Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 6/19/2003 7:18:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 7:22:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 7:24:57 AM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 7:37:05 AM EDT
He'll get paid.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 7:50:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 8:11:07 AM EDT by jrzy]
No no no,you can't defend this cops actions here, he broke a dept regulation and they busted his ass,he is no better or worse then any other person , he broke a rule and he got caught,it does not matter that he didn't agree with the rule ,it was in place and he violated it,willfully too. This cop was bitching that someone turned him in, that in itself is a criminal mind set. He is blaming the snitch for his wrongful actions, yeah great cop ,not.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 7:56:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 7:57:36 AM EDT
that is bull$hit, I cannot believe that this would actually happen.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 7:59:59 AM EDT
What's next, eating bacon?
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 8:11:10 AM EDT
good thing he wasn't smoking in front of his daughters lemonade stand...[rolleyes]
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 8:13:40 AM EDT
I think thaqt the reason that the officer was bitching about being turned in was that the letter was an anonymous deal and he didn't have a chance to prove his ïnnocence." While he does admit to smoking, the article is telling us that he was not at the party where he was supposedly smoking. I have a problem with a state, city or any employer for that matter telling me what I can or cannot do when I am not at work. Joe
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 8:18:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By mjl978: I think thaqt the reason that the officer was bitching about being turned in was that the letter was an anonymous deal and he didn't have a chance to prove his ïnnocence." While he does admit to smoking, the article is telling us that he was not at the party where he was supposedly smoking. I have a problem with a state, city or any employer for that matter telling me what I can or cannot do when I am not at work. Joe
View Quote
I'll tell you that I don't agree with this moral police rule either but if you take a job knowing the rules and get caught violating them you giv e up your right to bitch about those rules. He did'nt fight against them before he got caught ,did he?
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 8:22:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Halfcocked: What's next, eating bacon?
View Quote
[size=5][green][b]No that would come under the NO cannibalism rule[/b][/green][/size=5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [size=6][red][b]JUST kidding, before one of our LEO's has a stroke[/b][/red][/size=6][:D]
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 8:30:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jrzy:
Originally Posted By mjl978: I think thaqt the reason that the officer was bitching about being turned in was that the letter was an anonymous deal and he didn't have a chance to prove his ïnnocence." While he does admit to smoking, the article is telling us that he was not at the party where he was supposedly smoking. I have a problem with a state, city or any employer for that matter telling me what I can or cannot do when I am not at work. Joe
View Quote
I'll tell you that I don't agree with this moral police rule either but if you take a job knowing the rules and get caught violating them you giv e up your right to bitch about those rules. He did'nt fight against them before he got caught ,did he?
View Quote
Yup, I agree. It's a totaly lame rule but it was the rule. Look how lame the Assault Weapon Ban is with cut-off dates and this feature but not that feature and only three of these gizmos unless ya don't have one a them gadgets. You think some cops gonna give you a break cause that law is lame??? I think not, as I know a guy doing 3 years federal for showing up at the range with an ajustable stock on his post ban. --RR
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 8:36:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 8:56:31 AM EDT
Ok cool this has turned into another bash smokers threads....ya wanta sit there with your 300 lb Mcdonalds eating swivel chair spread and tell me I am unhealthy? Or the little poofta next to you who had sex with 14 guys last week and you want to tell nme I am unhealthy? Let's face it guys, In most of our major metropolitan areas, just breathing the air is more dangerous than smoking. Get of your high horse and don't let the shit get anymore out of hand...remember the cases against cigarette manufacturors? The gun Manufacturors? Letting government overtake any part of your life is a bad idea...because they won't stop.....
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:03:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 9:03:51 AM EDT by HKocher]
Originally Posted By TimJ: FALL RIVER -- A city patrolman was fired last month for smoking cigarettes, the Police Department announced yesterday.... ..."It's almost selective firing," Jeffrey said. If the department accepts anonymous letters, he said, anyone with a grudge against a particular officer could accuse him or her of smoking....
View Quote
Note to self. 1. Send letters, one by one, to Fall River PD accusing all officers of smoking. 2. Wait. 3. Loot town.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:08:23 AM EDT
I'll bet $100 that there is more to this than just him smoking. He had pissed the wrong person off at one time or another. Or supervisors were gunning for him for some other reason and this was the scapegoat issue that they were able to fire him for. He may not get paid, he admitted to knowing the law.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:09:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter: No sympathy, he knew the rules and agreed to them when he took the job, and knew the risks if he smoked. Heck, my personal preference as an employer is to not hire smokers. I don't ask, but if I see signs that they smoke it definitly takes them down a notch in my overall impression. Smokers take more breaks and spend more time on those breaks, plus are more likely to have health problems. Not to mention that smoking in and of itself shows a lack of good judgement.
