Forklifts, for instance, are quite dangerous. I drove a forklift and had license at my job. I wasn't a full-time driver, just the one for our crew. I loved driving forklifts, always liked machinery. To drive a forklift, we required 8 hours of training in two-hour segments over a few weeks, along with testing, and you had to re-up yearly. Forklift drivers have to be vigilant and smart about what they are doing. Take a look at this forklift fail video:

www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com


Some of these folks were just stupid. But you could tell their workplace had no commitment to safety. At 45 seconds in the video, the fault was with management. The forklift was tiny and light. The loads were put WAAAAY up high, and you could tell the loads were shifted on the skids. There was no way you could get them down with the equipment they had. And the ones where they had all the racks where everything came down when they were just touched? The racks were either very old or far too flimsy to hold what they were holding.

I apologize to the board for digressing. But I've seen companies that REALLY commit to true safety on the job. And this one sounds like a company that is just using safety as an excuse for draconian policies and demanding control of employee's off-work behavior.


You are prone to assume the worst in most everything any company does. The company I worked for thought about, spoke about and practiced safe working habits. We had a safety committee composed of managers and employees that met weekly. Each and every safety incident was investigated to determine cause and also to determine what preventative measures might be required to prevent future accidents. We had safety consultants from the insurance carrier that met with the safety committee on a regular basis and also participated in accident investigations. I know for a fact that it was a focus of senior management. Now you can question the motives of all these players if you choose. That seems to be what you like to do. But despite what their motives might be, focus on safety is better for the employee and better for the company. The company I worked for self insured a rather large portion of workers comp and only carried catastrophic coverage for losses over a certain amount.

Our insurance rates were dependent on our maintaining a drug free designation in the workplace. Alcohol use in the workplace is not allowed. Being impaired while on the job is not permitted. The use of alcohol is legal in this country and in this state. Marijuana is not legal in the country, state, or on the federal level. At this time, marijuana is tested as it is required in order to maintain the drug free designation. Nobody really gives a shit if someone smokes pot but management does care about maintaining that designation for insurance purposes. Nobody gives a shit if you smoke cigarettes away from the workplace. They just didn't care for the constant smoke breaks, the stench in the workplace, or the litter. Fellow employees complained. They have a right not to be exposed to that kind of crap in the workplace. It's not draconian. Just common courtesy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:09 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36256
I agree with you about forklifts being dangerous. I learned to drive them in the AF and our training wasn't as long as your training. If fact, we could qualify for our forklift operator's license in less than an afternoon of training. I've was qualified and operated 4K, 6K, 10K forklifts, and a 13K all terrain forklift as well as the forklifts for a pallet racking system in which the forklifts and cab can rise over 20 feet and from my experience you have to be very aware of your surroundings. Not just the equipment and objects but of the people who will walk in front or behind you while you're operating the forklift. The most dangerous area for operating a forklift, IMO, is on a loading dock where it's easy do drive off. Fortunately, I never had an accident but there were times the loads I was lifting were nearly at the forklift's capacity and my heart was racing.

We used to have field exercises where we'd set up a "field hospital" which was mainly tents and some equipment. Our tents were stored across base and we'd have to have transportation meet us at our storage facility very early in the morning. I'd check out a 10K forklift and arrive to our facility before transportation flatbed truck arrived. After loading the truck, I'd have to drive the forklift "backwards" (in reverse) 2 miles to our site. The requirement to drive "backwards" was so we didn't ram a car with our forks. It was a pain driving backwards because you have adjust your point of view to driving. Looking backwards what you see on your right means it's actually on the left side of the forklift so the turn you see is on your right you have to turn left which only increased the possibility of an accident.

Still, I loved operating forklifts.

I enjoyed it a great deal, too. We had to have someone with a forklift license in our department, and most didn't want to do it, because you might be busy, and get pulled off to do something, and you couldn't count that time, it was time lost on your jobs. But, I was quite good, and could always finish my work in less time anyway.

I never had an accident, but I was very smart in how I drove. I was also the department safety guy, and got a lot of excellent training.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:32 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36256

You are prone to assume the worst in most everything any company does.

