When smokers' rights converge with the interests of large families

[parvenu74]

When smokers’ rights converge with the interests of large families

Yesterday morning my wife and I were on the road after Mass to visit my parents and we were listening to NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday radio program. There was a story filed regarding a law suit from a former employee of Miracle-Gro contesting his being fired for violating the company’s no-smoking policy. Being quite allergic to second hand smoke, I was initially rather biased to see things from the employer’s point of view. However, the lawyer representing the man who was fired made a point that should make all traditional Catholics – and anyone else interested in having a large family – sit up and take notice. The basis for Miracle-Gro’s no-smoking policy is money: smokers are more costly to insure than non-smokers. Then again, babies are quite expensive to insure as well, and on the sole basis of money, what’s to stop employers from firing or not hiring someone who has more than three children? If all that matters in business is the bottom line, and companies are permitted to make and enforce policies that have ONLY the bottom line in mind, then it stands to reason that parents of large families are going to find themselves unemployable (especially with the cost of health care continuing to escalate).

I still believe that smokers are the modern American equivalent of lepers, and no amount of will power will stop me from having violent allergic reactions to second hand smoke. But it just might be that the status of smokers’ rights could be an important indicator of the safety of the rights of large families versus the almighty dollar.

 

[devotus]

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out — because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me —and by then there was no one left to speak out for me

First They Came for the Jews
By Pastor Martin Niemöller

 

[Cranch]

…Then again, babies are quite expensive to insure as well, and on the sole basis of money, what’s to stop employers from firing or not hiring someone who has more than three children? If all that matters in business is the bottom line, and companies are permitted to make and enforce policies that have ONLY the bottom line in mind, then it stands to reason that parents of large families are going to find themselves unemployable (especially with the cost of health care continuing to escalate)…

In the U.S. it is illegal to ask a job applicant anything about their marital status, pregnancy or dependents. After hiring, this information can be required for tax and insurance forms. State and federal law prevents firing someone for taking family leave and I’m pretty sure existing anti-discrimination law would prevent being fired simply for having a large family.

 

[SnorterLuster]

In the U.S. it is illegal to ask a job applicant anything about their marital status, pregnancy or dependents. After hiring, this information can be required for tax and insurance forms. State and federal law prevents firing someone for taking family leave and I’m pretty sure existing anti-discrimination law would prevent being fired simply for having a large family.

What you say is probably true for today, but as healthcare costs escalate, you can be sure that lobbyists will be pushing to rescind all the various mandates that are built into the policies of today. I could certainly envision a company led by environmentalists believing that the world is overpopulated and limiting insurance coverage for pregnancy to two births. It probably won’t happen, but that is not to say that it will not happen.