Workplaces Turning to Tobacco-Free Hiring

[SecularMotion]

Smokers now face another risk from their habit: it could cost them a shot at a job.

More hospitals and other medical businesses in many states are adopting strict policies that make smoking a reason to turn away job applicants, saying they want to increase worker productivity, reduce health care costs and encourage healthier living.

The policies reflect a frustration that softer efforts — like banning smoking on company grounds, offering cessation programs and increasing health care premiums for smokers — have not been powerful-enough incentives to quit.

The new rules essentially treat cigarettes like an illegal narcotic. Applications now explicitly warn of “tobacco-free hiring,” job seekers must submit to urine tests for nicotine and new employees caught smoking face termination.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/us/11smoking.html?_r=1&hp

[cutlassmama]

1. Next it will be the overweight

[bluestate10]

5. It is possible that overweight people don't get hired now.

Weight is a visible feature. But I would hire a smart overweight person over a thinner, less bright one any day.

[darkstar3]

86. More than possible, it happens.

It's happened more than once right under my nose.

[Newest Reality]

7. That would probably be next ...

First, piss-testing was accepted, then forbidding any use of Nicotine, why not continue to customize your employees and decide how they can live? It's a joh beggar's market anyway.

I mean, cut to the chase: Here is the list of what you are allowed to do, eat, and ... think. Any variations from this policy may result in your termination.

What you do on your own time is your own time.

[snappyturtle]

15. I think it was just week that there was an OP about a young, female teacher

who was pictured in Facebook with an adult beverage while on vacation....as I recall she wasn't fired but someone, or something had to intervene to halt it.

I agree with you. An employer can call the shots at work but his hand should not be visible outside of the workplace.

It will come to what one thinks; what one's political views are, ad infinitum....not good.

[sunnystarr]

34. She was given the choice of suspension or resignation

and she resigned. But I believe she's now suing.

[snappyturtle]

75. Thank you! nt

[Liberal In Texas]

17. After the overweight it'll be no people with "dangerous" hobbies:

skydiving, mountain climbing, flying small aircraft or scuba diving.

Let them get away with this crap they'll eventually be into every aspect of your life.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

37. and weight gain often accompanies kicking the habit

[LoZoccolo]

2. I can see how this is treating cigarettes just like an illegal narcotic

because if the employees fail the nicotine drug test, they are led away in handcuffs and into jail.

[jmowreader]

54. Quite a simile...

I never heard of an employer outside the military who did anything past either firing, or not hiring in the first place, someone who failed a drug test. They certainly don't throw you in jail.

[rucky]

3. That helps narrow down my job hunting prospects.

Not that they're great, but I plan to stay wherever I land for awhile.

But any company that would enact those kinds of policies is not a company I'd want to work for.

[krabigirl]

42. if I was looking for a job, I'd agree. Thankfully, I am not.

[bluestate10]

4. A reasonable policy. I have contemplated whether having such a policy

was legal. Look like it is. Not hiring workers that smoke does improve productivity and lowers intermediate and longterm health care costs.

[ixion]

9. It is discrimination, pure and simple.

[OhioChick]

13. That it is n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. I don't know about discrimination as smokers aren't a protected class

But it does demand we ask, "How far is too far?"

Can they start demanding weight control, dietary intake and exercise?

Soon enough they'll be rationalizing that we need to think of the children.

[Bandit]

18. The US military already does just that..

Too fat no enlistment..Also education is a factor. No high school diploma, no enlistment. I guess some would consider the Government is discriminating as well..Too dumb, too fat, tough shit..

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. Yes, but these are private citizens ordering other private citizens

.

[Mimosa]

87. My partner had to undergo urine and blood tests to work as a free-lancer

for a major American company. This company makes freelancers who work mainly at home doing graphics take drug tests. People submit or they can't work for it. This country is already in the clutches of fascism. :(

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. I can understand drug tests when there are safety issues but dangit my time is just that

And sad to say government jobs wouldn't fair any better.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

19. Not all discrimination is illegal discrimination.

;)

[tammywammy]

22. Sure it's discrimination, but it's perfectly legal discrimination. n/t

[bluestate10]

38. Smoking is a choice.

It is absolutely incredible that any person would attempt to put smoking in the same category as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, sex. To equate smoking with characteristics that a person has no choice over is morally bankrupt, IMO.

[ixion]

45. Religion is a choice, too

but you can't discriminate against that, either. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not discrimination.

