+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Companies that won't hire smokers - good or bad?

  1. #1
    Clueless but well-meaning Hatshepsut's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    2,832

    Default Companies that won't hire smokers - good or bad?

    There is an article in today's International Herald Trib (probably in the NYT as well, since NYT publishes IHT) describing the growing trend among employers to refuse to hire smokers. They can find nicotine in the system through testing, of course, so lying doesn't cut it.

    Mediocre Mellophanter that I am, I'm much too lazy to find the article on line, or even go downstairs and re-read the paper before making this post. However, that's the gist of it. Some states have passed laws making it illegal for employers to discriminate on this basis, and even some anti-smoking activists think that this has gone too far.

    I guess I disagree with that policy. I am hostile to drug testing even for illegal drugs, so I can't come up with a good reason why companies should be allowed to use testing to discriminate against people who use a LEGAL substance, however inadvisable it may be. Yes, it's a bad health habit that raises costs/lowers productivity for the company. But so do unprotected sex and being overweight (possibly). Where does it stop?

    I also wonder about chewing tobacco. Is that verboten as well, and if it is not, how do you distinguish between chewers and inhalers?

    This policy seems unlikely to hold up over time. Someone will claim discrimination under the ADA - it's an addiction, isn't that a disability? - and the whole thing will fall apart.

  2. #2
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    It grinds my gears but I can't think of any real reason why they shouldn't be allowed do that. It may very well exclude the people who are best for the company but it's the employer's choice as far as I can see.
    Many workplaces also have fitness plans in order to eliminate obesity amongst employees too, a healthy workforce is more economically beneficial to them.

  3. #3
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Sadly over here very few companies have any sort of fitness plans in place to eliminate obesity which is fairly on par with smoking for health issues.

    I don't know if what the companies are doing is illegal or not. I can see a company switching the policy over to no smoking on the grounds at all, no "smoke breaks" and immediate dismissal for violations but most companies just charge extra for insurance coverage of smokers at this point.

    The policy described by Hatshepsut is pretty severe, but the only difference between this and the anti-drug policies in many companies is the legality of the substance.

    Here's a question, would it be different for business where appearance discrimination appears to be allowed? Like waiters and waitresses. I could see a strong argument for not having waitstaff smell of smoke.

    That's a hypothetical above that I don't really agree with but I could see the argument persuading many. As a fat man, health oriented discrimination policies worry me a bit.

  4. #4
    The Queen Zuul's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    9,908

    Default

    I wouldn't consider smokers a protected class or anything and an addiction is a very different thing from being overweight. That said, I don't agree with this move because I don't think it should matter to your employer what you're doing on your own time. If you smell clean at work and aren't taking smoke breaks all day long, it shouldn't matter if you smoke on your own time.

    But speaking as someone who has had a smoker for an employee, those who feel that they're entitled to extra breaks because of their addiction really piss me off. Yet that's easily solved if management actually cares about productivity and stopping employees from doing that.

  5. #5
    my god, he's full of stars... OneCentStamp's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    6,993

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Zuul View post
    I wouldn't consider smokers a protected class or anything and an addiction is a very different thing from being overweight. That said, I don't agree with this move because I don't think it should matter to your employer what you're doing on your own time. If you smell clean at work and aren't taking smoke breaks all day long, it shouldn't matter if you smoke on your own time.
    What if it could be demonstrated that smokers took more sick days?
    "You laugh at me because I'm different; I laugh at you because I'm on nitrous."

    find me at Goodreads

  6. #6
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    I'm not sure I see a huge difference between smokers and the obese (remember I am fat). Both have addictions. Both are reported to have more health issues and take more sick days then non-obese non-smokers.

  7. #7
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,174

    Default

    I hate cigarettes. I hate the way they smell, and I hate how they make people who smoke not realize how bad they (the cigs and the smokers) smell. I still think this is a bad idea. If companies are allowed to discriminate based on health issues, then a whole lot of us are going to be in trouble.

  8. #8
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Orual View post
    I hate cigarettes. I hate the way they smell, and I hate how they make people who smoke not realize how bad they (the cigs and the smokers) smell. I still think this is a bad idea. If companies are allowed to discriminate based on health issues, then a whole lot of us are going to be in trouble.
    This is my basic feeling. I can't see a big difference between smokers and the obese to employers worried about health care costs and sick days.

    Next up would be screening people for genetic likelihood for high risk of cancer or diabetes or the like.

