Barking, absolutely barking...

Straight from Woofing USA[1] we have

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4213441.stm

[1] Acknowledgement to the Ursine one.

 

"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue," job placement
specialist John Challenger told Reuters. "Rising healthcare costs and
society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an
individual."

So the age old state/individual issue where it's all a matter of the
rules and truths and boundaries you set up for yourself verus the
consensus. This will run and run and in so many different areas.

 

Have we, in the UK, not already accepted the principle? The 1992
Transport and Works Act brought in drug and alcohol testing within the
railway industry.

The alcohol test determines whether you are under the influence but the
drug test detects whether any traces of substances of abuse exist as
opposed to whether you are under their influence [1].

The reasoning being that if you are an individual who uses controlled
substances you have a propensity to violate rules and as such are a
demonstratable risk. I do not make this shit up.

This legislation went through under the guise of "we don't want piss head
junkie train drivers" which all seems eminently sensible if it weren't a
load of bollocks.

The health firm's arguments are a lot more insidious. There they see
smoking as a health risk which will affect the productivity of it's
employees. So the 'best' way to manage that risk is to remove it.

Isn't it a bit late now? Don't forget this has **** all to do with
smoking per se but is simply an extension of the, accepted, monitoring
culture and is primarily managing exposure to (financial) risk.

I wonder what other risks could be managed by removing them? Do we not
see similar attitudes displayed by people who won't ride a bike because
"they're too dangerous" or won't ride without gloves or a back protector.

It's all risk management.


[1] Top quote from an old driver when asked what he would do now he
was retiring: "Smoke loads of draw".

 

The legal challenge will be interesting, because it's going to be funded to
the hilt by the tobacco companies.

 

<fx: dons tinfoil hat>

Won't be much longer before people applying for jobs will have their DNA
tested to see how likely they'l be to contract cancer, Parkinson's etc etc.

<keeps hat on>

<dies due to heat exhaution of the brain>

 

There is a difference between requiring your workers not to break the law
and requiring them not to do something perfectly legal though
--
Alex

Hermes: "We can't afford that! Especially not Zoidberg!"
Zoidberg: "They took away my credit cards!"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.sffh.co.uk
www.ebayfaq.co.uk

 

No you're missing the point. It's nothing to do with the law it's all
about managing risk. This comes down to the ultimate raison d'etre:
Money.

Detecting traces of drugs demonstrates you are someone who breaks rules
therefore it follows that you have a propensity to disregard rules which
exposes the industry to (financial) risk.

For the US company in the article, you smoke you are damaging your health
which in turn exposes the company to a financial risk either through
increased health care benefits [1] or absenteeism.


[1] There is the other side issue with the provision of health care.
Imagine the scale of saving if a corporation can demonstrate that
none of its staff smoke.

 

Harder to tell if you've been riding a bike though, unless you injest the
petrol

That said, my company does frown quite strongly on their use for any kind of
business travel.

 

most likely they don't object to you using a bike for business travel
per se. They probably object to you turning up somewhere looking like
you've come on a bike.

 

Nope - not at all - it is/was specifically that a motorcycle is a[lledgedly]
much riskier form of transport.

 

really. We have a dedicated bike parking area in the basement.
Maybe, just maybe, you work for arseholes.

 

Well, let's be honest, it is for you Crasher.

 

Hang on... I'm talking about "on company business".

Not "coming to work".

There is a difference.

 

I think you'll find you have crashed more often and more recently than I.

This may be down to me doing 3 miles a year granted - but still.

 

On the track maybe. Apart from a minor scrape in my 2nd week ever I've never
crashed on the road. Two crashes on the track hardly put me in the same
category as running through a red light and the one that wasn't your fault.

 

yes, I know. I've never had to travel on business here other than to
some other offices within walking distance, or to Paris, so business
travel on the bike hasn't been an option.

 

Not where I work, we've even got an agreed motorcycle business mileage
rate.

 

I've worked for peanuts. I didn't realise it could get worse.

 

I'm not allowed to turn up at customer sites in bike gear which is pretty
much the same as a business travel ban.

I am also currently the only person in my company who knows about one of
our systems and meetings to discuss this always contain the phrase "we need
to cover ourselves in case you get killed on your bike".

 

I don't get that, and never really have. We do use the industry
standard "if you get run over by a bus tomorrow" use case.