Is not hiring smokers the big thing now?

[Galaxy]

I saw an article recently on the Cleveland Clinic does not hire smokers (and would not hire obese people if they could). Now, a local town is doing a ban on smokers as well. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Alaska Airlines is another company that does the same thing. (and before you go crying it's a lawsuit waiting to happen, smokers are NOT a protected class)

I'm not a smoker (to be honest, not a fan of smokers in general). I just found it interesting in these policies. The comments from smokers on the article were trying to defend them. I wanted to hear your thoughts.

[Kodos]

I say: Good job.

[SnowMan]

After seeing the health care costs...I can't say I blame them.

[Galaxy]

I say: Good job.

Same here. I wouldn't hire smokers either. Not to mention the smell and the distractions 99% of the smokers have (god-awful smell that you just can't cover up, smoke breaks, ect.)

Wanted to add, I'm guessing all tobacco (such as chew) are included in these bans as well?

[sabotai]

Even when I was a smoker, I had no problem with companies refusing to hire smokers (I don't think I did....I forget.. It's been awhile since I was a smoker.). And even as an overweight person (hopefully not for too much longer), I have no problem with companies not hiring fatties, either.

[Lathum]

No surprise at all.

As mentioned why saddle your company with the additional health care costs . Not to mention when they get older missing work or having to retire early due to health complications.

Another huge component is lost productivity. Even if a smoker takes 4 ten minute smoke breaks a day that is forty minutes lost production. Having worked in the restaurant industry for years I can tell you people who smoke do less work then non-smokers. Whenever you couldn't find someone just look outside, guaranteed that is where they are.

If I owned a business I wouldn't be OK paying someone to tae a smoke break. And god forbid they don't get their smoke breaks, then they become unbearable.

[Lathum]

dola- I agree with not hiring overweight people as well, but that is a much more slippery slope.

I think a better compromise for that would be charge them a higher premium and charge fit people a lower premium. Why should it be the same when odds dictate the healthier person will have less medical problems.

[stevew]

Smokers already pay close to a thousand dollars a year in taxes. So maybe the states and feds could use some of that money to offset extra health care costs?

Anyways I wouldn't hire obese people or smokers either.

[Lathum]

Smokers already pay close to a thousand dollars a year in taxes. So maybe the states and feds could use some of that money to offset extra health care costs?



Why should the feds have to do that. IMO the smokers should have to pay a higher premium to offset the extra health care costs.

[stevew]

Dola

Probably depends on which industry though. Production of any kind would be hell no. Food no. Office work, maybe.

[stevew]

Why should the feds have to do that. IMO the smokers should have to pay a higher premium to offset the extra health care costs.

Because everytime they raise excise taxes it is because of health care costs. Then they trot out the fact that health care costs are too high. Wtf. Tax is literally 240 a pack built in. Plus sales tax.

How about they fucking actually do the "increased health care costs" math correctly and pass it on.

Besides if a smoker dies in his 60s it saves a ton on needless end of life care for the elderly.

[sabotai]

I also support companies firing someone for wearing too much perfume or cologne. Gives me migraines....and then I have to buy Excedrin Migraine....so it does tie in to health care costs.

[Drake]

I quit smoking in April, so this issue is moot for me, but my take on it is simple: if you want to work somewhere that doesn't hire smokers, commit to not smoking at work. What you do on your own time is your business. You don't have to tell them you're an after-hours smoker.

[Lathum]

Well that's the rub.

If they aren't hiring smokers because of the cost to insure them, then it is relevant if they are smoking when not at work.

If it is because of lost production then that is a different story.

[stevew]

Still waiting for the federal fast food and soda taxes to kick in.

[Galaxy]

I quit smoking in April, so this issue is moot for me, but my take on it is simple: if you want to work somewhere that doesn't hire smokers, commit to not smoking at work. What you do on your own time is your business. You don't have to tell them you're an after-hours smoker.

Companies can test if you smoke (or use other tobacco products) or not.

[DanGarion]

dola- I agree with not hiring overweight people as well, but that is a much more slippery slope.

I think a better compromise for that would be charge them a higher premium and charge fit people a lower premium. Why should it be the same when odds dictate the healthier person will have less medical problems.

Of course not all overweight people are in poor health... Just as there are many thin people in poor health... I guess it's all figuring out which is fit.

[DanGarion]

Companies can test if you smoke (or use other tobacco products) or not.