  9. #9
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by The Original An Gadaí View post
    It grinds my gears but I can't think of any real reason why they shouldn't be allowed do that. It may very well exclude the people who are best for the company but it's the employer's choice as far as I can see.
    Many workplaces also have fitness plans in order to eliminate obesity amongst employees too, a healthy workforce is more economically beneficial to them.
    Yeah, I tend to agree with this. Not that I think it's a great policy, necessarily, but I think the employer has the right to do it.

    Smoking is such an easy target for this kind of thing. I've never smoked, I think it's a terrible habit, and someone I care about very much is extremely sick with smoking-related cancer, so I'm as anti-cigarette as you can get. But on the other hand, you've never seen another legal product that is so hated and discriminated against. It's going to be tough to get people outraged enough over this to get the policy changed, just like no one cares when cigarette taxes are raised sky-high because the state's short on cash.

  10. #10
    Wanna cuddle? RabbitMage's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The buttcleft of California
    Posts
    1,143

    Default

    Put me in the "I think this is ridiculous" category because, no, it shouldn't matter what an employee is doing at home on their own time as long as it doesn't affect them at work. As I said (I think?) in the thread about the teacher being fired over a Facebook picture, I am very, very uncomfortable with this increased interest in an employee's private life. An employer should not be able to dictate what someone does in their free time nor should they be terminated for something they did in their own free time unless there is an unquestionable, direct effect on their ability to do their job.

  11. #11
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    What about OCS's question about sick days, Rabbit? I mean, if there's evidence that an outside activity costs the company money, does that make a difference to you?

  12. #12
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,174

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    What about OCS's question about sick days, Rabbit? I mean, if there's evidence that an outside activity costs the company money, does that make a difference to you?
    You know what else causes a higher incidence of sick days and costing the company money? Parenthood. Should companies be allowed to only hire people without children?

  13. #13
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Orual View post
    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    What about OCS's question about sick days, Rabbit? I mean, if there's evidence that an outside activity costs the company money, does that make a difference to you?
    You know what else causes a higher incidence of sick days and costing the company money? Parenthood. Should companies be allowed to only hire people without children?
    Yeah, I think if that's what they want to do, they should be able to.

    ETA: As long as it's not really about not hiring women. I get having protected classes, but I don't think that status as a parent should be one of them. Which, I think it might be, but maybe that's only as regards to housing, not employment? I'm not sure.

    And so now that I think about it, should smokers be a protected class?
    Last edited by Sarahfeena; 11 Feb 2011 at 03:35 PM.

  14. #14
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,174

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    Quote Originally posted by Orual View post
    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    What about OCS's question about sick days, Rabbit? I mean, if there's evidence that an outside activity costs the company money, does that make a difference to you?
    You know what else causes a higher incidence of sick days and costing the company money? Parenthood. Should companies be allowed to only hire people without children?
    Yeah, I think if that's what they want to do, they should be able to.

    ETA: As long as it's not really about not hiring women. I get having protected classes, but I don't think that status as a parent should be one of them.
    I really can't agree with that. One's personal life should not be any of an employer's business. You show up, you do your job, you get compensated. If they offer benefits like sick time, they should not be able to say "we will only hire people who won't actually USE these benefits". Saying "no smokers", "no overweight people", "no parents" is not demonstrably different to me from saying "no women", "no black people", etc.

    And a "no parent" rule would probably be some kind of whitewashed "no women" rule anyways.

    There's so much de facto discrimination going on these days as it is - I really hate the idea of giving employers and hiring managers more bludgeons for job-seekers.
    Last edited by Orual; 11 Feb 2011 at 04:27 PM.

  15. #15
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    I can't agree Sarah. If a company wants to charge extra for insurance of smokers, well most already do.

    If they want to fire someone for missing to much work, that is pretty much and option.

    But hiring practices to not hire a smoker period seems really unfair to me. It smacks of discrimination and if smokers then why not the Obese & Mothers?

    Next up, "Well we're sorry Mr. Smith, but your pre-employment test shows you are an above average risk for cancer, we have a policy to not higher people that are above average risk for cancer."
    Last edited by What Exit?; 11 Feb 2011 at 04:46 PM.

  16. #16
    Elephant Myglaren's avatar
    Registered
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington, UK.
    Posts
    944

    Default

    On a personal level I would welcome it* as people smoking (illegally) at work cause me many sick days (unpaid) but I do feel it is discriminatory.

    *Smoking should be a capital offence!

