4 ms·

It’s a slippery slope, but it’s easy to think that way because it’s personally appealing to you. What if the policy banned something else - chewing gum, perfum

by t34543 7y ago

It’s a slippery slope, but it’s easy to think that way because it’s personally appealing to you. What if the policy banned something else - chewing gum, perfume, or eating foods with strong odors? All of those things do bother me but I put up with it because it’s not just about me.

coldpie 7y ago
Those don't really seem comparable to me. Perfume, maybe, I guess, but I doubt Uhaul is having a problem with serial perfume wearing. "Slippery slope" is a really weak argument, anyway. Unlike food and perfume, cigarettes cause real health and social issues. I don't see a problem with trying to address those. If you don't like it, don't work there. I do like it, so I find this to be an incentive to work there.
- Zenbit_UX 7y ago
  > "Slippery slope" is a really weak argument, anyway. The slippery slope is the only argument here. Testing for legal and somewhat socially tolerated substances is an encroachment of civil liberties. > Those don't really seem comparable to me. Neither would marijuana and tobacco smoking to someone in the 1950s.
  - coldpie 7y ago
    > Testing for legal and somewhat socially tolerated substances is an encroachment of civil liberties. I don't agree. The government isn't involved here at all, so no civil liberties are being encroached. On the contrary, requiring that companies hire people even if they smoke is an encroachment on the company owners' civil liberties. For something as clearly optional and harmful both to the smoker and their coworkers, I don't think being a smoker is worthy of having protected class status. You are free to smoke; they are free to not hire you for smoking; and you are free to not work for them due to their policies. This seems like a fine situation to me.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      >The government isn't involved here at all, so no civil liberties are being encroached. The government is legally bound to respect your civil liberties. Every other entity is just bound by their conscience and the consequences of their actions (we still live in a free-ish society after all). While what Uhaul is doing it not illegal it is still highly disagreeable from a civil liberties and employee rights standpoint. Legal does not imply morally sound and vise versa.
      - coldpie 7y ago
        Why do the company owners' civil liberties matter less than the employees'?
        anoncake 7y ago
        Being able to give someone else orders, in this case telling them they aren't allowed to smoke, isn't freedom. It's the opposite.
- nyolfen 7y ago
  obesity causes real health issues too
Zenbit_UX 7y ago
While everyone else is here debating their biased you've isolated the key problem here. Regardless of your thoughts on smoking, should a company be allowed to influence the personal lives of its workforce. Companies testing for marijuana and other illicit drugs open the doors for this decades ago, now the intrusion is into legal substances. Where does the line end? The slippery slope is already visible, be careful what you allow here, regardless of your thoughts on smoking.

by t34543 7y ago

coldpie 7y ago

Those don't really seem comparable to me. Perfume, maybe, I guess, but I doubt Uhaul is having a problem with serial perfume wearing. "Slippery slope" is a really weak argument, anyway. Unlike food and perfume, cigarettes cause real health and social issues. I don't see a problem with trying to address those. If you don't like it, don't work there. I do like it, so I find this to be an incentive to work there.

Zenbit_UX 7y ago
> "Slippery slope" is a really weak argument, anyway. The slippery slope is the only argument here. Testing for legal and somewhat socially tolerated substances is an encroachment of civil liberties. > Those don't really seem comparable to me. Neither would marijuana and tobacco smoking to someone in the 1950s.
- coldpie 7y ago
  > Testing for legal and somewhat socially tolerated substances is an encroachment of civil liberties. I don't agree. The government isn't involved here at all, so no civil liberties are being encroached. On the contrary, requiring that companies hire people even if they smoke is an encroachment on the company owners' civil liberties. For something as clearly optional and harmful both to the smoker and their coworkers, I don't think being a smoker is worthy of having protected class status. You are free to smoke; they are free to not hire you for smoking; and you are free to not work for them due to their policies. This seems like a fine situation to me.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >The government isn't involved here at all, so no civil liberties are being encroached. The government is legally bound to respect your civil liberties. Every other entity is just bound by their conscience and the consequences of their actions (we still live in a free-ish society after all). While what Uhaul is doing it not illegal it is still highly disagreeable from a civil liberties and employee rights standpoint. Legal does not imply morally sound and vise versa.
    - coldpie 7y ago
      Why do the company owners' civil liberties matter less than the employees'?
      - anoncake 7y ago
        Being able to give someone else orders, in this case telling them they aren't allowed to smoke, isn't freedom. It's the opposite.
nyolfen 7y ago
obesity causes real health issues too

Zenbit_UX 7y ago

While everyone else is here debating their biased you've isolated the key problem here. Regardless of your thoughts on smoking, should a company be allowed to influence the personal lives of its workforce. Companies testing for marijuana and other illicit drugs open the doors for this decades ago, now the intrusion is into legal substances. Where does the line end? The slippery slope is already visible, be careful what you allow here, regardless of your thoughts on smoking.