No, Joe, I just have a lot of experience with them.
Quote:
The company I worked for thought about, spoke about and practiced safe working habits. We had a safety committee composed of managers and employees that met weekly. Each and every safety incident was investigated to determine cause and also to determine what preventative measures might be required to prevent future accidents. We had safety consultants from the insurance carrier that met with the safety committee on a regular basis and also participated in accident investigations. I know for a fact that it was a focus of senior management.

How much focus? I'm not being flippant. Did they re-engineer things so workers were always in the best ergonomic zone as they worked? Did they provide vibration and shock resistant gloves? Did you have a lockout/tagout procedure?

How much training did they provide to the managers and employees? Did they provide accident investigation training? Did they have an employee member on the investigation team? As a member of the safety team, I had about 3 months of training, in everything from HazMat to ergonomics to accident investigation. My training allowed me to do safety audits.

How much shop-floor training did they provide to the workers? Did they have a weekly safety meeting in each crew, and did the supervisor write up and reports or questions the workers had? We were lucky - we had a union, so the partnership contract we wrote up gave the worker side a real voice, that the company couldn't ignore. Of course, that came with responsibility - I would come down hard on someone that was playing bullshit games over safety.

We had some really good, smart safety engineers that worked for the company. But more than once, they would find a serious issue, and the Director of Safety (who was worthless) would tell them to shut up about it, he didn't want to spend the money. So, they'd tell me, and a few weeks later, I'd just happen to walk by and "discover" the issue, and then I'd push it, and he HAD to fix it!

We did have some higher-ups in management who really bought into it, and I was proud of them. I became good friends with the VP of Manufacturing, and it built a far better relationship with the Union, too.
Quote:
Now you can question the motives of all these players if you choose. That seems to be what you like to do. But despite what their motives might be, focus on safety is better for the employee and better for the company. The company I worked for self insured a rather large portion of workers comp and only carried catastrophic coverage for losses over a certain amount.

No argument there, it's better for both sides. I saw people lose fingers and hands. I always said I wasn't going to let that place get a piece of me, and I did get out of there with all my digits, though it was close a time or two!
Quote:
Our insurance rates were dependent on our maintaining a drug free designation in the workplace. Alcohol use in the workplace is not allowed. Being impaired while on the job is not permitted. The use of alcohol is legal in this country and in this state. Marijuana is not legal in the country, state, or on the federal level. At this time, marijuana is tested as it is required in order to maintain the drug free designation. Nobody really gives a shit if someone smokes pot but management does care about maintaining that designation for insurance purposes. Nobody gives a shit if you smoke cigarettes away from the workplace. They just didn't care for the constant smoke breaks, the stench in the workplace, or the litter. Fellow employees complained. They have a right not to be exposed to that kind of crap in the workplace. It's not draconian. Just common courtesy.

Now, Joe, you said they didn't hire smokers. If they admitted to it, they weren't hired. So, you are wrong, they DID give a shit if you smoked cigarettes away from the workplace. Now, our company DID go completely smoke-free - you couldn't smoke on company property, PERIOD. But, of course, because of our Union, the company didn't try to ban people smoking away from work.

But you said the drug thing was a business case - well, if they were worried about the business case, then they would not hire drinkers either. Now, it's not good to work under ANY influence, but I think the evidence is pretty good that you can function better on pot than you can alcohol.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:04 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11387
Location: Sunny South Florida
Ehrm, I'm definitely not an anti cannabis guy, but I've heard lots of friends say they drive better while stoned.

It's odd how many accidents they've had.

Cannabis also creates problems ... affects your reaction time and response rate, can cause some mild effects on gauging depth and distance.

Probably also not good for driving, or operating heavy machinery.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:43 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338
No, Joe, I just have a lot of experience with them.

How much focus? I'm not being flippant. Did they re-engineer things so workers were always in the best ergonomic zone as they worked? Did they provide vibration and shock resistant gloves? Did you have a lockout/tagout procedure?

How much training did they provide to the managers and employees? Did they provide accident investigation training? Did they have an employee member on the investigation team? As a member of the safety team, I had about 3 months of training, in everything from HazMat to ergonomics to accident investigation. My training allowed me to do safety audits.

How much shop-floor training did they provide to the workers? Did they have a weekly safety meeting in each crew, and did the supervisor write up and reports or questions the workers had? We were lucky - we had a union, so the partnership contract we wrote up gave the worker side a real voice, that the company couldn't ignore. Of course, that came with responsibility - I would come down hard on someone that was playing bullshit games over safety.