    Last week on leaving work I stepped out of the exit into a cloud of smoke in a non-smoking area, had to sit in my car for over an hour before I could drive home and crash out for a few hours.
    As I needed fuel for the following day I ventured out to buy diesel a 11pm.
    Some arse smoking IN THE PETROL STATION triggered an attack. I was stuck at the pumps for half an hour when some concerned citizen flagged down a police car and sent it along, the police called an ambulance and had paramedics check me out. I declined the invitation to go to hospital with them as that usually ends quite badly but did get a ride home in a police car and the police had to bring my car home - they were great.
    Unable to go to work the following day either.
    So you can see why I whinge about smoking.

    I thought that I recognised one of the police but it turned out he was just a clone of Robert Carlisle, took a long time for the penny to drop though.
    Lightly Seared On The Reality Grill

  17. #17
    Wanna cuddle? RabbitMage's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The buttcleft of California
    Posts
    1,143

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    I can't agree Sarah. If a company wants to charge extra for insurance of smokers, well most already do.

    If they want to fire someone for missing to much work, that is pretty much and option.

    But hiring practices to not hire a smoker period seems really unfair to me. It smacks of discrimination and if smokers then why not the Obese & Mothers?

    Next up, "Well we're sorry Mr. Smith, but your pre-employment test shows you are an above average risk for cancer, we have a policy to not higher people that are above average risk for cancer."
    Basically this. Treat the person as an individual. If they demonstrate they are using or abusing sick days and breaks, then you fire them.

  18. #18
    Clueless but well-meaning Hatshepsut's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Indonesia
    Posts
    2,832

    Default

    So we are in fairly general agreement (no surprises there) that it is not a fair and reasonable policy for companies to adopt. Taking it a step further - you are a member of your nation's congress/parliament, and legislation has been introduced to make it illegal, throughout the country, for employers to practice hiring discrimination based on whether applicants show evidence of nicotine use. Do you vote for or against the legislation?

    If I have to answer now, I'll vote for it. However, IRL I would want to hear a lot more arguments from both sides before deciding.

  19. #19
    Prehistoric Bitchslapper Sarahfeena's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Chicagoland
    Posts
    5,891

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by RabbitMage View post
    Quote Originally posted by What Exit? View post
    I can't agree Sarah. If a company wants to charge extra for insurance of smokers, well most already do.

    If they want to fire someone for missing to much work, that is pretty much and option.

    But hiring practices to not hire a smoker period seems really unfair to me. It smacks of discrimination and if smokers then why not the Obese & Mothers?

    Next up, "Well we're sorry Mr. Smith, but your pre-employment test shows you are an above average risk for cancer, we have a policy to not higher people that are above average risk for cancer."
    Basically this. Treat the person as an individual. If they demonstrate they are using or abusing sick days and breaks, then you fire them.
    That doesn't work. Everyone is entitled to the same number of sick days. I can understand a company not wanting to be in the position of deciding whether or not people who take them "deserve" them or not. At the same time, smokers cost the company more. And smoking is a behavior that can be changed, not an illness that can't be helped, and not an intrinsic part of a person like skin color or sexual orientation.

    Don't get me wrong, I think it's kind of a stupid idea to ban the hiring of smokers, and I can't believe it's worthwhile for companies to enforce it, but if they can demonstrate that it IS worthwhile for them, I think it's their perogative to do it. On the other hand, if a smoker owns a company, and he wants to hire only other smokers so he can sit at his desk and smoke all day, then I think he should be allowed to do that, too.

  20. #20
    Elen síla lumenn' omentielvo What Exit?'s avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Central NJ (near Bree)
    Posts
    10,071

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Sarahfeena View post
    That doesn't work. Everyone is entitled to the same number of sick days. I can understand a company not wanting to be in the position of deciding whether or not people who take them "deserve" them or not. At the same time, smokers cost the company more. And smoking is a behavior that can be changed, not an illness that can't be helped, and not an intrinsic part of a person like skin color or sexual orientation.

    Don't get me wrong, I think it's kind of a stupid idea to ban the hiring of smokers, and I can't believe it's worthwhile for companies to enforce it, but if they can demonstrate that it IS worthwhile for them, I think it's their perogative to do it. On the other hand, if a smoker owns a company, and he wants to hire only other smokers so he can sit at his desk and smoke all day, then I think he should be allowed to do that, too.
    But if the smoker doesn't get sick more often and doesn't take extra breaks, they are not costing the company any money. The only cost left is insurance and most companies make smokers pay the premium difference.

