- Joined
- Jul 9, 2012
- Messages
- 9,248
- Reaction score
- 8,719
If I am lazy or stupid, I suck at doing my job.They could probably do this instead. However, there would likely be just as much, if not more uproar about being unfairly taxed for your personal choices (smoking). Given how good of standing hospitals (and other firms are for that matter) are on this, going to the extreme is not all that unexpected. I have no idea what the data is comparing the two methodologies, it likely doesn't exist.
Firms get to pick who they want as employees. You are not entitled to positions or consideration at a particular place. You simply can not be discriminated against for certain things. In the same way it is to a hospital's benefit not to hire lazy or stupid employees, it is to their benefit to not hire smokers. I see no problem with them looking out for their interests. If you disagree or think that they aren't fair, by all means complain, protest or do whatever else you want. But, the effect will likely be the same as the crappy student who thinks that they are being discriminated against because they have a low GPA and MCAT and no medical school accepted them.
If I smoke a cigarette once a week on my off-day (yes, intentionally small, but it falls under the ban as described) I am not in any way affecting my ability to do my job.
It's not a fair analogy.
Your point thus far is basically 'the hospital has all the power, so suck it'. Yet there are many, MANY times in US history where we have decided that employers should not be able to take every action which benefits them at the expense of their employees, just because they have the power to make the employees suck it up and deal with it or gtfo.