Is not hiring smokers the big thing now?
 

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.

I say: Good job.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dola

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.


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.

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

It's not like nicotine is addictive or anything.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Apparently at smoking, duh.

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

Do you mean 2.40?

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.

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.

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.

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....

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

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

Ah. That makes more sense.

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

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

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.