If it's about stomping out tobacco in employees in general, I could see them banning e-cigarettes with nicotine, yes.
It's all extraordinarily cruel and close to discriminatory, I think, though I'm sure they jump through all the necessary hoops (employees agree to it on hiring, etc.). Surely a smoking room, ventilated such that no secondhand smoke spreads, is a reasonable accommodation.
Anecdotally, smoking has gotten to be more of a class marker over the past 20 years, no? Worrying if so. I'll check the NSDUH and report back.
Surely a smoking room, ventilated such that no secondhand smoke spreads, is a reasonable accommodation.
Not in a country in which employers pay the health insurance premiums of their workers, no.
Confirmed: in 2009, of those with family incomes less than $20,000, 33.1% had smoked a cigarette in the past month; $20-50K, 27.5%; $50-75K, 20.4%; and $75K or more, 16.2%.
I wish that they'd make those things as a smoking cessation aid, since they're less of a fire hazard than cigarettes and a lot of people are not interested in the gum or the patch.
For many people the deep breathing seems to be as important part of it.
Oh, I forgot to mention that there may be chemicals in those e- cigarettes which are actively harmful.
I think I've met one smoker through my social circles in the past ten years. I know one other smoker from work.
I wish that they'd make those things as a smoking cessation aid
Isn't that precisely what they are? They come in different strengths, and you can step your way down. Sure, some people choose to use them as their during-work tobacco, with no intention of quitting smoking. But others, I think(?), use them intending to quit.
Those who had smoke blown in their faces for years in the 70s and 80s by people adamant about their right to smoke wherever whenever are going to spend a lot less time worrying about how unfair it all is.
I'm not proud of this attitude.
7: No. They're not regulated by the FDA as a medical device, so they can't be marketed for smoking cessation or harm reduction.
In the mall, they seem to go after teenagers, and nicotine is not entirely benign.
They're not regulated by the FDA as a medical device, so they can't be marketed for smoking cessation or harm reduction.
This fact is a gold mine for corporate lobbying groups, by the way. "DID YOU KNOW that there have been safe e-cigarettes available for years, but they are PRACTICALLY ILLEGAL because of the FDA? That's right, cigarette manufacturers would love nothing more than to phase out those primitive dried-leaf sticks, but the busy-state nanny-bodies strike again. Vote Romney."
10: Heh.
11: Who said anything about smokers' rights?
Right! To hell with 'em! Zero tolerance! Why not make it a felony while we're at it?
What are those e-cigs anyway? Teeny tiny vaporizers? Or just some kind of chemical sucking device? I mean, do you have to put stuff in them, or?
13 & 15: It's like you people don't even know how to pick a fight.
Also, see Charley's much more moderate version in 8.
Your mother doesn't even know how to pick a fight.
Is it possible to look cool while using e-cig? I'm thinking not.
That's got to hurt the marketeers targeting the teen demographic.
12: It is sort of true -- that is, unless something's changed since I was paying attention, there's no possible way for a tobacco company to market anything as a safer means of consuming tobacco. If it were possible for a safe means of consuming tobacco to exist, this state of affairs would certainly have reduced the incentive to develop it and market it.
||
Apparently employees of US Bank (of whom there are quite a few in MPLS) are being forced to sign a loyalty oath, to the effect that they do not and will not support the Occupy movement, at the cost of their jobs.
"You get more "or else" orders from your boss in a week than you do from the police in a year." --Bob Black
||>
16: Fine, you slackers. I looked it up myself. Some weird liquid chemical slurry is being vaporized. Ew.
I'm pretty sure I've never before heard of e-cigarettes.
There's a US Bank branch in downtown Oakland. But as one small comfort, such action is illegal under the California Labor Code:
1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
1102. No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
22 is amazing - that's legal? Would it be legal for employers to order their employees to support a particular cause? A particular party? To order them to vote in a particular way?
26: (22 was me) Wobbly friends online are thinking that the temp probably doesn't have much of an NLRB case. I don't know about MN state law on the topic.
Would it be legal for employers to order their employees to support a particular cause?
It's definitely legal (in most states, sane places like CA may be exceptions) for employers to order their employees to support a particular charitable cause, and even to require employees to donate to that cause (from their own, after-tax income). I don't know if they could require the same thing with respect to political causes, or political donations--I suspect not, although I don't really have a basis for that. And I suppose they could order employees to vote in a certain way (as in, express their strong preference with respect to employee votes), but it wouldn't be enforceable.
28: Employers and agents of employers (as well as union officials) are pretty much the only people who are specifically not allowed to assist voters in filling out their ballots here. I have been searching in the MN statutes, but I can't seem to find anything that covers private employers -- it's all rules to keep Civil Service jobs nonpartisan.
On a happier note, my friends in the Jimmy Johns Workers Union who lost their jobs for organizing stuff awhile ago are probably going to be reinstated. Or get a settlement check. So that's cool.
28: holy cow, really? How can that be?
iCigs glow green at the tip because, when they did the field trial, it was very difficult to convince bouncers that the red-glowing tip wasn't on the end of an actual cigarette.
