4 ms·
>Maybe, but the problem is that smokers cost the company a lot more than non-smokers, due to this country's strange expectation that your employer should subsid
by naravara 7y ago
>Maybe, but the problem is that smokers cost the company a lot more than non-smokers, due to this country's strange expectation that your employer should subsidize your health insurance.
This gets dangerously close to validating discriminatory hiring against any negative health markers. Do they start tracking your BMI next?
- magduf 7y agoAnd what's wrong with discriminatory hiring against negative health markers? It's perfectly legal to discriminate in other ways: employers are absolutely allowed to fire employees who are incompetent, for example. They're allowed to administer tests to job candidates to see if they're competent to do the job. There's all kinds of other things they're allowed to discriminate based on (like "cultural fit"), as long as it doesn't look like they're discriminating based on a "protected class" (race, sex, religion, etc.). "Negative health markers" are not a protected class. So why shouldn't an employer be allowed to discriminate based on BMI?