[bluestate10]

55. Religion has the distinction of being the one choice that

is given special status in the Constitution. The other individual items called out in the Constitution are rights, a person has them. Smoking is a choice, not a right. If you continue to insist, should non-smokers sue for discrimination because they can smell cigarette smoke on smokers, surely being exposed to the smoke violate their right to breathe fresh air?

[ixion]

66. Your hostility towards others is counter-productive

good day.

[Very_Boring_Name]

76. I didn't see any hostility. I saw a perfectly articulated and valid argument that you are unable to

counter

[ixion]

96. saying that discrimination is okay because smokers are smelly is valid?

Yeah, right. :eyes:

a) All people smell, smoking or no.

b) All people pollute to some degree, smoking or no.

c) Smokers are human beings, and entitled to the same rights and privileges, just like everyone else.

No, my anti-smoking busy body friend. I've long since gotten tired of arguing with anti-smoking zealots, because it's like arguing with a religious extremist. They throw out all this hogwash and want you to debate it. It's not worth my time. You people who think you're entitled to tell others how to live are part of the problem, as far as I'm concerned.

[Liquorice]

95. Not exactly. If everyone who smokes didn't start until they were an adult,

and they didn't have to live in a smoke-filled home as a child, then yeah, you could make the case that smoking is a simple choice. But many (if not most) smokers grew up with smoking moms and/or dads, and saw smoking as a normal behavior from a very young age. They also were most likely exposed to high levels of nicotine in their homes as children, and were probably addicted to nicotine to some extent before they themselves started smoking. And they usually started smoking as a teenager. There are exceptions, but this is all generally true.

Yes you can choose to quit smoking, and it is very difficult. It is more difficult for some people than it is for others as well. There are also genetic factors that make it more likely that a person will smoke. So couple a chain-smoking mom and dad and a genetic predisposition, and you got yourself a smoker.

Smoking is not a simple choice, and it is a terrible misunderstanding of the situation to look at it in such simplistic terms. People who think they are better than others because they have "chosen" to have never smoked are deluded. Most of the time, they just got lucky and had parents who didn't smoke, or parents who didn't smoke in the home and impressed upon their children not to take after them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. Not legally it is not

[ixion]

47. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not discrimination.

[Codeine]

51. All hiring decisions involve some form of discrimination.

We discriminate against people who can't present themselves in a way that convinces us they can deal with customers, or who have inadequate hygiene, or have potentially offensive tattoos. Any time you choose one person over another you've discriminated between the two.

[sofa king]

74. The largest form of discrimination is against poor spelling and composition.

I've heard it from at least three different HR people now. The first culling consists of all resumes with obvious spelling and grammatical errors. Sometime after that comes all multi-page resumes (they can't be bothered to read 'em), resumes that are on funny colored paper, resumes using unusual fonts or formatting, anything with coffee stains or fingerprints, and anything hand-written. Lord help you if you're a felon--you might as well go back to dealing dope.

At a later stage, any resume with an appreciable gap in employment history is tossed, because employers don't want people who have actually utilized the unemployment insurance we all pay for. Remember, in resume-land, you're never unemployed--you're self-employed.

Another totally unfair thing I've noticed about the tiny sample of HR people I know is that they are all terrible employees. One guy I knew said he started every day by throwing half his stack of applications in the trash. Another spent most of the late 1990s playing Starcraft on the job. The other admitted cruising resumes for dates and tossing any applications with names she couldn't pronounce. And then there's a relative of mine, the only person his age that I know of who actually reached full retirement, because he spent the last ten years of his career downsizing and squeezing out anyone who might possibly attain the authority to retire him early.

I'm sure some of you here are HR people and are nothing like that. If that's the case, can I send you my resume?

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. a) the opposite of discriminate is indiscriminate. b) no it's not.

If you can simply quit doing the thing which causes you to be discriminated against, it's not discrimination.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krabigirl]

43. wow.

[EyeofRamen]

46. Strawman.

How?

Smokers, upon having an afternoon "hit" are more productive than their carb-laden co-workers after lunch.

And, if you believe smoking causes all the problems you've been told it does, then you seem to be gullible. The point is that businesses shouldn't HAVE healthcare costs. We need a public option.

Oh - and are you willing to pay more taxes for fast foods, pollution and the side-effects of medicine, all of which probably causes more healthcare issues than smoking, alone, does.

[bluestate10]

58. Your claim flies in the face of statistics. Smokers are costlier workers.

Even when salary differences are taken into account.

[EyeofRamen]

69. That's because studies have not been done

on very obese people (not chubby), etc.

What I want to know is this: if the world quit smoking, where are we going to get the tax money we'd be deprived of?