Can they legally penalize you for using a legal substance though outside of work time?

[k0ruptr]

if its for health care reasons, should they not hire diabetics also? or they could even go further and not hire people that have families with at risk diseases.

[Danny]

if its for health care reasons, should they not hire diabetics also? or they could even go further and not hire people that have families with at risk diseases.

Smoking is something that you can choose to do or not. Those things you mention are not choices.

[k0ruptr]

Smoking is something that you can choose to do or not. Those things you mention are not choices.

Ahh i get it, meaning that someone couldn't have a lawsuit for not hiring smokers, but have one for not hiring diabetics?

or am I not getting it... I mean I understand one is a choice and one isn't.

[Lathum]

Of course not all overweight people are in poor health... Just as there are many thin people in poor health... I guess it's all figuring out which is fit.

really? Then why is obesity considered a disease? I agree not all skinny people are in good health, but to say not all overweight people are in poor health is just plain wrong. If you are overweight you are at a higher risk for heart disease, diabetes, etc... It's like saying not all people with cancer are sick.

if its for health care reasons, should they not hire diabetics also? or they could even go further and not hire people that have families with at risk diseases.

Well that goes along with the obesity question.

As far as family risk it's apples and oranges. Smokers are voluntarily putting poison into their bodies, you can't control something you are born with.

[k0ruptr]

not all Diabetic people are over weight either... I know a bunch that are perfectly fit.

[Surtt]

Smoking is something that you can choose to do or not. Those things you mention are not choices.

It's not like nicotine is addictive or anything.

[k0ruptr]

So , Alcohol must apply too no? legal like tobacco, health risks also. is there a similar thing being done with alcohol?

[k0ruptr]

Smoking is something that you can choose to do or not. Those things you mention are not choices.

It's not like nicotine is addictive or anything.

was just gonna mention the whole Addiction = disease thing, but I decided not to.

[k0ruptr]

dola, I don't have a fight in this , I'm just interested in it.

[Lathum]

not all Diabetic people are over weight either... I know a bunch that are perfectly fit.

well sure, and my Father in Law ran 4 miles a day when he needed a triple bypass at age 54, shit happens, but statistically you are more likely to have health issues if you are overweight, or if you smoke. Those are indisputable facts.

[DanGarion]

well sure, and my Father in Law ran 4 miles a day when he needed a triple bypass at age 54, shit happens, but statistically you are more likely to have health issues if you are overweight, or if you smoke. Those are indisputable facts.
You could say that about a thousand other things. You are less likely to die if you don't drive. The link to charred meat causing cancer. Or how about the link to red meat and all the things it can cause. I can go on and on with indisputable facts, where do we draw the line? Men are more likely to have health issues from conception till death, it's a fact.

[Danny]

It's not like nicotine is addictive or anything.

It is, just explaining the rationale. Personally, if someone smokes in the work day and has their production affected or affects the work environment, I would not hire them. Smoking outside of work should not affect someone being hired, just have them pay extra on their insurance.

[Samdari]

I quit smoking in April, so this issue is moot for me, but my take on it is simple: if you want to work somewhere that doesn't hire smokers, commit to not smoking at work. What you do on your own time is your business. You don't have to tell them you're an after-hours smoker.

Then you get a smoking related illness and BAM, the insurance company won't cover it. Good plan.

[RomaGoth]

It's not like nicotine is addictive or anything.

What does that have to do with the argument presented here though? At some point, these people chose to smoke. People with diabetes, cancer, lukemia, ect, did not choose to have those diseases.

Big difference imo.

[BrianD]

You could say that about a thousand other things. You are less likely to die if you don't drive. The link to charred meat causing cancer. Or how about the link to red meat and all the things it can cause. I can go on and on with indisputable facts, where do we draw the line? Men are more likely to have health issues from conception till death, it's a fact.

Apparently at smoking, duh.

[Abe Sargent]

Women, on average, have tons more health care costs than men. If that's you reasoning for smokers and fat people.....

[Passacaglia]

Because everytime they raise excise taxes it is because of health care costs. Then they trot out the fact that health care costs are too high. Wtf. Tax is literally 240 a pack built in. Plus sales tax.

How about they fucking actually do the "increased health care costs" math correctly and pass it on.

Besides if a smoker dies in his 60s it saves a ton on needless end of life care for the elderly.

Do you mean 2.40?

[wade moore]

If this is because of productivity issues, I think it's 100% defensible.