    Also as far as smoking is a behavior that can be changed, it is one of the toughest addictions to fight by accounts I have seen. I recall reading it is a tougher habit than heroin to break away from. I'm not sure if that is true, but it is not a simple behavior that can be changed. I can't throw stones in glass houses, as my weight issue should be easier to handle than stopping smoking and like some scary high percentage of Americans I can't change my own bad behavior.

    Tobacco companies hook most smokers young when they are prone to making lots of terrible decisions. Unfortunately their product is really addictive.

  21. #21
    Jesus F'ing Christ Glazer's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga. U.S.A. (Male)
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by RabbitMage View post
    ... Treat the person as an individual. If they demonstrate they are using or abusing sick days and breaks, then you fire them.
    But firing someone cost money in higher unemployment insurance rates, not hiring cost only the time of an interview.
    Welcome to Mellophant.

    We started with nothing and we still have most of it left.

  22. #22
    Wanna cuddle? RabbitMage's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The buttcleft of California
    Posts
    1,143

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Glazer View post
    Quote Originally posted by RabbitMage View post
    ... Treat the person as an individual. If they demonstrate they are using or abusing sick days and breaks, then you fire them.
    But firing someone cost money in higher unemployment insurance rates, not hiring cost only the time of an interview.
    That's how it goes sometimes.

    I disagree with a policy saying "We do not hire X" unless X is something that is illegal or directly impacts their job. "We do not hire smokers in our IT department" is not okay, but "We do not hire registered sex offenders as teachers" is.

  23. #23
    Jesus F'ing Christ Glazer's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga. U.S.A. (Male)
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    But the choice is rarely weather or not to hire someone but which someone to hire. If you have multiple qualified applicants why not hire the one who is least likely to take a lot of breaks and be out sick more.
    Welcome to Mellophant.

    We started with nothing and we still have most of it left.

  24. #24
    Oliphaunt The Original An Gadaí's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    2,933

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by Glazer View post
    But the choice is rarely weather or not to hire someone but which someone to hire. If you have multiple qualified applicants why not hire the one who is least likely to take a lot of breaks and be out sick more.
    A good point and realistically it would be hard to show that someone was picked over someone else only because they were a non-smoker, so whilst laws might be made to outlaw the explicit exclusion of smokers from the selection process of a company, they might never really eliminate that bias.

    Same goes for any other non-gender/racial bias they might have, WRT to weight, other social behaviours that are undesirable to corporate types but non necessarily illegal.
    Last edited by The Original An Gadaí; 12 Feb 2011 at 04:15 PM.

  25. #25
    A Groupie Marsilia's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,988

    Default

    Quote Originally posted by The Original An Gadaí View post
    Quote Originally posted by Glazer View post
    But the choice is rarely weather or not to hire someone but which someone to hire. If you have multiple qualified applicants why not hire the one who is least likely to take a lot of breaks and be out sick more.
    A good point and realistically it would be hard to show that someone was picked over someone else only because they were a non-smoker, so whilst laws might be made to outlaw the explicit exclusion of smokers from the selection process of a company, they might never really eliminate that bias.

    Same goes for any other non-gender/racial bias they might have, WRT to weight, other social behaviours that are undesirable to corporate types but non necessarily illegal.
    Exactly. While a law could be passed to keep "Do you smoke?" off the application, or to keep any rules regarding the hiring of smokers off the record, there's nothing to keep a potential employer from noticing a pack of cigs or smell of smoke and using that as part of the decision making process.
    So, I'll whisper in the dark, hoping you'll hear me.

  26. #26
    Jesus F'ing Christ Glazer's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga. U.S.A. (Male)
    Posts
    1,485

    Default

    But a law against means that employers will feel that they have to hire smokers just to show that they are conforming to the law and head off any possible lawsuits.
    Welcome to Mellophant.

    We started with nothing and we still have most of it left.

  27. #27
    Member Elendil's Heir's avatar
    Registered
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The North Coast
    Posts
    24,320

    Default

    I understand and have some sympathy for all of the arguments against it, but if an employee knows going in that this is a policy of his or her prospective employer, I believe the employer is within its rights to have that as a criterion. From all I've read, smokers generally use more sick time, are less healthy and end up costing employers more over the long term in health insurance costs. I understand the "slippery slope" arguments, but think this is a reasonable step for an employer to take to ensure a healthier and cheaper workforce, given the direct and well-proven link between smoking and other health problems. Previously-hired smoking employees at the time the policy is adopted ought to be offered increasingly aggressive encouragement, including counseling, free nicotine patches, peer support groups etc. to help them quit, with a date certain by which they must kick the habit or be disciplined and/or eventually fired.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts