< 1 2 >
Posted: 2 years ago by WheresMySanity:
I have noticed that some buisnesses now are refusing to hire smokers. Not just not letting them take smoke breaks, but if they are cought smoking anywhere or found to have nicotine in their systems they can be fired for it.
My husband (who is a non-smoker) who has been job hunting had to go through drug screening for nicotine for 2 places. When there companies decided to go smoke-free, these companies told their employees that they had a definite date to stop smoking or they would be fired. and they refuse to hire anyone who smokes.
Now part of me says that it's a good idea. Non-smokers don't take smoke breaks. It also saves companies a ton of money on health insurance. It's also difficult for customers if their sales people reek of smoke.
BUt then, it's disturbing that some companies are not hiring people because they are more expensive on their health insurance than others. This just seems like one step away from not hiring disabled/chronically ill people because of the cost of insurance.
so what do you think?
Score: [-] 160 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by misterc:
I'm of a split mind on this. I think it's awful that a company would just blindly refuse to hire someone or fire somebody because they smoke. I thought when it came to a certain job, you'd want someone that is the best for the job, regardless if they smoked, chewed, or maybe even toked up every once in a while.
But on the other hand, if the company is willing to let go of it's best people because they smoke, well it's their loss, and their competitors gain, right?
Of course, I'm sure that cigar smoking is a-ok, right? The upper crust can't be cut for such trivial things.
(I know that you're not supposed to regularly smoke cigars. Hell, I smoke cigars myself. But I'm sure that the occasional cigarette smoker would probably get pink-slipped if they were "busted".)
Edit: I forgot to mention that I recently heard someone try to claim that "addictions" are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have no idea if there is any case law that supports this, but that would certainly be an interesting sidebar to the discussion.
Score: [-] 93 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by tomphoolry:
I'm a nonsmoker, but this seems a pretty radical decision. If you want to be a smoke free facility, that's fine. You can even prohibit smoking of any kind on the premises and cut out all smoke breaks. But to give drug tests and to fire someone because they smoked on their own time and not on compnay premises seems a little iffy. Cigarettes are not illegal. I see a test case coming real quickly in the courts.
Score: [-] 149 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by BrightonCub:
Is this not discrimination?
Score: [-] 117 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by Alton:
It's a slippery slope. What's next? A cholestrol test? How about requiring a complete family medical history? Gene test? How about a weight test? Anybody that's more than 10% overweight has 2 months to lose the extra weight or they are no longer eligible to work here. Would that be fair? Legal?
Surely someone who's had cancer or has diabetes is going to have more medical issues. Should they be excluded from a company?
Medical costs are only going to get worse. Especially as the baby boomers reach their senior years. Someone is eventually going to have to address the issue instead of finding means to cut corners at the expense of so called higher risk groups.
Score: [-] 154 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by 2manyusernames:
I agree with the idea that a company can have a strict no smoking policy at work. They should be able to deny people cigarette breaks.
Denying them the right to smoke while they are off duty is wrong.
As Alton said, what's next? Can't hire people who don't exercise enough? Fire people who engage in dangerous behavior such as skydiving. Fire people who are not in a monogamous relation since they might catch a disease. Etc etc.
No the whole premise is horrible
Score: [-] 208 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by Phildo:
I've always found it offensive that smokers take the brunt of everything. Nobody thinks twice about caffeine users and the time wasted getting a fix of that drug! Yes... I said DRUG. I wonder how company executives would feel about moral and productivity if they got rid of that addiction!
*** Yes I smoke, trying to quit! 6 years without caffeine, never felt better! ***
Score: [-] 96 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by WheresMySanity:
« Phildo : I've always found it offensive that smokers take the brunt of everything. Nobody thinks twice about caffeine users and the time wasted getting a fix of that drug!
getting a cup of coffee usually does not take ten minutes per hour to accomplish. plus, most people drink coffee while working or in meetings, while smokers leave the office for a smoke break.
Health Insurance companies will raise their costs for smokers (which is paid by the employers and employees). Every health and life insurance policy I dealt with asked if I was a smoker. I have never heard of an insurance company charging a caffiene drinker more just because they drink caffiene.
Score: [-] 45 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by Bornbad:
In California, employers
(pretty much) can make the rules for their company. I just passed my 7year quit smoking anniversary on Dec. 13. Yay, me! Health ins. is very costly. Smokers cost my company $400 a month no matter what their age or anything else.
P.S. Let's not go off thread for eaters, drinkers, etc. This was a smoking issue.
Score: [-] 83 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by Phildo:
I apologize for getting off thread but I was only trying to point out that there are many addictions people have that cost insurance companies money. I will exclude examples as this isn't the time nor place! Congrats BB on 7 years... that's great!
Score: [-] 50 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by xxxxxpp:
I agree, if you exclude people from getting hired for one health issue, you should exclude all people with health isssues from getting hired, or none at all. I prefer the latter. (I'm over 3 years smoke free myself, btw, so I'm not covering my own ass :))
Score: [-] 48 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by teaya21:
In Australia it's classified as discrimination to not hire someone because they smoke.
while smokers leave the office for a smoke break.
doesn't mean they aren't talking about work or even doing work whilst they are out having a break. I've often gone for a smoke break and achieved more out there work wise then I would have in the office.
