<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Firing Up Might Not Get You Hired</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawiscool.com/2008/05/21/firing-up-might-not-get-you-hired/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawiscool.com/2008/05/21/firing-up-might-not-get-you-hired/?nucrss=1</link>
	<description>The law school blog and podcast from Canada</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:37:52 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: lawiscool</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2008/05/21/firing-up-might-not-get-you-hired/comment-page-1/#comment-2069</link>
		<dc:creator>lawiscool</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:27:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/?p=442#comment-2069</guid>
		<description>Megan,
Thank you for the clarification.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Megan,<br />
Thank you for the clarification.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Megan Butcher</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2008/05/21/firing-up-might-not-get-you-hired/comment-page-1/#comment-2068</link>
		<dc:creator>Megan Butcher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:42:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/?p=442#comment-2068</guid>
		<description>Hi there, 

Just wanted to point out that the CCTC website doesn&#039;t cite Kurtz, per se. Our database contains a bibliographic description of the article, absolutely. But the wording above makes it sound like we&#039;re citing Kurtz to uphold an organizational policy.

Note to Sarah: when organizations/companies decide to enact a &quot;no people who smoke&quot; hiring policy, employees who currently smoke are often given a year to quit and free nicotine replacement therapy/counselling during that time. I don&#039;t have a citation for that, just remember reading it a couple of times. If you poke around the web, something should come up. CCTC doesn&#039;t catalogue news items, or I&#039;d suggest our site!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi there, </p>
<p>Just wanted to point out that the CCTC website doesn&#8217;t cite Kurtz, per se. Our database contains a bibliographic description of the article, absolutely. But the wording above makes it sound like we&#8217;re citing Kurtz to uphold an organizational policy.</p>
<p>Note to Sarah: when organizations/companies decide to enact a &#8220;no people who smoke&#8221; hiring policy, employees who currently smoke are often given a year to quit and free nicotine replacement therapy/counselling during that time. I don&#8217;t have a citation for that, just remember reading it a couple of times. If you poke around the web, something should come up. CCTC doesn&#8217;t catalogue news items, or I&#8217;d suggest our site!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sarah Boyd</title>
		<link>http://lawiscool.com/2008/05/21/firing-up-might-not-get-you-hired/comment-page-1/#comment-1642</link>
		<dc:creator>Sarah Boyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 13:32:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawiscool.com/?p=442#comment-1642</guid>
		<description>As someone who is violently allergic to cigarette smoke, I enjoy the general trend against public smoking ... but this is a little ridiculous. Smoking is an addiction, people. I can see penalizing people who take up smoking, I suppose, but life-long smokers should be grandfathered in. The implications in Canada are particularly alarming. Are we going to cut smokers out of socialized healthcare? etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As someone who is violently allergic to cigarette smoke, I enjoy the general trend against public smoking &#8230; but this is a little ridiculous. Smoking is an addiction, people. I can see penalizing people who take up smoking, I suppose, but life-long smokers should be grandfathered in. The implications in Canada are particularly alarming. Are we going to cut smokers out of socialized healthcare? etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