29: The relevant statute seems to be 363A.08 but it doesn't extend to political affiliation.
I don't know if they could require the same thing with respect to political causes, or political donations--I suspect not
Definitely illegal. Google Pierce O'Donnell.
shiv has used an e-cig for more than a year. It's been wonderful. What was good about it was that he exhales mostly water vapor, and while it's a weird chemical slurry it's probably a bit better than cigarettes. It was important that it felt like smoking -- self-deception + sensation of the throat hit was powerful. In any case, his sense of taste was back after a day, no more smoker's cough, no affecting my allergies, and... he's mostly quit completely. E-cig failed while he was out of town, tried a cigarette or two, started coughing, and thought "this is stupid." Pack-a-day smoker to someone who is fine taking a puff on an e-cig a few times a day or smoking a quarter of a cigar.
The FDA thing is true, but it's about jurisdiction. If it's defined as a nicotine delivery system, then it's like a gum or inhaler, and should be regulated. If it's a cigarette, then it's not their problem. So, lots of lawyerly fun. And, yes, some places have banned it (Amtrak), I think.
34: I figured it had to be, somehow (I haven't bothered to google). That's reassuring.
2 USC 441b(b)(3): It shall be unlawful--
(A) for such a fund to make a contribution or expenditure by utilizing money or anything of value secured by physical force, job discrimination, financial reprisals, or the threat of force, job discrimination, or financial reprisal; or by dues, fees, or other moneys required as a condition of membership in a labor organization or as a condition of employment, or by moneys obtained in any commercial transaction.
But does Citizens United drive a truck through that? This says that the "fund" referred to is a corporate campaign fund.
But does Citizens United drive a truck through that?
No.
This thread seems like the appropriate place to mention that yesterday I found myself wishing I lived in the era when office workers could smoke at their desks.
As I've never been a regular smoker, have never worked in such an office environment, and have never watched Mad Men, I blame the Herman Cain campaign for this desire.
And I suppose they could order employees to vote in a certain way (as in, express their strong preference with respect to employee votes), but it wouldn't be enforceable.
I bet it would be pretty enforceable. Get them to swear on a Bible that they'll vote for your candidate - and then get them to swear again after the election that they did so. That'd get a lot of people.
It's definitely legal (in most states, sane places like CA may be exceptions) for employers to order their employees to support a particular charitable cause, and even to require employees to donate to that cause (from their own, after-tax income).
That seems bizarre if true. If I've got a contract of employment, then I do the work and my employer pays me the money specified, and surely then IT'S MY MONEY.
Does this apply to other contracts too? Could a company turn round and say "thanks for the sixty diesel generators. Here's the $138,000 we agreed to pay. Oh! Wait! Not so fast! We want you to give half of that to the Red Cross!"
It's definitely legal (in most states, sane places like CA may be exceptions) for employers to order their employees to support a particular charitable cause, and even to require employees to donate to that cause (from their own, after-tax income).
I'm a little skeptical of this, though I don't know the law in this area. Do you have a cite?
Anti smoking campaigns have gotten fucking ridiculous. Banning smoking in open air places like parks? Come on, it's a park, let people have a beer and a cigarette. I sure as hell have my blinders on for that stuff. I'm not going to walk around citing working people for enjoying themselves in a public park (this does not extend to the circle jerkers, go home you freaks).
40: That seems bizarre if true. If I've got a contract of employment, then I do the work and my employer pays me the money specified, and surely then IT'S MY MONEY.
The background rule in most US states is at-will employment, which means that an employer can fire you for any reason they like that's not specifically forbidden by law (like your race, religion, or gender). In the absence of a specific legal prohibition, I'd expect this conversation:
Boss: I expect everyone to donate $500 to the San Francisco Opera.
Employee: I won't.
Boss: Then you're fired.
to be perfectly legal. There are different laws in each state, but if I didn't know something to the contrary, that's what I'd guess.
43. But it's just so wrong. Oh god it makes me want to cry, it's so wrong.
Well, but this is an area in which employment at will has been substantially modified. I personally would be mildly surprised if employers could under federal law, e.g., deduct charitable contributions from employee's pay as a mandatory condition of employment.
43/44: The thing is, there aren't that many cases where the employer is going to value giving to charity over having relatively content employees. At the stock brokerage we were STRONGLY encouraged to contribute at least a token amount to the annual United Way drive. Like, departments that didn't have at least 90% participation were effectively penalized by having various privileges withheld. I'm sure this would be a different matter at a smaller firm, or out in the boondocks.
I'm not saying it's impossible -- this isn't an area of law that I know well at all. But I'd like to see some evidence before just assuming that it's the case.
Anti smoking campaigns have gotten fucking ridiculous.
Yeah, it's crossed over the line from public health campaign to religious crusade for a lot of people. And that just makes me want to take up cigarettes again so I can follow those people around and blow smoke at them.
45: Huh. Deducting the money from your paycheck sounds different to me than saying "Write the check or you're fired." I'm with you that the first sounds very likely to me to be a problem.