Score: [-] 67 [+].
Posted: 2 years ago by Milkshake:
If it isnt illegal then its discrimination.
At least thats my little jooble.
Its kinda like not employing someone cos they eat horseraddish. Its got nothing to do with work or anybody.
Fine, keep it off the premises. My last boss made everyone stand in the car park but if he tried a stunt like that he'd get shut down. Its just not cricket what what!
PS - Well done BB - Have a cig on me. ;)
Score: [-] 4 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by kirkmcd:
« BrightonCub : Is this not discrimination? In the US, smokers are not a protected class. You can discminate against them all you want.
Many companies are starting this policy because they can get better health care rates.
Score: [-] 45 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by donteatpoop:
Is this dinosaur still breathing?
Score: [-] 18 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by pjanaway:
Luckily I am self employed and work at home, no smoking laws affect me. lol
Score: [-] 22 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by suebe:
One policy that I have seen companies institute is to charge smokers a higher health insurance premium. That, I think is fair (and right now, I'm a smoker again, after quitting for 12 years and starting up again a few years ago).
I'm starting a new job where there is a 10% premium for smokers on the health insurance. The company sponsors stop smoking programs and if you are smoke free for 180 days (I think) you can get non-smoking status.
I recently filled a prescription for a smoking cessation drug, which my insurance did not cover - it was $128. I'm working on my new stop smoking plan now.
Score: [-] 36 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by imnotyoo:
« WheresMySanity : I have noticed that some buisnesses now are refusing to hire smokers. Not just not letting them take smoke breaks, but if they are cought smoking anywhere or found to have nicotine in their systems they can be fired for it.
My husband (who is a non-smoker) who has been job hunting had to go through drug screening for nicotine for 2 places. When there companies decided to go smoke-free, these companies told their employees that they had a definite date to stop smoking or they would be fired. and they refuse to hire anyone who smokes.
Now part of me says that it's a good idea. Non-smokers don't take smoke breaks. It also saves companies a ton of money on health insurance. It's also difficult for customers if their sales people reek of smoke.
BUt then, it's disturbing that some companies are not hiring people because they are more expensive on their health insurance than others. This just seems like one step away from not hiring disabled/chronically ill people because of the cost of insurance.
so what do you think? The job wasn't for an anti-smoking ad agency was it?
Score: [-] 22 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by steelshooter:
« misterc :
Edit: I forgot to mention that I recently heard someone try to claim that "addictions" are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have no idea if there is any case law that supports this, but that would certainly be an interesting sidebar to the discussion. Under ADA, you cannot descriminate against someone who is an admitted addict. You can, however, fire (or refuse to hire) someone who is currently using illegal substances. (ie You cannot fire me if I say I go to NA, but you can if I test positive for current pot usage.)
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by steelshooter:
« Alton : It's a slippery slope. What's next? A cholestrol test? How about requiring a complete family medical history? Gene test? How about a weight test? Anybody that's more than 10% overweight has 2 months to lose the extra weight or they are no longer eligible to work here. Would that be fair? Legal?
Surely someone who's had cancer or has diabetes is going to have more medical issues. Should they be excluded from a company?
Medical costs are only going to get worse. Especially as the baby boomers reach their senior years. Someone is eventually going to have to address the issue instead of finding means to cut corners at the expense of so called higher risk groups. The courts already ruled that hiring/firing decisions based on genetic testing is illegal. It is also illegal for life insurance companies to do genetic testing for RISK of a disease. (They can decline you for having a disease, or for too many risk factors, but they cannot require a DNA test for hereditary indicators.
Also, some jobs CAN fire you for how you look or not meeting certain physical standards, but it must be a requirement of the job. (Ususally these are in the entertainment field.) They cannot just come in and fire you for being fat unless the job changes in such a way that you must be thin to perform it.
I know that when I interview someone, I cannot ask any health questions, and if they volunteer the information I must stop them. Just knowing someone (or their dependent) has a disease such as diabetes opens up the liability of being sued if they are not hired.
Illegal drugs can be tested for, but legal prescriptions and alcohol cannot be. (You gotta show up to work drunk or miss work because of drinking.)
I am sure this will see the inside of a courtroom. I am also sure that it will depend more on where it happens than precedent to date.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
Posted: 1 year ago by steelshooter:
« WheresMySanity : getting a cup of coffee usually does not take ten minutes per hour to accomplish. plus, most people drink coffee while working or in meetings, while smokers leave the office for a smoke break. Look around a typical office. There are as many hallway bull sessions and breaks among the non-smokers. Don't think that because they are not standing outside that they must be heads down and productive. Also do not assume that because I am standing outside I am not working. My job involves a lot of times where I need to just think about how to do something before I act, or talk to someone that also smokes, or hold a conference call, etc. (You would be suprised how much work gets done in a smoking area.)
I really hated those places that assumed you had to be sitting at your desk typing to accomplish work. They typically drive out the THINKERS. If they make identical widgets, day after day, they may not want thinkers. Most other companies should require more of it.
Score: [-] 0 [+].
< 1 2 >