We had some really good, smart safety engineers that worked for the company. But more than once, they would find a serious issue, and the Director of Safety (who was worthless) would tell them to shut up about it, he didn't want to spend the money. So, they'd tell me, and a few weeks later, I'd just happen to walk by and "discover" the issue, and then I'd push it, and he HAD to fix it!

We did have some higher-ups in management who really bought into it, and I was proud of them. I became good friends with the VP of Manufacturing, and it built a far better relationship with the Union, too.

No argument there, it's better for both sides. I saw people lose fingers and hands. I always said I wasn't going to let that place get a piece of me, and I did get out of there with all my digits, though it was close a time or two!

Now, Joe, you said they didn't hire smokers. If they admitted to it, they weren't hired. So, you are wrong, they DID give a shit if you smoked cigarettes away from the workplace. Now, our company DID go completely smoke-free - you couldn't smoke on company property, PERIOD. But, of course, because of our Union, the company didn't try to ban people smoking away from work.

But you said the drug thing was a business case - well, if they were worried about the business case, then they would not hire drinkers either. Now, it's not good to work under ANY influence, but I think the evidence is pretty good that you can function better on pot than you can alcohol.


The company I worked for was not a large company and the resources allocated to safety was significant in relation to our size. For instance, we were not large enough to hire a full-time safety engineer. Could they have done more. Probably. But I would venture to say we did as much or more than most companies our size.

As far as smoking. Yes if you admitted during the application process to being a smoker you were not hired. Smoking was against company policy. Hiring someone who admits to violating policy doesn't make a whole lot of sense and leads to lawsuits. However, if you smoked outside of our employment, nobody cared. They cared about whether you smoked on the job. They clearly didn't advocate smoking for health reasons and the impact it has on health insurance costs. But we didn't have cigarette police to follow you home or monitor your smoking habits.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 7:55 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36256

The company I worked for was not a large company and the resources allocated to safety was significant in relation to our size. For instance, we were not large enough to hire a full-time safety engineer. Could they have done more. Probably. But I would venture to say we did as much or more than most companies our size.

As far as smoking. Yes if you admitted during the application process to being a smoker you were not hired. Smoking was against company policy. Hiring someone who admits to violating policy doesn't make a whole lot of sense and leads to lawsuits. However, if you smoked outside of our employment, nobody cared. They cared about whether you smoked on the job. They clearly didn't advocate smoking for health reasons and the impact it has on health insurance costs. But we didn't have cigarette police to follow you home or monitor your smoking habits.

Wait - so the company policy was that you had to be a non-smoker to work there? And they weren't the American Cancer Society?

Yeah, I know they didn't follow you home - but you don't have a problem with a company having the hubris to have such a policy?

Now, let's be clear about something, because glen already tried to throw it in my face. If you're a Catholic Church, I can see you hiring Catholics. The NRA shouldn't have to hire people who are against guns. Non-profit organizations should be able to hire people with the same values as the company.

But when it comes to a for-profit company, who is just in business for profit, your religion shouldn't matter. Your gender shouldn't matter. Who you have sex with in your private life shouldn't matter. Whether you smoke at home or not, it should not matter.

And they can fucking stick it up their ass. They rent their employee's time, they don't own them.

Sometimes you have to forcefully remind a company of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12645
Ehrm, I'm definitely not an anti cannabis guy, but I've heard lots of friends say they drive better while stoned.

It's odd how many accidents they've had.

Cannabis also creates problems ... affects your reaction time and response rate, can cause some mild effects on gauging depth and distance.

Probably also not good for driving, or operating heavy machinery.

Is that the same thing alcoholics say?

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:36 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12645
I enjoyed it a great deal, too. We had to have someone with a forklift license in our department, and most didn't want to do it, because you might be busy, and get pulled off to do something, and you couldn't count that time, it was time lost on your jobs. But, I was quite good, and could always finish my work in less time anyway.

I never had an accident, but I was very smart in how I drove. I was also the department safety guy, and got a lot of excellent training.

In my job, just about everyone had a forklift license because you could be needed in the warehouse or with our medical war reserve material programs and it was easier if everyone was qualified.

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:30 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338
Wait - so the company policy was that you had to be a non-smoker to work there? And they weren't the American Cancer Society?