View Quote
I sort of agree with the first part of your reply, but the second sounds a bit like a liberals outlook. Let me put it into perpective: "Heck, my personal preference as an employer is to not hire [red]gun owners[/red]. I don't ask, but if I see signs that they [red]own guns[/red] it definitly takes them down a notch in my overall impression. [red]Gun owners are more likely to shoot themselves, or show up at the office one day and start 'spraying' their co-workers[/red]. Not to mention that [red]owning a gun[/red] in and of itself shows [red]violent tendacies[/red] and a lack of good judgement." That's not too much of a misuse of your quote...
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:09:52 AM EDT
The 'no smoking' policy for police and firefighters (1988 and later) is part of the "Heart and Lung" bill. Basically what it says is that if any cop or firefighter contracts cancer, the presumption is that it's job related and the person is entitled to full benefits. For that reason it makes sense that there would be a prohibition against smoking. Anyhow, it sounds like this guy has no reason to bitch; he knew the rules and he got caught. I disagree with the evidence used against him though... an anonymous letter (although I would think an exam by a physician could prove or disprove the allegation). The anon letter and the quickness with which he was fired makes me think that this guy wasn't very well liked to begin with or the dept was just waiting for an excuse to fire him and he gave them the opportunity. If that's the case the guy learned another lesson: don't make waves or enemys if you're going to break the rules. BTW, I remember the situation with the Springfield firefighter (John S. Marrero), seems like he has bigger problems than the no smoking thing. [i]Intro: A Springfield man has become the first firefighter in the state to be fired under a Massachusetts law prohibiting firefighters and police officers from smoking, on or off the job. John S. Marrero, 25, was smoking when a trooper arrested him on July 22 for driving erratically, the Springfield Fire Commission found. He also faces criminal charges of possession of crack cocaine and OxyContin and several motor vehicle violations. [/i] [url]http://www.tobacco.org/news/107441.html[/url]
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:18:25 AM EDT
BTW, I'm an ex-smoker. I think smoking is bad, but just like owning guns and eating fatty foods, I should not be prevented by law from doing so. Job regulations are a bit different, however. But that being said, I don't want a corporation (or the city/state in this case) regulating my LEGAL activities outside of the work place. What's next? How about regulating a worker's sexual behavior outside the workplace? Or how about political beliefs? How about religious preference? On a side note, I've often heard of alcoholics and drug addicts being treated as a protected class due to their 'disease.' I've heard of cases where drug addicts were fired from a job due to their addiction, yet they were suing for their job back. If I can smoke crack, and sue to get my job back, I should be able to smoke a cigarette (which is still legal last I checked) and not get fired.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:26:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 9:28:56 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By TimJ: Patrolman Wayne H. Jeffrey was fired under a little-known law stipulating that municipal police and fire departments can terminate any officer hired after 1988 who smokes tobacco products. . . . But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the law in a 1997 decision, ruling on Rossborough's appeal of her firing. In that decision, the court suggested that the Massachusetts Legislature enacted the law "in an effort to reduce the number of police officers and firefighters who obtain substantial disability benefits from public funds . . . as a result of heart disease due to smoking."
View Quote
WTF!? [size=3]WTF!?!![/size=3] [pissed] Son of a FUCKING [b]BITCH!!![/b] [chair] What in the FUCK is this world coming too!? THIS is EXACTLY why all this shit about universal health care and Gov't subsidized health care and all that socialized medicine gobblygook is the most insideous wedge being used to control EVERY FUCKING aspect of our lives!!! THIS is what happens when personal responsibility for one's own health is surrendered to the Gov't - you also surrender your CONTROL over your health - and EVERYTHING that can affect your health now becomes under the control of those who "take care of you". When you let the Gov't pay for your medical bills, THEY will have you by your nuts and you'll be dancing around like a fucking marionette on a string to whatever oppressive fad they want you to follow. Smoking is just the start. Next will be drinking alcohol. Wanna drink? [b]VERBOTEN![/b] If you drink you're more likely to drive drunk or get liver disease - YOU FIRED! Then eating meat. You like steaks? [b]NEIN![/b] Red meat is bad for your heart - YOU FIRED! Then owning firearms. You wanna exercise your RKBA? [b]NYET![/b] A gun in the home makes you more susceptible to being shot - YOU FIRED! Then they'll come after the way you raise [s]your[/s] THEIR children! We're gonna be reduced to nothing but emasculated, taxpaying, collectivist little mice in a cage fed Gov't sanctioned food pellets while we continue to work, endlessly running on that little wheel to keep the Gov't propped up so it can protect us from exercising our own freedoms!! MUTHER[b]FUCK![/b] [stick]
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:34:22 AM EDT
Yup.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:49:19 AM EDT
This does seem ridiculous, nevertheless rules is rules. Want to keep your job? Follow the rules.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:55:49 AM EDT
Another of many examples of Legislative, and Judicial insanity..... And they wonder why some Americans have -0- respect for the "law". American concepts of Freedom and Liberty have become a joke....