[Alameda]

48. ??? I was a smoker and had the best attendance record of any

of the other employees where I worked at the last two places I worked at. One was a 6 year stint, the other 5 and a half years. I have stopped smoking because of the hassle it has gotten to be. I just got tired of being a societal pariah. I became impossible to rent an apartment, people seem to think they can hurl insults at you. I quite, but I find it really annoying how people get this high horse holier than thou attitude towards smokers.

[bluestate10]

61. I am in a position where I have to count sick days, statistics and my

experiences contradict your experiences. I go with data that I have in my hands dictates.

[EyeofRamen]

67. I've actually had more sick days since I quit.

It's not as anecdotal as you seem to think.

And, I'm also a manager.

[Still Blue in PDX]

91. My experience mirrors yours.

I quit smoking when they took away indoor smoking areas. I don't like to be cold.

I was working as a transcriptionist and was the second highest producer in the department. The highest producer was also a smoker.

[krispos42]

77. For the company.

Not overall. The smokers will still smoke, and the public in general will still pick up the health care costs one way or another.


This wouldn't be an issue if we had national health insurance.

[xchrom]

6. oy. nt

[ixion]

8. That is discrimination, and every person turned away should sue

this anti-smoking crap has gone way too far.

[virgogal]

12. Yep ! You could show up hung-over from booze and it's okay,but

don't puff a cigarette.

[tammywammy]

23. Smoking isn't a protected class. n/t

[EyeofRamen]

52. OK... neither are cat owners.

As an employer, your cat's hair on your body might make me sick, so I'm not going to hire you - even if you're the greatest whatever-I-need-employee because I might accidentally get ONE cat hair on my body.

I'm miffing, of course, but it's the same thing.

I understand not smoking AT work, just like you can't bring your cat to work, but what you or I or our fellow denizens do on our own time is not of mine, yours or our fellow denizens' business.

[cynatnite]

53. If two people had the same qualifications for the same job...

they were equal in their skills.

If one smelled like cigarette smoke during the interview and the other did not, who would you hire?

Being a cat owner and being a smoker are not protected classes.

[EyeofRamen]

57. If one smelled of cigs and the other like a kitty litter box, probably the smoker.

And, you're correct... neither are protected classes, but neither should be discriminated against on the sole reason they are a smoker or a cat owner.

[cynatnite]

60. It happens every day in hiring...

If someone wore jeans rather than slacks, stinky perfume, bad makeup, bad haircut, didn't shave, etc. This is a fact of life. None of these, including smoking is a protected class and it shouldn't be.

[Codeine]

63. Exactly.

Each and every hiring decision made is - by definition - discriminatory.

[EyeofRamen]

68. I agree - but a smoker shouldn't be discriminated against

by that alone.

A smoker could refrain after their shower, go to the interview and never smell of smoke (particularly if they smoke outside at home) and one would never know unless they had to take a pee test for nicotine.

I believe that's what I'm trying to convey. It's the pee test for a perfectly legal product that is discrimination.

[cynatnite]

71. They piss test for legal drugs all the time...

But smoking doesn't fall in that catagory. It's not a protected class and it shouldn't be. Discrimination happens all the time in hiring.

If a person lies about smoking and it's later discovered that they lied, chances are they will be fired.

There are some things the government shouldn't over reach on and this is one of them. An employer should have some discretion over who they hire and who they don't as long as they don't discriminate against race, sex, religion, and so on. Those things are protected by law.

Smoking, bad perfume, jeans with holes, and so on aren't...and shouldn't be. Smoking and dressing badly is a choice. Whether to hire a smoker or not should be up to the employer.

[tammywammy]

72. Exactly

Hiring in and of itself is a discriminatory act. You're choosing between people - discriminating.

[Codeine]

62. Sue for what?

It's perfectly legal. It's like discriminating against people who don't shower before an interview -- not a protected status.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. For only $5000, I'll file that suit.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I stand an equally poor chance of winning as any real one. If you're gonna lose, might as well lose cheaply.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. Gee, you'd think just as soon as you punch the clock and get off their dime

your life would be yours again.

I guess I'm just young and naive.

[Ezlivin]

11. There's nothing I won't do for my Corporate Master!

He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

[RagAss]

21. LOL !

[DURHAM D]

16. For years I have discriminated against the following in hiring:

Fundamentalists
Pentecostals
Evangelicals
Penitentes

so sue me...

Just kidding about Penitentes - I have never received an application from one.

[cynatnite]

24. You ask about a person's religious beliefs?

That's just a bit illegal, you know.