Yeah, I know they didn't follow you home - but you don't have a problem with a company having the hubris to have such a policy?

Now, let's be clear about something, because glen already tried to throw it in my face. If you're a Catholic Church, I can see you hiring Catholics. The NRA shouldn't have to hire people who are against guns. Non-profit organizations should be able to hire people with the same values as the company.

But when it comes to a for-profit company, who is just in business for profit, your religion shouldn't matter. Your gender shouldn't matter. Who you have sex with in your private life shouldn't matter. Whether you smoke at home or not, it should not matter.

And they can fucking stick it up their ass. They rent their employee's time, they don't own them.

Sometimes you have to forcefully remind a company of that.


That is correct. Company policy was not to hire smokers. Folks who smoked when the policy was adopted were grandfather in but after policy adoption, the company stated in the handbook the company did not hire smokers. They didn't follow people home to verify their smoking status. Kind of like don't ask, don't tell for smokers. Same rule for everybody regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual preference, etc, etc, etc. So you can try the "stick it up their ass" answer to the smocking question when asked but I suspect you wouldn't get offered any employment. They might forcefully remind you that they don't have to hire you. Most people who smoked didn't smoke at work or just quit smoking. Some folks decided to go find employment somewhere more smoker friendly.

Smoking is being banned in a whole bunch of places. Workplaces, parks, restaurants, etc. Indoor venues and outdoor venues. It's unhealthy for the smoker and for the people around them. Nobody cares if the product is legally sold or not. I don't know if I would want to go to the mat defending smoking.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 6:23 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36256

That is correct. Company policy was not to hire smokers. Folks who smoked when the policy was adopted were grandfather in but after policy adoption, the company stated in the handbook the company did not hire smokers. They didn't follow people home to verify their smoking status. Kind of like don't ask, don't tell for smokers. Same rule for everybody regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual preference, etc, etc, etc. So you can try the "stick it up their ass" answer to the smocking question when asked but I suspect you wouldn't get offered any employment. They might forcefully remind you that they don't have to hire you. Most people who smoked didn't smoke at work or just quit smoking. Some folks decided to go find employment somewhere more smoker friendly.

Smoking is being banned in a whole bunch of places. Workplaces, parks, restaurants, etc. Indoor venues and outdoor venues. It's unhealthy for the smoker and for the people around them. Nobody cares if the product is legally sold or not. I don't know if I would want to go to the mat defending smoking.

So, you think the company has the right to regulated employee's behavior away from work. Got it.

And yes, it's a blacklist, same as "are you now, or have you ever been a member of a union?" Gee, you just won't ever be offered employment. They just don't have to hire you!

Well, they spent years just not having to wire blacks, or gays, or women, or any other minority they deem unfit. Why not smokers?

In the interest of safety? No.

That shows a mindset of a company that doesn't surprise me - the feeling that they own the employees, and have the right to regulate their non-work behavior is simply the slavemaster mentality. Yeah, they wouldn't like me. I believe in treating people with dignity and respect.

And your support of this shows that conservatives don't believe in individual freedom.

You don't like smoking, fine. You have every right to tell someone they can't smoke on your property. Do you have the right to tell your friend across town THEY can't smoke in THEIR own home?

BTW, I'm not nor have I ever been a smoker. I'm personally glad that most places are non-smoking. But, unlike you, I DO believe in individual freedom, the right of people to live as they please in their private home, and I'm against the right of a company to dictate such things.

glen mentioned - I think it was this thread - that, in order to get the 5-dollar day, which was over double the current pay rates at the time, Ford Motor Company would demand you live your life as Ford saw fit:

The $5 a day rate wasn’t just free money, that every worker got. Instead, you had to work at the company for at least six months, and you also had to buy in to a new set of rules. The extra pay came at a price.

As Richard Snow writes in his book I Invented the Modern Age: The Rise of Henry Ford, a few basic stipulations were laid from day one:

To qualify for his doubled salary, the worker had to be thrifty and continent. He had to keep his home neat and his children healthy, and, if he were below the age of twenty-two, to be married.

That was just the start. Henry Ford wanted his workers to be model Americans, and to ensure that, he created a division within the Ford Motor Company to keep everyone in line. It was known as the Ford Sociological Department (or the Sociology Department, or the Society Department, really, depending on who you ask. But you get the idea.).