If it due to Health Care costs, I agree that there's a bit of a slippery slope problem here.

[albionmoonlight]

overweight is not the opposite of fit. I know people want it to be. But it is not. Better reforms happen when we focus on what is true than what we want to be true.

[DanGarion]

overweight is not the opposite of fit. I know people want it to be. But it is not. Better reforms happen when we focus on what is true than what we want to be true.

That's what I was trying to say.

[King of New York]

overweight is not the opposite of fit. I know people want it to be. But it is not. Better reforms happen when we focus on what is true than what we want to be true.

That's true, but neither is "smoker" the opposite of fit--many (most?) smokers do not die of smoking-related causes. However, there's a correlation between smoking and unfit, and that correlation might well be as strong as the correlation between obese and unfit. I don't see any reason to distinguish between the two, and as long as employers are expected to pick up the tab for health insurance, then I don't see how we can deny them a say in how their employees live.

[RomaGoth]

many (most?) smokers do not die of smoking-related causes.

Really? I believe that cancer and emphysema would disagree with you.


However, there's a correlation between smoking and unfit, and that correlation might well be as strong as the correlation between obese and unfit. I don't see any reason to distinguish between the two, and as long as employers are expected to pick up the tab for health insurance, then I don't see how we can deny them a say in how their employees live.

Agree with this. If an employer is expected to pay a portion of an employee's health insurance premium, the employer should have the right to hire/not hire an employee who will invariably cost them more to employ, whether it be higher health costs or less productivity due to smoke breaks, doctor visits, etc...

[DanGarion]

Really? I believe that cancer and emphysema would disagree with you.




Agree with this. If an employer is expected to pay a portion of an employee's health insurance premium, the employer should have the right to hire/not hire an employee who will invariably cost them more to employ, whether it be higher health costs or less productivity due to smoke breaks, doctor visits, etc...

Or if they have a preexisting condition, such as AIDS, cancer, mental health issues, etc....

[RomaGoth]

Or if they have a preexisting condition, such as AIDS, cancer, mental health issues, etc....

Again, smoking is a choice, the things you mention are not.

[Drake]

Then you get a smoking related illness and BAM, the insurance company won't cover it. Good plan.

Sure. I'm not saying it's a perfect plan or a long term plan, but if you don't have any insurance and this job will give it to you, you're already in that boat.

I've never been asked in an interview if I was a smoker, but I was promoted because of it plenty of times. The fastest way up the office ladder is taking smoke breaks that coincide with your boss's.

I've scored more dirt and inside-track info on smoke breaks than I care to recount. So, not only are those smokers raising your insurance premiums and getting extra breaks, they're also taking your promotions and getting an in with the cute office girls who give blow jobs ('cuz you know that chicks who smoke, smoke pole, right?)

(In all seriousness, I'd rank asking me if I was a smoker up there with asking me if I was having unprotected sex with multiple partners. Both are my personal life, and if you ask me, I'm allowed to lie.)

Edit to add: I will state categorically that I've personally never applied for employment to a place that specifically advertised that they wanted non-smokers only. In practice, I respect their right to hire who they want. On a completely different node, the version of this type of story that gets my goat is churches that get in trouble for disqualifying avowed atheists who apply. Why a church shouldn't be able to discriminate not just religiously, but doctrinally, is beyond me. So I get it. I grasp the logic and I observe it out of respect for people who want to be able to hire the sort of people they want to work with. Personally, I don't hire ugly chicks. If I call you in and you're ugly, I don't care how qualified you are, the interview is over. But that in no way impinges upon my right to lie in an interview if asked a question I deem to be inappropriate.

[King of New York]

Really? I believe that cancer and emphysema would disagree with you.

The American Cancer Society--whose estimate I would expect to skew high rather than low, given that it is opposed to smoking--puts the number at one half of all smokers dying of smoking related illnesses.

hxxp://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2x_Cigarette_Smoking.asp

A few years ago, the figure bandied about was one third. Some are now pushing two thirds. One suspects that, as is currently the case with global warming (which I believe is happening, just as I except a correlation between smoking and various cancers/heart disease), some scientists are starting to manipulate their data and estimates, figuring that the ends justify the means.

[Kodos]

On a completely different node, the version of this type of story that gets my goat is churches that get in trouble for disqualifying avowed atheists who apply. Why a church shouldn't be able to discriminate not just religiously, but doctrinally, is beyond me.