[DURHAM D]

35. I never ask - they volunteer it.

Its a requirement of their faith.

[cynatnite]

40. They must've thought their faith would get them the job. LOL. n/t

[tammywammy]

73. People volunteer all kinds of information during an interview

"What are the three most important things to you?"

[cynatnite]

25. Hospitals not hiring smokers has been around for years...

I've seen many hospitals with that policy. It shouldn't be a shock they'd want their employees to reflect a healthy lifestyle to patients.

Besides, smoking stinks. If I had known how badly I smelled when I smoked, I would have quit a lot sooner. I hate to think at how many jobs I may have lost because of my smoker's smell. Blech!

[johnnie]

29. I know a lot of non-smokers that stink

But I put up with it because the world doesn't spin around my ass.

[cynatnite]

32. Are you attempting a comparison?

Hospitals hiring only non-smokers is a realistic expectation and smokers are not a protected class. They shouldn't be either.

Smoking is a choice. So is taking a bath. If you smoke or don't take a bath...don't expect to get hired.

[EyeofRamen]

56. LOL!!!

Good one. :thumbsup:

[alp227]

27. Hospitals? OF COURSE there's a compelling reason for tobacco free hiring

Same with jobs where respiratory problems may affect performance (like customer service, jobs requiring a lot of talking).

(on edit) Just thought about this: Peter Jennings was a smoker yet got to keep his job as ABC News anchor until he decided to leave for health reasons. Obama smokes yet still gets to be president.

[roody]

84. Obama quit one year ago.

[Mimosa]

89. Obama smoking or not smoking is of no importance to me.

It should be his and his family's private business. To me it's no big deal.

What's a bigger deal is the intrusion of corporations and government into people's personal lives.

[OhioChick]

28. Cleveland Clinic Head: "If I could, I would not hire obese people"

CLEVELAND (AP) -- The head of the Cleveland Clinic is defending his recent statement that if he could, he would choose not to hire obese people.

Clinic CEO Dr. Delos "Toby" Cosgrove opened a conference on obesity Wednesday by saying his remark to The New York Times last month was intended to spur discussion. He says obesity represents a major social, economic and medical problem that should be given the same priority as efforts to curb tobacco use.

The clinic stopped giving jobs to smokers two years ago. Cosgrove says he never considered not hiring obese people but says his point was that bold action is needed.

A conference panelist from an organization that fights insurance and job discrimination against the obese accused Cosgrove of having a "bias mentality."

http://www.fox8.com/wjw-cleveland-clinic-obease-ppl-txt,0,5588021.story

[Mimosa]

105. ^ Stupid and mean guy! ^

When I was working I'd come across chubby and fat people who were very energetic and productive. I know that's not true across the board, but it's stupid to generalise. Skinny people can be unproductive lazy timewasters. I've seen that too.

[Matariki]

30. submit to urine tests submit to urine tests submit to urine tests

cattle.

[bluestate10]

44. Routine. Get over it. nt.

[Matariki]

92. Hey, if you enjoy submission to any fool who asserts authority over you, that's your business.

As for the tired and cliche phrase, "get over it" well that's just intellectually lazy.

[cynatnite]

94. It is routine and not likely to change. n/t

[MadHound]

31. Oh boy, just what we need, more ways for corporations and businesses to control our personal lives.

All bow down to our corporate masters, for it is at their whim that we live, breathe and eat. :eyes:

[Bunny]

33. Their company, their choice.

You don't like it, exercise your freedom of choice and work somewhere else.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MattBaggins]

50. Do they recieve federal dollars?

[Bunny]

59. Actually, I don't know about federal dollars, nor do I care.

I'm just parroting back what we often hear when the smoking issue comes up. In reality, I don't believe companies should be allowed to discriminate against people for engaging in legal activities on their own time.

[Codeine]

65. Doesn't matter. Smoking isn't constitutionally protected. nt

[ohheckyeah]

70. Who gives a good fuck

if it's constitutionally protected or not? Seriously, piss tests for nicotine? Good gawd, what next?

[MattBaggins]

83. And we don't have to let them take tax dollars

[Cid_B]

97. Vaguely reminds me...

... of the thread where employers refused to hire the terminally unemployed and the ensuing outrage.

I am not seeing as much outrage here. Gosh, sure is strange.

[TheKentuckian]

100. Who the fuck taught you that our rights are limited to those expressed?

Why in God's name would a free people accept the yoke of the ownership class to dictate our personal behavior?