What started out as a team of 50 “Investigators” eventually morphed into a team of 200 people who probed every aspect of their employees lives. And I mean every aspect.

Investigators would show up unannounced at your home, just to make sure it was being kept clean. They’d ask questions that were less appropriate of a car company, than they were for the modern-day CIA. They’d query you about your spending habits, your alcohol consumption, even your marital relationships. They’d ask what you were buying, and they’d check on your children to make sure they were in school.

Women weren’t eligible, unless they were single and had to support children. Men weren’t eligible unless the only work their wives did was in the home.

They were Henry Ford’s personal morality enforcers, making sure that everyone who took one of his paychecks lived up to his standards.


Now, I'm sure that, because you believe in the rights of the company, and NOT the rights of the workers, you would see no problem with this. But I do.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:51 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11387
Location: Sunny South Florida
Yeah, don't get me going on Henry Ford. Yes, as industrialists went, he at least was one of the early ones to get that paying your workers well also meant they could buy your own cars. Unfortunately, along with that went some ridiculous intrusiveness in your non-work life. And that's before we get into the fact that he reprinted the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in his Dearborn Independent.

Again, I would say, my view is your employer can set reasonable and necessary rules about the workplace. That could include having a non-smoking workplace. No smoking at work. Fine. Lots of other venues have no-smoking policies for their consumers. BTW, if you work around flammable substances or in a fuel depot, you'd better expect it.

If they are dictating whether or not they'll hire smokers (period), it's about their insurance rates, not workplace conditions.

And yes, I know, all you have to do is put "no" to the "are you a smoker?" questionnaire they hand you, and continue doing it on weekends or at night, but still. Most places won't do as Ford did and send out people to check out what you're doing at home.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 10:17 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338
So, you think the company has the right to regulated employee's behavior away from work. Got it.

And yes, it's a blacklist, same as "are you now, or have you ever been a member of a union?" Gee, you just won't ever be offered employment. They just don't have to hire you!

Well, they spent years just not having to wire blacks, or gays, or women, or any other minority they deem unfit. Why not smokers?

In the interest of safety? No.

That shows a mindset of a company that doesn't surprise me - the feeling that they own the employees, and have the right to regulate their non-work behavior is simply the slavemaster mentality. Yeah, they wouldn't like me. I believe in treating people with dignity and respect.

And your support of this shows that conservatives don't believe in individual freedom.

You don't like smoking, fine. You have every right to tell someone they can't smoke on your property. Do you have the right to tell your friend across town THEY can't smoke in THEIR own home?

BTW, I'm not nor have I ever been a smoker. I'm personally glad that most places are non-smoking. But, unlike you, I DO believe in individual freedom, the right of people to live as they please in their private home, and I'm against the right of a company to dictate such things.

glen mentioned - I think it was this thread - that, in order to get the 5-dollar day, which was over double the current pay rates at the time, Ford Motor Company would demand you live your life as Ford saw fit:

The $5 a day rate wasn’t just free money, that every worker got. Instead, you had to work at the company for at least six months, and you also had to buy in to a new set of rules. The extra pay came at a price.

As Richard Snow writes in his book I Invented the Modern Age: The Rise of Henry Ford, a few basic stipulations were laid from day one:

To qualify for his doubled salary, the worker had to be thrifty and continent. He had to keep his home neat and his children healthy, and, if he were below the age of twenty-two, to be married.

That was just the start. Henry Ford wanted his workers to be model Americans, and to ensure that, he created a division within the Ford Motor Company to keep everyone in line. It was known as the Ford Sociological Department (or the Sociology Department, or the Society Department, really, depending on who you ask. But you get the idea.).

What started out as a team of 50 “Investigators” eventually morphed into a team of 200 people who probed every aspect of their employees lives. And I mean every aspect.

Investigators would show up unannounced at your home, just to make sure it was being kept clean. They’d ask questions that were less appropriate of a car company, than they were for the modern-day CIA. They’d query you about your spending habits, your alcohol consumption, even your marital relationships. They’d ask what you were buying, and they’d check on your children to make sure they were in school.

Women weren’t eligible, unless they were single and had to support children. Men weren’t eligible unless the only work their wives did was in the home.