I want to start smoking again because it made my brain feel awesome.
Let me know when there is an easy fix for lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.
45/49: well, the example I'm thinking of is a very large employer who does just that. Every salaried employee is required to donate 5% of their salary to local charities of the company's choosing (which changes year to year), and the deductions are taken out of their paychecks.
Whereas, where I work we get the dialogue in 43. (I was told bluntly: "We have had 100% associate participation in the firm's charitable campaign for 20 years running, and we're very proud of that fact and will take any means necessary to ensure we continue to have this level of associate generosity. Any associates who are holding us back from 100% participation would need to find employment elsewhere.")
52: That would be different if it happened before the hire.
I want to start smoking again because it made my brain feel awesome.
Sigh. Me too.
Pretty sure I've mentioned this before, I've been tempted to take up smoking in the last few years as a number of guys I work with smoke cigars and man do they smell delicious. So far I've decided it's probably a bad road to head down. Wine and coffee will have to be pried from my cold dead fingers.
I think banning cigarettes in parks is a fine idea. I don't really care about the health affects, but second hand smoke smells disgusting and cigarette butts are a nuisance. E-Cigs basically solve these problems. Banning them seems stupid.
I want to start smoking again because it made my brain feel awesome.
I never experienced this effect from tobacco, which I suppose is why I never became a regular smoker. I mean, when I smoked a certain amount I got a bit of a buzz, but it wasn't a particularly wonderful buzz, especially when compared with the buzzes one might get from indulging in other substances.
My father reports still feeling kind of dumber fifteen years after his last cigarette -- not that cigarettes were wildly euphoric, but that they were a very distinct concentration aid, and at least subjectively an aid to thinking generally. I never smoked enough to notice this myself.
54: Sigh. Me too.
Dude, they've got these e-cigarettes now. The buzz without the stink. You should try 'em!
Googling around, it looks like many states have rules similar to this (from Oregon):
Q. What can an employer legally deduct from the wages of employees?A. Under Oregon law, employers may legally deduct the following from employee wages:....Other deductions authorized by the employee in writing as long as the employer is not the ultimate recipient of the money, such as charitable contributions.So, the actual iteration is probably:
Employer: "here, sign this form authorizing me to deduct 5% of your pay and give it to a charity of my choosing."
Employee: "I don't want to do that."
Employer: "do it or you're fired!"
Employee: "okay."
Probably sometimes parts of the dialogue are left implied.
I thought the (federal) law on campaign contributions and private (maybe just corporate) employers was something like:
1. Employers can't require employees to contribute.
2. Employers can't tell employees below a certain rank that they should (voluntarily) contribute.
3. Employers can hold meetings with upper management where they encourage employees to contribute to a certain candidate or party. But the contribution can't be required (see 1).
So what's the deal with the urgency these companies seem to feel about achieving charity goals? Are they getting kickbacks or sending to politically favored charities or something?
You doubt the goodness of their corporeal hearts?
61: I am sure campaign contributions are more strictly regulations.
From chapter 3 of the FEC's guide linked here (SSF is apparently the generic term for a corporate/union fund):
Limited Solicitees
An SSF or connected organization may solicit only a restricted class of persons associated with the con-nected organization. The general public may not be solicited. See Sections 2, 3 and 4 below.
An SSF may accept an unsolicited contribution that is otherwise lawful, but the committee may not inform individuals outside the restricted class that unsolicited contributions are acceptable. 114.5(j). Providing that information amounts to a solicitation. See, e.g., AO 1983-38
And then in section 2:
Restricted Class
A corporation or its SSF may solicit its restricted class at any time. The restricted class of a corporation consists of:
The corporation's executive and administrative personnel;
The stockholders; and
The families of the above two groups.
An SSF may also solicit, at any time, the restricted class of any parent, subsidiary, branch, division or affiliate of the connected organization. 114.5(g)(1).
So it looks like the rules I'm thinking of are specifically about the corporation's own funds. I'm not sure what the rules are for candidates or outside funds.
Regarding smoking and the brain whateverness, I don't really notice that, but my nightly smoke or two is one of the the only times during the day my sinuses totally clear out. The other time is when I go running.
||
Elizabeth Warren, in reference to a heckeler who called her a "Socialist Whore":
"I actually felt sorry for the guy. I really genuinely did," Warren later told the Huffington Post. "He's been out of work now for a year and a half. And bless his heart, I mean, he thought somehow it would help to come here and yell names."
That's some Grade-A "bless your heart" usage right there.
|>
"Hi, welcome to your new job at the San Francisco Opera!"
"Thanks, it's great to be here."
"Now, you're on $45,000, but we require you to contribute $30,000 of that to charity."
"What if I don't want to?"
"Then you're fired."
"What's the charity?"
"The San Francisco Opera."
68: There are non-profits where employees are expected to donate to the non-profit. Not quite that outrageous, but it's still a real phenomenon.
69: My understanding is that kind of behavior raises IRS red flags. Is that wrong?