U-Haul International to stop hiring smokers in 21 states

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP

PHOENIX (AP) — U-Haul International has announced plans to stop interviewing and hiring nicotine users, including people who use e-cigarettes and vaping products.

The well-known truck and trailer rental company approved the nicotine-free policy set to go into effect Feb. 1 in more than 20 states where the company operates, the Arizona Republic reported Wednesday.

Those states include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

People hired before the policy goes into effect won’t be affected, company officials said.



FILE - In this June 14, 2006 file photo are U-Haul trucks sit on a dealer lot in Des Moines, Iowa. U-Haul has a New Year's resolution: cut down on hiring people who smoke. The moving company said that it won't hire nicotine users in the 21 states where it is legal to do so, saying that it wants to ensure a "healthier workforce." The new policy will start Feb. 1, 2020. and won't apply to those hired before then. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall, File)

Read more: https://apnews.com/e71e1ea2636da224025cd0cd3d91a783

[Maxheader]

1. I say..

That is a good deal...However, won't the civil liberties people claim prejudice?

[X_Digger]

2. Smoking isn't a protected characteristic, like race. n/t

[Massacure]

9. Apparently it is a protected class in 29 states where state laws make it so.

I'm actually somewhat surprised so many states have laws protecting smokers from employment discrimination; I always just assumed most employers recovered their increased healthcare cost via premium surcharges on nicotine users and therefore were generally neutral on the issue of smoking. Per the article, U-Haul expects decreased healthcare cost from this move though.

[Miguelito Loveless]

3. Are smokers a protected class?

Is smoking a civil right enumerated in the Constitution?

[LovingA2andMI]

16. Considering the STATE GOVERNMENTS.....

That have made Weed legalized, yes, smokers of all types might be. Cannot wait to see the Class Action legal case on this.

[Miguelito Loveless]

17. Not exactly the same in a legal context

The state legalized weed, mainly on the initial argument that it had medicinal properties that helped people with a variety of ailments (then secondarily that it was nowhere as bad as alcohol). In this case, companies are choosing not to employ people using a substance that drives up health care costs.

Now, if they would add alcohol to the list, that would be great.

[LovingA2andMI]

27. Yes, it is....

But keep telling yourself that.

[Miguelito Loveless]

30. No one has "right" to smoke weed.

States simply chose to decriminalize it in certain circumstances. As drug/alcohol/tobacco are not enumerated rights in the Constitution, the state has the power to criminalize/decriminalize and regulate such things as it sees fit. In fact, prohibition came about from an amendment to the Constitution specifically banning alcohol. When the amendment was repealed, no special right to consume alcohol was conferred, the prohibiting amendment was simply repealed.

States routinely regulate drugs, alcohol, tobacco, driving, riding, and the practice of a variety of professions.

[jberryhill]

4. Who are "the civil liberties people"?

I’m interested to know more about them.

[JudyM]

18. .

[Maxheader]

19. These guys..

The American Civil Liberties Union is a nonprofit organization founded in 1920 "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States

[GP6971]

5. I wonder if

the policy can be pushed down to their franchises.

[not fooled]

6. OK this sounds good

and I'm all for measures that will curb tobacco use, and especially those that deter young people from starting on nicotine, but is it the camel's nose under the tent? What's next, and where will it end up, e.g. down the line if employees don't go to the gym...?

Once capitalists identify a new way to cut costs on employees, another race to the bottom has ensued.

[appalachiablue]

12. Last year teachers went on strike over new demands re their health data,

increased costs for coverage and other reasons. New requirements were proposed for teachers to submit daily data about their waist measurement to their insurance carrier via the internet in order to be able to access their health care benefits.

"Why weren't you in gym class this week, and church on Sunday?"

[BannonsLiver]

23. Employers will start screening out people who cost them money

The over weight, smokers, parents of unhealthy children who might cost the company money in healthcare costs and lower productivity. There’s really no end to where it WILL GO. These are the trial balloons to establish what people will tolerate.

[not fooled]

24. Yep

And once AI and robots start replacing many more types of jobs in earnest, the only human workers will be the young and fit.

And, what's a very effective way to reduce health insurance premiums? Don't have children. Young, fit, and childless--the preferred workforce of the future. If politicians tried to legislate this, the fundies would be in the streets. But, let capitalism do it, and it's A-OK in the USA.

[area51]

34. +1 n/t

[yourmovemonkey]

7. I can imagine this opens the door to having to step on a scale every time you punch the clock.

Wonder what it will be like when people get called into HR for a chat about the 5lbs they gained over the holidays. Pretty sure obese people aren't a protected class either, and the insurance companies would love a chance to advise businesses on how to weed out all of those expensive people who require insulin.

This is a slippery slope.