They were Henry Ford’s personal morality enforcers, making sure that everyone who took one of his paychecks lived up to his standards.


Now, I'm sure that, because you believe in the rights of the company, and NOT the rights of the workers, you would see no problem with this. But I do.


I worked there for five years and I continue to have the company as a consulting client. In all that time I know of one salaried employee who admitted he was a smoker when he was hired. He was given six months to quit smoking. He resigned before his six months were up. Other than that I know of no one who complained about the policy. So if you want to make a big deal out of something that isn't a big deal, go right ahead. These folks aren't children. They know smoking is a bad habit. They know it isn't healthy. They know that it is offensive to people they work with. They know they could smoke at home and nobody would know the difference. They knew they could not smoke on the job. And they didn't. That was the ultimate goal of the policy and it wasn't to enslave the employee.

So no I do not have a single problem with healthier employees or a healthier workplace. I do not have a problem with policies that discourage smoking. I do not have a problem with policies that encourage healthier lifestyles. So if you want to go to the mat over smoking then go right ahead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:14 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:37 am
Posts: 3448

I worked there for five years and I continue to have the company as a consulting client. In all that time I know of one salaried employee who admitted he was a smoker when he was hired. He was given six months to quit smoking. He resigned before his six months were up. Other than that I know of no one who complained about the policy. So if you want to make a big deal out of something that isn't a big deal, go right ahead. These folks aren't children. They know smoking is a bad habit. They know it isn't healthy. They know that it is offensive to people they work with. They know they could smoke at home and nobody would know the difference. They knew they could not smoke on the job. And they didn't. That was the ultimate goal of the policy and it wasn't to enslave the employee.

So no I do not have a single problem with healthier employees or a healthier workplace. I do not have a problem with policies that discourage smoking. I do not have a problem with policies that encourage healthier lifestyles. So if you want to go to the mat over smoking then go right ahead.

why treat a smoker with more contempt than a skier? should employees who play on ice hockey league outside work be discriminated against on health concerns?

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3APlQeIAU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:57 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:46 am
Posts: 1566
A person I know was recently hired by a prestigious private university................. snip



LMFAO

YOU are a

www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com

_________________
24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence.....I think not!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 6:31 am 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36256

I worked there for five years and I continue to have the company as a consulting client. In all that time I know of one salaried employee who admitted he was a smoker when he was hired. He was given six months to quit smoking. He resigned before his six months were up. Other than that I know of no one who complained about the policy. So if you want to make a big deal out of something that isn't a big deal, go right ahead. These folks aren't children. They know smoking is a bad habit. They know it isn't healthy. They know that it is offensive to people they work with. They know they could smoke at home and nobody would know the difference. They knew they could not smoke on the job. And they didn't. That was the ultimate goal of the policy and it wasn't to enslave the employee.

So no I do not have a single problem with healthier employees or a healthier workplace. I do not have a problem with policies that discourage smoking. I do not have a problem with policies that encourage healthier lifestyles. So if you want to go to the mat over smoking then go right ahead.

I understand that you think a company has the right to tell employees what to do off the clock. You don't have a problem with that. I'm also sure you feel, deep down, that if a company doesn't want to hire blacks or gays or anyone else, they should have that right, too. It's the conservative paternalism in you, that a company has all the rights, and the worker has none.

You see no problem with a company dictating to their employees for off-the-clock behavior. Deep down, you think the company owns the employees.

It's views like that which illustrate the continued need for unions.

Now, let's think a little bit. Using your same logic, should the company not hire gays? They can let everyone know up front that they won't hire gays? Because, if a gay person gets AIDS, the medications are very expensive. So what if they said they wouldn't hire gay people to keep insurance costs down? You're down with that, too, aren't you? After all, you guys believe it's a choice, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:42 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10159
Yes, a business case can be made for many things, including slavery.

No, it cannot make a business case about what you do on your personal time. Unless, of course, it also refused to hire anyone who drank alcohol. Did it?

Because you cannot make the case that smoking pot on the weekend hurts your abilities when you are no longer under the influence.

Let me ask you a serious question - do you think the company has the right to tell you that you can't have a beer on the weekend?