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 10:02:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By m193: This does seem ridiculous, nevertheless rules is rules. Want to keep your job? Follow the rules.
View Quote
True. But a lot of folks here got riled up when the guys at AOL (I believe) were fired for violating the company 'no gun' policy for having rifles locked in the trunks of their vehicles. Sure you don't have the 'right' to keep your job, but at what point does company policy violate your other personal rights?
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 10:09:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
Originally Posted By TimJ: Patrolman Wayne H. Jeffrey was fired under a little-known law stipulating that municipal police and fire departments can terminate any officer hired after 1988 who smokes tobacco products. . . . But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the law in a 1997 decision, ruling on Rossborough's appeal of her firing. In that decision, the court suggested that the Massachusetts Legislature enacted the law "in an effort to reduce the number of police officers and firefighters who obtain substantial disability benefits from public funds . . . as a result of heart disease due to smoking."
View Quote
WTF!? [size=3]WTF!?!![/size=3] [pissed] Son of a FUCKING [b]BITCH!!![/b] [chair] What in the FUCK is this world coming too!? THIS is EXACTLY why all this shit about universal health care and Gov't subsidized health care and all that socialized medicine gobblygook is the most insideous wedge being used to control EVERY FUCKING aspect of our lives!!! THIS is what happens when personal responsibility for one's own health is surrendered to the Gov't - you also surrender your CONTROL over your health - and EVERYTHING that can affect your health now becomes under the control of those who "take care of you". When you let the Gov't pay for your medical bills, THEY will have you by your nuts and you'll be dancing around like a fucking marionette on a string to whatever oppressive fad they want you to follow. Smoking is just the start. Next will be drinking alcohol. Wanna drink? [b]VERBOTEN![/b] If you drink you're more likely to drive drunk or get liver disease - YOU FIRED! Then eating meat. You like steaks? [b]NEIN![/b] Red meat is bad for your heart - YOU FIRED! Then owning firearms. You wanna exercise your RKBA? [b]NYET![/b] A gun in the home makes you more susceptible to being shot - YOU FIRED! Then they'll come after the way you raise [s]your[/s] THEIR children! We're gonna be reduced to nothing but emasculated, taxpaying, collectivist little mice in a cage fed Gov't sanctioned food pellets while we continue to work, endlessly running on that little wheel to keep the Gov't propped up so it can protect us from exercising our own freedoms!! MUTHER[b]FUCK![/b] [stick]
View Quote
Nice rant!! [:D] In fact, [ROFL2], [ROFL2], [ROFL2],[ROFL2] I pictured you reading the post, jumping up, and runnung around in a circle, holloring, and waving your hands around like an Italian fishwife!! [ROFL2]
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 10:19:34 AM EDT
I see two issues here. 1) Is what an employer can ask of an employee. In MA, no public safety employees hired after 1988 can smoke, on or of duty. It's State law. I know I used to work for the State of MA. They make it abundantly clear during the hirinf proccess and I remember having to sign a notice saying smoking=termination. If you accept a job, you by definition accept the employeers rules while on the job. This is more of a strecth though because it also deals with behavior in the off hours, that is legal. MA says the measure will save the reirement and healthcare systems money by reducung smoking related illnesses suffered by employees. So if the employees are healthier, and live longer, won't they get MORE money from the retirement system? When I worked for MA I was assigned to areas that non-employees of the State could smoke in. I always smelled of smoke, and was coughing a lot. I doudt I could have been less healthy if I had been smoking, since I was pretty much breathing in second hand smoke constantly. 2) Anonymous accusations, MA employment laws require employees be fired "for cause". Firing a person over an anonymous complaint seems, well, Un-American. What ever happened to being albe to face your accussers? Of course, since he admitted smoking, and said other employeees had seen him smoking, it doesn't really matter does it?
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 10:30:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 10:41:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: Of course, since he admitted smoking, and said other employeees had seen him smoking, it doesn't really matter does it?
