Maryland is a hell hole, ruled by Facist Democrats.
So this shouldn’t surprise us.
I bet they run CNN in 24/7 in the hospital.
When you interbreed plants you can get some interesting results. Same thing with memes.
Here we see the bastard offspring of the historical Puritanical streak in the country crossed with dictatorial progressivism.
Now is the time. Americans have been groomed for this sort of control. They will quietly submit.
They should tell them what to eat too, while they are at it. The employees would be healthier if they stuck to a diet strictly controlled by their employer.
Freedom is dead.
Well, in places where recreational pot use is now legal, are you going to restrict that for employees who use it on their own time? Do you seriously want high employees working in such a technical, legally litigious environment? What about other recreational drug use? Does "legal" somehow make something a "right?"
Private employers should be able to restrict whatever they want.
I suppose even nicorette would show up if they’re testing just for nicotine.
Unless of course you practice unsafe gay sex in bathhouses in your spare time. In that case, law prohibits them from doing anything except move you to the head of the hiring line.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/employers-total-smoking-ban-raises-privacy-concerns
Whoops.
The linked article references Weyco, a private benefits administration firm that banned smoking for their employees anywhere on earth nearly 10 years ago.
We have plenty of freepers all in favor of employment at will (hire and fire whomsoever you choose for whatever reason), and then we have the freepers commenting on this thread.
Should they NOT be able to do so? Their business, their money. < /Devil's advocate >
What if a person is using nicotine patches or gum?
If they can dictate what you do 24/7, why don't they have to PAY you 24/7?
I am certain this is more about health insurance costs than not. Welcome to one of the results of demanding employers pay/provide for health insurance. Stinks don’t it?
I recall a CDC report from the 1980’s, long since buried, which documented an infectious disease rate among male homosexuals that was far higher than that of the general population.
If cost control for healthcare is the driving factor, shouldn’t employers be able to discriminate against queers as well?
I applied for a job with the Emporia, KS police department over 20 years ago and they had a no smoking policy - on or off duty. I don’t smoke and never have, but glad I didn’t get the job and still remember that lunacy to this day.
Will they also check for pot? No, because the left loves pot but hates tobacco.
I will find it funny as hell if someone who was/is in support of drug testing for employment gets busted by this. Don’t smoke cigs, have lots of friend who smoke weed and do their jobs perfectly fine.
Any testing of blood, breath or urine without a warrant, should be illegal.
It is interesting logic that will be used against democrats. The gay lifestyle is extremely unhealthy. Abortions are linked to cancer.
So, if I am an employer, I can choose not to hire these persons using the same democrat logic...
Are they going to check for AIDS? High cholesterol? Diabetes? High blood pressure? Pregnancy? If the argument is that off-hours behavior has a cost to an employer, then all those things can be factors too.
The solution to the problem does not seem all that perplexing to me. Insurance costs should be based on your measure of exposure for the insurance company. Teenage drivers, those with tickets, and those who have had accidents pay more for auto insurance. If you weigh 300 pounds, never exercise, and smoke, you should pay higher premiums than someone who takes care of himself. If you engage in the highest risk factor, male to male anal sex (which is now celebrated in elementary school curriculum), your premiums should be through the roof.