And sorry, I was part of the safety team of the company I worked for back in the nineties. Companies can talk a big talk on safety, but when the rubber meets the road - actual safety - they rarely live up to it. Sure, they say, they "don't want to see anyone get hurt", but they are less interested in the hard work by everyone required to have an actual safe workplace. Being proactive about safety costs money and time. Policies like lockout/tagout are important, as well as fostering a true culture of safe practices, ensuring that employees aren't subject to harmful chemicals, and regular safety meetings are important.

A company that believes in safety needs to buy lifting equipment. They need to pay attention to ergonomics to prevent repetitive injuries. The good news about spending the money and time to be serious about safety is that you find that in the end, much of the issues from safety also makes the workplace more productive. Ergonomic studies will usually take out the waste in the production system, too. Sadly, most companies don't have the vision to spend that money up front for the long-term payoff.

Sounds like companies that like to turn to "Behavior-based safety". That translates to: "It's the employee's fault". Instead of engineering dangers out - which you CAN do, in improving equipment as well as a safety culture - they simply say that any accident is caused by workers with unsafe habits, and put the blame on the workers. But if you do the research, it's a large number of factors, including workplace culture, that are the real culprit.

Forklifts, for instance, are quite dangerous. I drove a forklift and had license at my job. I wasn't a full-time driver, just the one for our crew. I loved driving forklifts, always liked machinery. To drive a forklift, we required 8 hours of training in two-hour segments over a few weeks, along with testing, and you had to re-up yearly. Forklift drivers have to be vigilant and smart about what they are doing. Take a look at this forklift fail video:

www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com


Some of these folks were just stupid. But you could tell their workplace had no commitment to safety. At 45 seconds in the video, the fault was with management. The forklift was tiny and light. The loads were put WAAAAY up high, and you could tell the loads were shifted on the skids. There was no way you could get them down with the equipment they had. And the ones where they had all the racks where everything came down when they were just touched? The racks were either very old or far too flimsy to hold what they were holding.

I apologize to the board for digressing. But I've seen companies that REALLY commit to true safety on the job. And this one sounds like a company that is just using safety as an excuse for draconian policies and demanding control of employee's off-work behavior.


I've driven a forklift in my day as well. I was the mill foreman, and one of the things I could do to speed up operation was to hop on the lift from time to time and set material where it needed to be.

It was a hardwood mill, we made trim and moldings. We had up to 16 and 18 foot stock, and our storage building had 12 foot wide doors.

There's way to deal with that. One maneuvers one end of the lumber into the opening and then positions the lift near one side of the door opening, and then turns the lift on a dime through the opening while using the side shift. It takes a couple of days to get the knack down, but once it is learned a person can deal with it.

Another thing I learned was always travel backwards when there was a load on the lift, and to lower the load before travailing. The reason for is somewhat depicted on the cover image of that video. If one does not travel backwards and needs to get on the brakes suddenly the lift does a stern wheely and the load falls off, then the lift's stern slams back down hard. Dumps the load and can break the lift, not to mention who it kills.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:55 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36256

I've driven a forklift in my day as well. I was the mill foreman, and one of the things I could do to speed up operation was to hop on the lift from time to time and set material where it needed to be.

It was a hardwood mill, we made trim and moldings. We had up to 16 and 18 foot stock, and our storage building had 12 foot wide doors.

There's way to deal with that. One maneuvers one end of the lumber into the opening and then positions the lift near one side of the door opening, and then turns the lift on a dime through the opening while using the side shift. It takes a couple of days to get the knack down, but once it is learned a person can deal with it.

Another thing I learned was always travel backwards when there was a load on the lift, and to lower the load before travailing. The reason for is somewhat depicted on the cover image of that video. If one does not travel backwards and needs to get on the brakes suddenly the lift does a stern wheely and the load falls off, then the lift's stern slams back down hard. Dumps the load and can break the lift, not to mention who it kills.

Yep, fork lifts are quite maneuverable and fun to drive, but are inherently dangerous and demand skill and smarts to drive.

I take it that job was non-union, as a manger usually isn't allowed to do bargaining unit work, and hopping on a lift requires training and a license first in a unionized workshop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:31 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10159
Yep, fork lifts are quite maneuverable and fun to drive, but are inherently dangerous and demand skill and smarts to drive.

I take it that job was non-union, as a manger usually isn't allowed to do bargaining unit work, and hopping on a lift requires training and a license first in a unionized workshop.