Huh? Are you talking about atheists who want to be married in a church? Cuz I can't imagine a lot of them are knocking down the door to be admitted otherwise.

Also, lying about smoking in an interview probably won't work, since, unless the interviewer is a smoker themself, they will probably be able to tell from the smell. Yellow teeth is another clue.

[Drake]

No, no. I'm talking about atheists who apply for jobs as secretaries, classroom teachers, janitors, whatever. Paid work on behalf of the church. Now, if you want to lie about being an atheist and commit to acting like a devout member of that sect for all of the hours you're at work (that is, fulfilling the expectations of the job), then I don't have a problem with that, either.

But you're right, it doesn't happen that often. I only get them from my dad's denominational magazines. The stories are hysterically interesting sometimes, though. :)

[Kodos]

Ah. That makes more sense.

[Axxon]

You could say that about a thousand other things. You are less likely to die if you don't drive.

Really? I thought for sure we were all 100% going to die.

[Kodos]

The jury is still out on that. C'mon, Science!!! Or vampires...

[Galaxy]

Can they legally penalize you for using a legal substance though outside of work time?

They can do whatever they want. Smoking is not a protected class or is it covered under disability laws (as those who throw out things like obesity, diabetics, AIDS, I believe those are). Personally, I wouldn't hire smokers just because they stink from the smell and the whole smoke breaks alone.

As for the alcohol, is alcohol as bad as smoking if done in moderation (doesn't wine have positive impacts)? I think if you're an alcoholic, you're not going to a very productive employee anyways.

[Axxon]

Agree with this. If an employer is expected to pay a portion of an employee's health insurance premium, the employer should have the right to hire/not hire an employee who will invariably cost them more to employ, whether it be higher health costs or less productivity due to smoke breaks, doctor visits, etc...

Another argument for the public option then. At the very least untie employment and insurance period. Either it's an optional thing and the government stays out of it period or it's mandatory and they administrate it properly without getting the employer involved. It clearly can't be important if the government feels that shuffling off the responsibility to a party not involved at all in the transaction ( between man and doctor is not the natural position for an employer to be )is the way to go.

[Axxon]

The jury is still out on that. C'mon, Science!!! Or vampires...

What sucks is that's usually my answer in scenarios like these but here I try and make a pithy comment and I'm countered by my own reply.

[Kodos]

The foot is on the other hand now!

[DataKing]

The foot is on the other hand now!

You're getting your human appendages mixed up again, oh-multiple-tentacled-one.

[DanGarion]

Really? I thought for sure we were all 100% going to die.
You know what I meant.

[Schmidty]

Even if a smoker takes 4 ten minute smoke breaks a day that is forty minutes lost production.

That bothers the fuck out of me. It's even more annoying when a supervisor is a smoker, because they tend to make it ok for every other smoker to basically take part of the day off because of an addiction. It's bullshit.

[k0ruptr]

That bothers the fuck out of me. It's even more annoying when a supervisor is a smoker, because they tend to make it ok for every other smoker to basically take part of the day off because of an addiction. It's bullshit.

I guess it's different some places , but I was under the impression that companies only allow a certain number of breaks a day. most places I thought was a 15 after every 2 hours, and everyone had to take it, smoker or not, and a half hour (lunch) every 4 hours. Thats the state law here in Hawaii. So that being the case, If your smoking on your mandatory breaks, I don't see how your losing production.

[sabotai]

I guess it's different some places , but I was under the impression that companies only allow a certain number of breaks a day. most places I thought was a 15 after every 2 hours, and everyone had to take it, smoker or not, and a half hour (lunch) every 4 hours. Thats the state law here in Hawaii. So that being the case, If your smoking on your mandatory breaks, I don't see how your losing production.

Every job I've had has been that way. Most of my jobs didn't make you take the break, but some did. But it's only been for my full-time jobs and my job in college. No part time job (other than the college one) had these rules. And I've never had a job where smokers were allowed to go on smoke breaks on top of the normal breaks.

[Suburban Rhythm]

My immediate supervisor (team of 15, including us, I'd be considered 2nd in charge) is a smoker. Her counterpart is a smoker. And the mgr they report into is a smoker.

Difference is, she comes in the same time I do, about 7:30. The counterpart rolls in around 9. The manager 10.

She takes probably 3-4 smoke breaks a day. The counterpart probably 6-8, the manager around 10...when he's not chewing in his office.