[Skittles]

32. depending how they figure out you don't smoke

they'll be monitoring not only what you do at work, but what you do off the clock

[Lucky Luciano]

8. A no-smoke break policy may be sufficient.

[Withywindle]

10. It's not a protected class BUT

I think it's creepy and dystopian as hell that employers have a right to demand access to ANYONE'S pee, for fuck's sake. I can sort of see a case for it regarding illegal drugs in sensitive occupations, but no employer should have the right to dictate what employees do off the clock if it's LEGAL. And the "right" to have bodily fluids tested at will is just horrifying. I've never peed in a cup for a job and I'll never take a job that asks me to. I hate how normalized this is.

[Lucky Luciano]

11. I agree with you, but no flexibility for smoke breaks would be fair policy.

So many smokers take these constant 5 minute smoke breaks. Putting an absolute stop to that crap is worthwhile for a company.

[not fooled]

13. But it's probably not the smoke breaks

or primarily the smoke breaks, but rather increased health insurance premiums.

Bet UH gets a discount on their employee health plan for doing this. And they get to pocket that.

[Withywindle]

14. Yes, exactly.

And it doesn't just hit active smokers, because it's for nicotine and not tobacco, it also affects people who are trying to quit or do harm reduction by using patches, gum, vaping, etc instead.

Yet another reason why we need NON-PROFIT national healthcare.

[Sentath]

22. And the customer complaints

As I age I'm less sensitive to many things, but smoke has gone the other way.

The vehicles may be non-smoking, but unless the employees are the vehicles will always smell like ashtrays to me.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

15. Anyone else here see a bit of irony and hypocrisy in this move?

One would think a company that rents vehicles that travel our nations' highways would give top priority to hiring people who are not users of ALCOHOL, and not so much nicotine.

We can bet alcohol use costs the company many times more in higher insurance rates, lost and inefficient work hours (and days) and increased company vehicle accidents.

And, while we're at it, poor dietary habits among employees probably also costs them far more than nicotine use, so why don't they have breathalyzers for Big Mac and KFC breath?........

Smoking is on a rapid decline but not so for beer, pizza and hamburgers.......

Disclaimer: I'm not for companies refusing to hire people based on their habits away from work.

[Maxheader]

20. Any regulation restricting tobacco is a good thing...

Not just for the corps healthcare bottom line...But for the smokers too..

From the first day boeing wichita implemented a no smoking policy..just for the office areas..to the day when no smoking is allowed anywhere on the campus..was around 5 to 8 years...

[Major Nikon]

21. Will you say the same thing when your employer comes after your vice?

[hunter]

25. Democratic Underground is my only vice.

Most workplaces restrict internet use unrelated to the job.

Employers can also make you wear pants.

[BruceWane]

28. At WORK

Employers can make you wear pants AT WORK.

This is an employer telling their employees what they're not allowed to do 24/7.

I'm no fan of smoking, but it is legal to smoke. Employers should not be able to dictate what legal activities you can and can't do on your own time.

[hunter]

31. I used to occasionally work in clean rooms...

... in high tech industries.

Smokers were not allowed in those rooms because they shed more particles than non smokers, maybe five times more dead cell particles and such.

So that's an exception.

Smokers also tend to be in denial about the extent of their addiction and many do smoke at work, even on smoke free campuses.

I agree that employers shouldn't discriminate against smokers simply on the basis of health insurance costs, but there are frequently other reasons as well.

Ideally we'd have some kind of national health care system so employers wouldn't have to consider health insurance premiums.

Alcohol use is another consideration. It's pretty easy to recognize when someone is drunk on the job, but someone who is hungover every morning isn't going to be as productive as someone who isn't. And the health problems caused by heavy drinking are comparable to smoking.

I have severe asthma and cigarette smoke is one thing that triggers it, so I'm not without bias. My grandma was a chain smoker and it killed her. She was also unable to refrain from smoking even around me, or in places where it wasn't allowed, and would argue vehemently that her rights were being violated whenever someone asked her to stop.

[Major Nikon]

33. Only vice?

No candy, soda, alcohol, moonpies, fast food, or blow up Judy dolls?

[hunter]

36. Surfing naked is not a vice.

[Devil Child]

26. A disgusting violation of personal liberty by employers

[lostnfound]

35. Absolutely agree with you. Amazed how many here think this is okay.

I’m not a smoker but this is an infringement on workers. What’s next? You can’t have a job here if we find you riding a motorcycle (insurance rates)? No alcohol consumption? Sunbathing?

[Major Nikon]

37. It might be OK in certain circumstances

For instance certain professional athletes have all sorts of restrictions on what they can’t do on their personal time, but they have a contract in which they can bargain over such things. So if an employer is going to negotiate over such restrictions and pay a premium for them that might be one thing. In this case we are talking about employees who are going to be lucky if they are paid much, if any over minimum wage. Their only opt out is to lie or seek employment elsewhere.

Just because someone doesn’t personally like the prohibited activity, doesn’t mean it’s OK. The more the public tolerates this, the more widespread and far reaching it will become.

[Ron Obvious]

38. Another reason why healthcare insurance needs to be completely decoupled from employment

I assume that's the stated reason, anyway.

Clearly, this is the thin end of the wedge. Compulsory Fitbits with employer-monitored data next. Already the case at some employers, I've heard.