It was my first job out of the Air Force and having worked as an instrument maker for Colorado State University. My first non government job.

It was the kind of non union mill where a foreman was not really regarded as being a part of management. I was a part of the hiring and firing but I had to do it through the owner.

I also was the toolmaker. Most of the time I stood at a grinding machine. Since I had to coordinate the tools with the planned production which I prepared and set on the ready bench, being foreman as well was a natural extension of that. And at night after everyone had gone home I was also the millwright, if needed.

I did demand good pay for all of that, and got it. The mill owner wrote me a letter of reference when I left which allowed me to write my own ticket from that point on.

Working there, and that letter, was the reason I was able to walk up to ship sitting at a dock in Seattle, and be hired on the spot as a engineer despite everyone saying that could not be done.

That TV show had not come out at that time, but that letter and several more I had compiled said in effect that I was a MacGyver.

It wasn't until I got tired of being a MacGyver and wanted to settle down and live a life which was boring, that I wanted to be a part of a union. Unions don't have any place for someone who wants to be a MacGyver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:34 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36256

It was my first job out of the Air Force and having worked as an instrument maker for Colorado State University. My first non government job.

It was the kind of non union mill where a foreman was not really regarded as being a part of management. I was a part of the hiring and firing but I had to do it through the owner.

I also was the toolmaker. Most of the time I stood at a grinding machine. Since I had to coordinate the tools with the planned production which I prepared and set on the ready bench, being foreman as well was a natural extension of that. And at night after everyone had gone home I was also the millwright, if needed.

I did demand good pay for all of that, and got it. The mill owner wrote me a letter of reference when I left which allowed me to write my own ticket from that point on.

Working there, and that letter, was the reason I was able to walk up to ship sitting at a dock in Seattle, and be hired on the spot as a engineer despite everyone saying that could not be done.

That TV show had not come out at that time, but that letter and several more I had compiled said in effect that I was a MacGyver.

It wasn't until I got tired of being a MacGyver and wanted to settle down and live a life which was boring, that I wanted to be a part of a union. Unions don't have any place for someone who wants to be a MacGyver.

Unions have a place for all working people.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:47 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:20 pm
Posts: 6338
I understand that you think a company has the right to tell employees what to do off the clock. You don't have a problem with that. I'm also sure you feel, deep down, that if a company doesn't want to hire blacks or gays or anyone else, they should have that right, too. It's the conservative paternalism in you, that a company has all the rights, and the worker has none.

You see no problem with a company dictating to their employees for off-the-clock behavior. Deep down, you think the company owns the employees.

It's views like that which illustrate the continued need for unions.

Now, let's think a little bit. Using your same logic, should the company not hire gays? They can let everyone know up front that they won't hire gays? Because, if a gay person gets AIDS, the medications are very expensive. So what if they said they wouldn't hire gay people to keep insurance costs down? You're down with that, too, aren't you? After all, you guys believe it's a choice, right?


We are talking about smoking. That's the topic. Everything else you posted about employee slavery and racial, gender, sexual preference discrimination is a complete distortion and a lie. You are assigning positions to me that I have not taken in this thread and have never advocated.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:51 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10159
Unions have a place for all working people.


Yeah, if I had wanted to be put in my place by a union. One size fits all. At that age I was of an uncommon size.

I eventually did want that once I got older and somewhat slowed down by age. And I had seen the world, and had had my fill of excitement. For quite a few years I liked being sent by land, sea, or air, to where there was trouble. I liked being a trouble shooter.

But then later in life I wanted to settle down and have a family too. Then a union had a place for me which didn't necessarily place me in my place.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2018 1:53 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36256

We are talking about smoking. That's the topic. Everything else you posted about employee slavery and racial, gender, sexual preference discrimination is a complete distortion and a lie. You are assigning positions to me that I have not taken in this thread and have never advocated.

No. We are talking about the rights of workers to do as they please in their time off. Smoking is legal. There is NO reason WHATSOEVER for a company to demand someone live their life a certain way when they aren't on the job. Sure, the company has the right to ban smoking on their time and on their property.

But not at a person's home.

Of course, you believe ONLY the company has rights, and can do anything it wants.

I don't. That's where we differ.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], gounion, Majestic-12 [Bot], marindem and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group