View Quote
Not only that, but a superior officer testified that he'd smoked with him. That's probably where the "admission" came from... Pretty sad, really. We just lost a good cop because he smokes a legal product off duty. Silly law, if you ask me. Good for him that he was able to find a job that paid more after he was fired.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 10:46:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 10:52:36 AM EDT by nightstalker]
Some LEO here stated why physical fitness rules do not stick. The premise falls under the ADA. I can't see how this is any different. Addictions are treated just like disabilities in most industries. A bad back or underactive thyroid turns you into a bowl of jello, ....not your fault. Can't quit smoking, it's a disease, again, not your fault. He's a smoking addict that couldn't quit, just like an alcoholic or an over-eater. Unlike illicit drugs, alcohol, tobacco and food are not illegal. He deserves a chance or 12 at rehabilitation just like the rest of those who know the system and own their jobs. Can't believe you couldn't get a lawyer to take this.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 11:31:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter: Except mine is backed up with statistics and facts, while yours is based upon emotion and irrational fears..... but then again you did say it was the liberal outlook.
View Quote
Like I said, it wasn't a complete misuse of you statement, I was simply trying to put things into perspective of why an individual's outside activity should not be restricted by his employer. I'm sure if we really wanted to, we could dig up plenty of stats of how often a gun owner is injured/killed with a firearm. Also that gun owners are XX% more likely to use violence against coworkers. Doesn't mean it's true, since stats can be distorted or viewed out of context to support the intent of those collecting the data. I'm not saying cigarettes aren't harmful, and that the data is made up, I'm just saying that the same logic can be used against gun owners.
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter: Heck, my [red]personal preference[/red] as an employer is to not hire smokers. I don't ask, but if I see signs that they smoke it [red]definitly takes them down a notch in my overall impression[/red]. Smokers take more breaks and spend more time on those breaks, plus are more likely to have health problems. Not to mention that smoking in and of itself [red]shows a lack of good judgement.[/red]
View Quote
I don't see how your personal preference of looking down on a smoker because of an obvious 'lack of good judgement' represents any facts or statistics. In fact that seems to be an opinion based on your emotions, which may be loosely based on the 'facts and stats' that you have come across. As far as taking more/longer breaks, I call BS. I've known plenty of non-smokers who take many long coffee breaks or really long 'bathroom' breaks. It's about integrity and work ethic, not based solely on whether the worker smokes or not.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 12:08:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 12:34:35 PM EDT
[img]http://photos.ar15.com/WS_Content/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?sAccountUnq=12631&iGalleryUnq=584&iImageUnq=13842[/img]
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 12:38:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 12:42:48 PM EDT by HKocher]
I don't know the study you are speaking of, however I will say that it is easier to track the breaks of a smoker than a non-smoker. When I smoked, I had to go outside and when I came back in, I probably smelled like smoke. However a non-smoker may walk over to my desk and bug me for 10 minutes without attracting a supervisor's attention. And when someone does walk up, the conversation can quickly switch from football, to this 'this weeks numbers.' In theory, I understand where you are coming from, but I still think it boils down to work ethic, whether you are a smoker or non-smoker. When I was a smoker, I only took breaks when I wasn't busy and I made sure to stay within my allotted break times (including bathroom breaks, personal calls, etc.). Not to mention that fact that while I'm actually working, I do so more efficiently than most of my coworkers. So I think it's a bit unfair to lump all smokers into one big group and claim they are less productive than non-smokers. Regarding bad judgement. Well maybe, it's definitely not a good thing. But does that mean I will make poor decisions on the job? Are drinkers (off the job) worse workers, with poorer judgement too? How about those that eat fatty foods, knowing that they risk an increased chance of heart disease? How about folks that regularly drive over the speed limit? Motorcycle riders? All these choices can lead to a shorter lifespan. Just because a someone makes a PERSONAL decision that may not be the best decision for their health, does not mean they have 'bad judgement.' Not to mention that most smokers start out when they are young. Most folks don't possess good judgement when they are younger. And for some folks it can be hard to quit when they are older. I'm sure some of the sharpest businessman, best doctors, most articulate lawyers, etc. have made the 'bad judgement' call and are smokers. That doesn't mean they are any more likely to perform poorly at their jobs. On the other hand, smoking can make you less capable of chasing down a robbery suspect, putting lives (including your own) in danger, so I can begin to understand that particular regulation. However a smoker in good physical shape will be able to outrun the non-smoking out of shape cop any day. So there needs to be better guidelines on physical ability in cops, not a general smoke=termination rule.
Top Top