So comparatively speaking, what she does isn't all that bad. She makes up her time, eating lunch at her desk while working etc.

I will say, I would love to work at a place doing things like this, because it shows me they don't give a fuck about how certain groups feel. My company I would imagine is typical for corporate America-- they are always worried about the 1-2 idiots rather then the other 80 people showing up and doing their jobs. I'd like to see my company get rid of the dead weight, slackers, and incompetent people before getting rid of smokers.

[Drake]

The #1 thing this thread has convinced me of is that that I'm so glad I no longer work a job where I punch the clock or fill out a timesheet. Smoker or not, the whole hour management thing would drive me insane, as would having a set time when I had to show up for work in the morning. My job is almost entirely project based these days, which means that as long as I meet my deadlines, no one gripes about when I come in, when I leave, how many breaks I take, how long my lunch hour is or whether or not I even bother to show up at all vs. deciding to telecommute. Hell, I can spend the whole day surfing the web and call it "thinking about the project" and no one will say a word as long as I meet my target dates.

I really do have a good job when I think about what it could be like. I should pick up donuts for my boss in the morning. :)

[Lathum]

The #1 thing this thread has convinced me of is that that I'm so glad I no longer work a job where I punch the clock or fill out a timesheet. Smoker or not, the whole hour management thing would drive me insane, as would having a set time when I had to show up for work in the morning. My job is almost entirely project based these days, which means that as long as I meet my deadlines, no one gripes about when I come in, when I leave, how many breaks I take, how long my lunch hour is or whether or not I even bother to show up at all vs. deciding to telecommute. Hell, I can spend the whole day surfing the web and call it "thinking about the project" and no one will say a word as long as I meet my target dates.

I really do have a good job when I think about what it could be like. I should pick up donuts for my boss in the morning. :)

Question for you.

Lets say you were a smoker, and for arguments sake you take 6 ten hour smoke breaks a day. Thats 5 hours a week. Over the course of a year that is about 250 hours of work lost do to smoke breaks. That equates to roughly a month and a half of work. How many more projects could you do in that month in a half?

[cartman]

Question for you.

Lets say you were a smoker, and for arguments sake you take 6 ten hour smoke breaks a day. Thats 5 hours a week. Over the course of a year that is about 250 hours of work lost do to smoke breaks. That equates to roughly a month and a half of work. How many more projects could you do in that month in a half?

Speaking for myself, I could come up with at least 10 items to challenge the Guy Fieri stuff on the menu.

[DataKing]

Speaking as someone who has worked in a project-focused job similar to what Drake described and an ex-smoker (been nearly 3 years now), I can honestly say that my smoke-breaks were not lost productivity. Alot of that time was spent thinking through the projects/problems I was working through at the time. In some cases it actually worked out to my benefit...getting away from my desk would help me to approach a problem with fresh eyes and from a different point of view.

That said, I can definitely see the loss of productivity being a problem in more of a labor-intensive job, where if you're not where you need to be there's work that isn't getting done.

And of course, I don't miss it for a second...nasty habit.

[Autumn]

dola- I agree with not hiring overweight people as well, but that is a much more slippery slope.

I think a better compromise for that would be charge them a higher premium and charge fit people a lower premium. Why should it be the same when odds dictate the healthier person will have less medical problems.

I don't think the compromise necessarily works either, though. If you're going to charge obese people more, might as well charge people with a family history of heart disease more. And then people with genes predicting breast cancer more. I like the idea of putting in financial incentives for people to be healthy but it can be very difficult to implement, and we have to be very sure that we're sticking to careful science about what health means.

[Drake]

Question for you.

Lets say you were a smoker, and for arguments sake you take 6 ten hour smoke breaks a day. Thats 5 hours a week. Over the course of a year that is about 250 hours of work lost do to smoke breaks. That equates to roughly a month and a half of work. How many more projects could you do in that month in a half?

I'm a programmer. When I'm smoking/when I somked, I *am* working. It's called changing your physical environment so you can rethink the problem.

And I can also tell you that the fact I worked through lunch 95% of the time and frequently worked at home when I was technically "off" because the solution to whatever problem I was dealing with hit me out of the blue more than made up for my smoke breaks.

I fully recognize that I work in a different sort of industry than most people, though. If I did factory work or customer service, I would have expected my non-smoking co-workers to get pissed.

Edit: Or I could have just quoted DataKing's post and said "Ditto" :D