Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > A poignant case for sensible Govt. Regulation

A poignant case for sensible Govt. Regulation (Page 2)
Thread Tools
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2011, 03:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Ok now let me give you my story to put this into another perspective.
Aw man, how dare you bring real world experience into this! We just want to wear rose colored glasses and stump for our beloved government because just flying that banner = pure as the wind driven snow, skirting completely the natural course of human nature.

Face it man, the worst enemy of a gigantic bureaucracy addicted to spending money... is people with money. They'll work tirelessly to keep sources of their own revenue addiction down, not be in cahoots with them. Oh no.

It's best friends are poor people. They'll work tirelessly on the behalf of those with the least to offer them. These things naturally follow each other. Get with the program.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 24, 2011, 11:55 AM
 
Merry Christmas to all my pro-regulation friends.
ebuddy
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 06:27 PM
 
More job-seekers are facing an added requirement: no smoking — at work or anytime.

An increasing number of employers won't hire applicants whose urine tests positive for nicotine use, whether cigarettes, smokeless tobacco or even patches.

As bans on smoking sweep the USA, an increasing number of employers — primarily hospitals — are also imposing bans on smokers. They won't hire applicants whose urine tests positive for nicotine use, whether cigarettes, smokeless tobacco or even patches.

Such tobacco-free hiring policies, designed to promote health and reduce insurance premiums, took effect this month at the Baylor Health Care System in Texas and will apply at the Hollywood Casino in Toledo, Ohio, when it opens this year.


"We have to walk the walk if we talk the talk," says Dave Fotsch of Idaho's Central District Health Department, which voted last month to stop hiring smokers.

Each year, smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke causes 443,000 premature deaths and costs the nation $193 billion in health bills and lost productivity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC says 19.3% of U.S. adults smoked last year, down from 42.4% in 1965.

"We're trying to promote a complete culture of wellness," says Marcy Marshall of the Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa., which begins its nicotine-free hiring next month. "We're not denying smokers their right to tobacco products. We're just choosing not to hire them."

The policies stir outrage, even in the public health community.

"These policies represent employment discrimination. It's a very dangerous precedent," says Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health. He says the restrictions punish smokers rather than helping them quit.


"What's next? Are you not going to hire overly-caffeinated people?" asks Nate Shelman, a smoker and Boise's KBOI radio talk show host whose listeners debated the topic last month. "I'm tired of people seeing smokers as an easy piñata."
Employers close door on smokers – USATODAY.com

Should the government outlaw such practices? And for all of you who can't function in the morning until you've had your second cup of coffee ... would your position change if employers refused to hire people who used caffeine? What about employers who implement policies of not hiring the unemployed in a economy with and official 8.6% unemployment rate (and an actual unemployment that's likely double that)? Or should we just sit back and let the "market" sort it all out?

OAW
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 06:43 PM
 
Where do you want to draw the line for what is an acceptable employer prerogative?

I don't like the idea of employers discriminating on this basis, but the idea of making smokers a protected class seems... insane.

I smoke BTW.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 07:10 PM
 
But caffeine is actually good for you (probably, but at least it's not harmful). And not hiring the unemployed is an oxymoron. But weight discrimination is a similarly interesting question.

I expect public backlash to do more to answer these than regulation will.
     
Andy8
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hong Kong
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Famous Freddie.
Enjoying the view from Montreux.

     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 07:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Or should we just sit back and let the "market" sort it all out?
Yes, a private business should be able to do what they want to do.
As long as nobody gets physically hurt, they can hire or fire whomever they want.

If they only want to hire gay midgets, so be it.

If a company gets too ridiculous, they will find that their pool of potential new hires shrinks so much that it will hurt business.

-t
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2012, 07:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Where do you want to draw the line for what is an acceptable employer prerogative?

I don't like the idea of employers discriminating on this basis, but the idea of making smokers a protected class seems... insane.

I smoke BTW.
You should see the cluster**k that UK employment law has become. Its about one step away from being "pull one resume from the pile at random without reading any of them and if you look at them first, then all the applicants you didn't hire can sue you for not hiring them."

And once you hire them, you can't sack them. If you accuse an employee of any wrongdoing, the savvy ones will accuse you of being intimidating or inappropriate or they'll just go see a GP and claim they are stressed or have a bad back and get signed off work for as often as they fancy.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2012, 05:23 PM
 
I was reading an article recently that spawned a question that's germane to the topic of the thread IMO:

Should a cellphone carrier EVER be allowed to lock your smartphone to its network?

Personally my view is HELL NO. And such anti-competitive prices should be outlawed. If they subsidize the actual price of your smartphone or what not then they can legitimately charge you an early termination fee (pro-rated of course) for breaking the contract if you cancel the service early. It is a business after all and they need to be able to recoup that investment. But actually locking your phone to their network? There's absolutely no business justification for that.

What say you?

OAW
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2012, 06:29 PM
 
You could argue its a weak theft deterrent. Over here, once you are due an upgrade and the handset is yours, they will unlock it again but they charge an admin fee.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:47 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,