Some people in this thread are fucking screwed in the head. Fucking fascist friendly and Big Brother ready.

Authoritarian corporate Democrats are the dimmest and most soulless people in the land.

[krabigirl]

41. OMFG. and people submit to this?!?! this is a joke.

[Kennah]

49. In this economy, what choice do they have?

Imagine the demands businesses will make when there are 20 applicants per job.

[Zax2me]

64. Or more than 20 in many cases

They say jump, you say how high.
Like you said, no choice.

[SidDithers]

80. Good...nt

Sid

[lumberjack_jeff]

81. Good. n/t

[Abq_Sarah]

82. Ignorance abounds

These policies presuppose that anyone with nicotine in their system is a smoker.

[Nye Bevan]

85. Why would an employer want to hire someone who is going to disappear 4 or 5 times a day

for 15 or 20 minutes, then come back reeking like an ashtray and leaving an odor trail behind them wherever they walk for the next hour or so?

[Mimosa]

88. So, people should not have any right to personal privacy and must submit to tests?

That is the bigger issue.

I don't smoke. I know people who do and they do NOT disappear in order to smoke. They smoke in their cars on the way home from work and at home. It's their own darn business.

[Nye Bevan]

99. If someone does not take smoke breaks during the working day, I have no problem with that. (nt)

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

103. Some of the people I work with smoke

They take a 'let's go burn one' break every 10 minutes (not kidding)... They stay outside smoking and chatting for about 5 minutes at a time. In a one-hour span, they take 5 such breaks, lasting about 5 minutes each. That's 25 minutes of time per hour. So their effective working hour is actually 35 minutes. And then, they complain that they have to remain late because they weren't able to finish their tasks. Counting an hour off for lunch (I'm sure they smoke at lunch too, though I don't go with them, so I can't be 100% sure), they work 35 minutes times 8 (8 being a regular work day on average). That's 280 minutes or about 4 1/2 hours, as opposed to non-smokers who work the full 480 minutes (let's say, counting for bathroom breaks, 400 minutes - and that's being generous with restroom breaks).

Obviously, when you work only 35 minutes out of 60 over the course of 8 hours, production output does become an issue and eventually those who don't take breaks every 10 minutes will have to take on some of those duties. And, if you are paid on an hourly basis, it builds up financially if you have to pay overtime to someone who only works a little more than half as long as other employees.

[Mimosa]

104. If they are wasting that much time they should be warned and let go if they continue.

It seems to me the employer would get ticked off at that much time wasting. Most people aren't allowed so many breaks.

[Still Blue in PDX]

90. Adventist hospitals were doing that 30 years ago.

That was when we could still smoke in stores and most offices here in Oregon and I had never heard of a smoking ban.

:rofl: I was on vacation in Pennsylvania and got chased out of a JC Penney's when I walked in with a lit cigarette. I felt like a cat being shooed away with a broom.

[Liquorice]

93. I am so incredibly glad that I quit smoking, not only because

I feel so much healthier, have more money, don't smell like smoke, etc., but also because of society's bias against smokers. I remember being looked down upon and even lectured by people when I smoked. God, it was just terrible. I don't judge anyone who smokes because I've been there and it can seem impossible to quit. If I had read this story when I smoked, I would have been angry and indignant about it, but now I just feel overwhelmingly grateful that I quit. I do feel sorry for people who smoke who have to suffer this kind of discrimination though.

[Amaya]

101. how did we get our priorities so fucked up

i don't smoke and i think this is wrong on so many levels. you know smokers don't bother me as much as when i see gargantuan sized people working at hospitals and medical businesses. i was in the hospital not long ago and my Dr. had to weight at least 400 pounds. wtf?? .... that's ok? and many of the nurses were clearly obese.

so let me get this straight ... you can't smoke tobacco, but you can eat 10,000 calories a day and be the size of three people? :wtf:

[The Straight Story]

106. How? Because some folks, even here, believe in controlling the lives of others, except on abortion

They lie readily saying 'your body, your choice' while all the time are sitting there eagerly awaiting and cheering when people have the government remove the rights of others to be free.

If I started a thread here entitled 'Employers refusing to hire people who have pre-marital sex or have had abortions (both choices)' what do you think the response would be?

I guess some folks don't really care about choices and freedoms in principle, just when it involves something they want.

[PBS Poll-435]

102. What if you like Nicorette Gum cuz it makes your mouth feel all tingly?

They can't prove that you smoke. Will you need a lung x-ray?

And it makes you more productive (like coffee is thought to)

Where will this crap stop?

:shrug: