# Smokers need not apply



## cast iron (Oct 4, 2004)

What say you about this, discrimination, or employers can set any hiring standards they want and people can choose not to work there if they don't like it?

What group of people will be added to the list next?



> Supporters of the hire-no-smokers policy say it will provide smoke-free work environments and help employers control their health-care costs. But critics argue it's a form of discrimination that, moreover, it intrudes into the private lifestyle choices of prospective employees.
> 
> The decision to stop hiring smokers as of Jan. 1 fits with MHA's mission as a health advocacy organization, says chief executive Lynn Nicholas. "The MHA ... is a spokesperson for hospitals across the commonwealth, and tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the US. We want to drive the cost of health care down so that is more affordable," she says.
> 
> MHA's employees will be expected to report smoking through an honor system...


http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2010/1117/Smokers-need-not-apply-Is-hiring-ban-trend-of-the-future



> Smokers need not apply at hospital network starting Tuesday.
> 
> If you smoke or chew tobacco, you won't be hired by the Franciscan Health System starting March 1.
> 
> ...


http://www.king5.com/news/local/Smo...ital-network-starting-Tuesday-117089103.html#


----------



## chickenslayer (Apr 20, 2010)

While I agree that since they provide health insurance they should be able to exclude smokers to keep costs down, but at the same time what's to keep them from expanding their do not hire list to things like those who eat foods other than organic, or those that drive cars without a 5 star safety rating, or those a couple of pounds over their optimum weight and on and on and on.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Fat people are next. Obesity is the "new smoking", there have been a whole lot of alarming articles about the health dangers of obesity. 

I don't like putting nicotene in the same category with illegal drugs by doing the "pee test". Penalizing someone for doing something that is legal and that they only do on their own time? 

Following that logic, better make everybody blow the breathalyzer when they start their shift and when they come back from lunch, too. It is only fair to the patients that their health care workers not be impaired.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Wayne02 said:


> What group of people will be added to the list next?


Union members?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

As a former smoker I should prolly 'recuse' myself.
But, smoking is not essential, like food. 
As long as this hospital says it up front, I think they have a right to say who they'll hire.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

This isn't anything new - since the 1980's I've come across employers that wouldn't hire smokers for a variety of reasons.


----------



## CJ (May 10, 2002)

Okay I'm going to get slapped for this I'm sure, but personally I think an employer should have the right to hire whoever the heck they want... after all, they ARE the one paying the wages. Just like you can date or marry whoever you like, apply for whatever job YOU like... seems only fair to me.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

No problem with it at all.

Come on smokers -- you can't still believe its not a dangerous and costly habit.


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

I had an ex that tasted like an ashtray and still does even though she has 3 kids! She would quit during pregnancy and start back up afterwards. Truly sad. Smoke sets off my asthma so no go here.


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

mnn2501 said:


> No problem with it at all.
> 
> Come on smokers -- you can't still believe its not a dangerous and costly habit.


The "costly" part applies to the smoker, and the other employees, who's health insurance is rated on both the fact the smoker smokes, and the additional health problems associated with it (which are generally mega expensive, cancer, emphysema, COPD, heart failure etc)
companies that employ 50 or more people in almost all states are pooled together for rating purposes, so you get one or two smokers, who get cancer or congestive heart failure, and the whole group's rates go up to compensate.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

I was opposed to drug testing with out cause when that started and every one said it is illegal to do drugs so why should they be protected? The functioning drug users are much fewer in the work force so they can't help the smokers. When the smokers are gone they won't help the obese. When the obese are gone they won't help those that eat too much fat etc. 

How far can it go? This is an old story, but it does show there is no real limit once employers can start controlling our non-work related lives. 

The original story is no longer available online for free, but here is a link to a more complete copy: www.fordforums.com/f349/us-rouge-ford-cars-no-spot-lot-130472/

2006 from the Detroit News :

DEARBORN -- Plant manager Rob Webber delivered a blunt message to workers at Ford Motor Co.'s Dearborn Truck factory this week: If you work at Ford, you better drive a Ford. Otherwise, park across the street and walk.

The new policy at Dearborn Truck, the modern centerpiece of the famed Rouge industrial complex and the site of popular factory tours, comes as Ford officials have been exhorting workers to rally behind the automaker's massive turnaround effort.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2011)

Diabetics need not apply

Hypertensive people need not apply

Obese people need not apply

People with a first degree relative with cancer need not apply

People who have been treated for clinical Depression need not apply

People who consume alcohol need not apply

People who have had two speeding tickets in the past 5 years need not apply

People who have ever had a seizure need not apply

People with high cholesterol ( regardless of their weight) need not apply

People who have migraines need not apply

People who tan in Summer need not apply.

There ya go .... a work force of which the Nazis would have approved


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

While I dont like it & think its a slippery slope to discriminate against other groups, I think it is the right of an employer to hire whom they choose to,


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2011)

The Feds don't think so..otherwise we'd not have laws which state that an employer cannot refuse employment based upon gender, race, religion, disability, etc.


----------



## DavidUnderwood (Jul 5, 2007)

Gender and race are not a matter of choice,
as is smoking. Not sure what difference
religion would make. A disability may make
one unable to do a particular job.
Smoking is a choice you make, and I choose
not to employ anymore smokers. Heaven only 
knows how many paid hours that were unproductive
because my help stop working to smoke. I'm not
concerned with a smoke free work place. I don't
give a hoot what you do on your own time. But
I will not pay anyone to smoke anymore.


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

DavidUnderwood said:


> Gender and race are not a matter of choice,
> as is smoking. Not sure what difference
> religion would make. A disability may make
> one unable to do a particular job.
> ...


:goodjob:
Smoking is nothing more than an addiction thats hurts more than just the person doing it.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

DavidUnderwood said:


> Gender and race are not a matter of choice,
> as is smoking. Not sure what difference
> religion would make. A disability may make
> one unable to do a particular job.
> ...


I hope you are honest enough to inform your customers. I would not patronize such a business.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

I personally would add to the list anyone who is not good looking as I like. After all, they could get plastic surgery to correct their ugliness. 

But I agree...I say it is all a choice. We should be able to not hire anyone who eats meat, eats less than 5 servings of vegetables (one per color) each day, does not work out at least 1 hour per day, drives an electric car and bicycles 80 miles per week. They must also have no stutters, tics or other distracting and unattractive mannerisms. If they look "skinny fat" then they are equally out. In fact...they should just give us a pint of blood and verified DNA testing with their application. Anything that speaks of future heart disease, cancer or a propensity for birth defects should never be hired. Oh, and if they are over 40 they must be sterilized because it would look very very bad on the company if they reproduced with those increased chances of down's, you know.

And eating any chocolate is a DEFINITE no hire. How unhealthy!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

DavidUnderwood said:


> Gender and race are not a matter of choice,
> as is smoking. Not sure what difference
> religion would make. A disability may make
> one unable to do a particular job.
> ...


Post of The Day.~


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

DavidUnderwood said:


> Gender and race are not a matter of choice,
> as is smoking. Not sure what difference
> religion would make. A disability may make
> one unable to do a particular job.
> ...


Would you be so kind as to tell us the name of your business? I would like to ensure we don't do business there.

Oh, and I'm assuming since you're not allowing the normal breaks because someone might smoke...can you be sure and forward what hours you require to the labor board so they can have a good laugh.

Or have you simply dismissed the concept of lunch and the required breaks by law and simply made slaves instead?


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

DavidUnderwood said:


> Gender and race are not a matter of choice,
> as is smoking. Not sure what difference
> religion would make. A disability may make
> one unable to do a particular job.
> ...


Same here. They may exist somewhere, but I've never employed, worked alongside, or even dealt with a smoker that would give an honest days work compared to a non-smoker. Last smoker we had working here took at least 2 smoke breaks every hour until we fired him, and that's about typical in my experience. No matter how many claims they make to only smoke on "their" time.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

I find this thread appalling. Not because of smoking in particular but the way in which people will choose a certain thing and treat it so generally and badly.

Young people today come to work and sneak out for cell phone breaks on a near constant basis. Assuming you can get the bluetooth out of their ear in the first place. They secretly text all the time.

Others go on and interminably are checking on their children. You may as well give up on anything consistent after school hours because they'll be back and forth on the phone with them.

Others can't leave facebook alone.

Others are on boards like this.

Others are checking the news feeds.

Others are chatting followed by more chatting.

The list is endless. Yet you all focus on a smoker as a person who won't give a days work. I think that is rather shocking that we got this far at all in the world, considering how much of our society was built with a cigar, cigarette or pipe hanging out of the mouths of those who built it.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

If I'm the one providing the job, I should be able to set the standard for who gets hired. I wouldn't hire a smoker for a number of reasons.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> If I'm the one providing the job, I should be able to set the standard for who gets hired. I wouldn't hire a smoker for a number of reasons.


And do you also ensure that you discriminate for other causes? Drinking, cussing, pre-marital sex?

Seriously, if you don't know that they smoke and must use a urine test to find out if they do, don't you think that is taking things a little too far?

This isn't about smoking at work, this is about decrying what they do in their own home when it is perfectly legal to do so and less dangerous than drinking or casual sex.

It is using life-style to start something. What next? Christian, Muslim, Buddhist? Those are also choices and not race or gender. Can those now be included?

While it may be true that you are providing the job, do you think you should live in their home and read their mail and listen to their arguments in order to determine if you should hire them? Where do you draw the line?


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

beaglebiz said:


> The "costly" part applies to the smoker, and the other employees, who's health insurance is rated on both the fact the smoker smokes, and the additional health problems associated with it (which are generally mega expensive, cancer, emphysema, COPD, heart failure etc)
> companies that employ 50 or more people in almost all states are pooled together for rating purposes, so you get one or two smokers, who get cancer or congestive heart failure, and the whole group's rates go up to compensate.


And the giant fat fast food eating, chocolate stuffing, soda swilling 10 in that group are such a good bet for continued good health?

It's a strawman argument.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

In retail situations, a smoker is not an asset to the business. This is due to the fact that more customers are non smokers and no matter how much cologne & how many breath mints are used; a smoker smells like well, smoke which is offensive to customers & causes a loss of revenue if the customers doesn't return.
I wouldn't hire a smoker either.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ChristyACB said:


> And do you also ensure that you discriminate for other causes? Drinking, cussing, pre-marital sex?
> 
> Seriously, if you don't know that they smoke and must use a urine test to find out if they do, don't you think that is taking things a little too far?
> 
> ...


I draw the line at the front door of my business. If I have risked my money, my time, labor and talents to start the business, I have the right to hire people who I feel are right for the business.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ChristyACB said:


> And do you also ensure that you discriminate for other causes? Drinking, cussing, pre-marital sex?
> 
> Seriously, if you don't know that they smoke and must use a urine test to find out if they do, don't you think that is taking things a little too far?
> 
> ...


Let me ask you this, who has the authority to tell me I have to hire smokers?


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

I'm perhaps not stating myself clearly and it looks as if I'm defensive for smokers but I think others in this thread are entirely missing the point of the announcement in the OP.

I personally find the smell of smoke in a room offensive and people who have recently smoked in an enclosed space smell bad to me. Of course, I can also smell a person who has a wood stove and find that even more offensive, so it can't just be cigarettes.

But this isn't about smoking. It's about saying Yippee to any company who will choose to hire based on something as nebulous as a potential future health impact. Calling it a choice or saying we all know it is bad for you is a straw man.

This company isn't just saying it doesn't want smoking at its site. It is saying you can never smoke...period. It is using a urine test (which can tell 20 days after smoking or pop positive if you live with a smoker).

What next? Meat over 3 oz is bad for adults. So is not eating vegetables. So is not being at peak BMI. So is having higher cholesterol regardless of diet. So is not using a light to read. So is not exercising 40 minutes a day. So is being divorced or never married after the age of 35. So is being considered less attractive than average. So is slouching.

All of these things are choices. All of these things portend future heath care costs. 

Just because it is easy to hate smokers doesn't mean the concept of digging that far into your personal life in order to find a reason to discriminate is an okay thing to do.

I just wish people who shout yippee because they personally don't like smoking would consider their own condition and the future potential for anyone who might not fit some future mold of acceptable lifestyle that isn't necessarily one they might choose.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> Let me ask you this, who has the authority to tell me I have to hire smokers?


No one. Certainly.

But do you make a point of finding out if they smoke in their own personal time in order to find a reason not to hire them? 

If they are smoking in their own life...say on saturday when they watch the game...what has that to do with your business?

If you choose not to have it at your business, great! If you're going into their personal life in order to winkle out things you don't like, then that is wrong.

If you say it is to keep insurance down, then let me ask if you also don't hire those who are fat, don't exercise and eat too much junk food?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ChristyACB said:


> I'm perhaps not stating myself clearly and it looks as if I'm defensive for smokers but I think others in this thread are entirely missing the point of the announcement in the OP.
> 
> I personally find the smell of smoke in a room offensive and people who have recently smoked in an enclosed space smell bad to me. Of course, I can also smell a person who has a wood stove and find that even more offensive, so it can't just be cigarettes.
> 
> ...


First of all, I never said I hate smokers. I hate smoking, and I have very good reasons for doing so, but I don't hate smokers.

This isn't about discriminating against smokers, it's about forcing people to hire people they don't want to hire. Who has the authority to tell me I have to hire smokers for my business?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ChristyACB said:


> No one. Certainly.
> 
> But do you make a point of finding out if they smoke in their own personal time in order to find a reason not to hire them?
> 
> ...


I doubt I would need to go to the lengths you're describing to know they're smokers, and it has nothing to do with insurance.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> First of all, I never said I hate smokers. I hate smoking, and I have very good reasons for doing so, but I don't hate smokers.
> 
> This isn't about discriminating against smokers, it's about forcing people to hire people they don't want to hire. Who has the authority to tell me I have to hire smokers for my business?


No one is forcing you obviously. However it seems very hypocritical to choose one thing that has potential for bad health and simply discriminate for that without discriminating for them all. 

I personally don't care. However I do wish businesses that did choose to discriminate would let potential customers know.

After all, I'm sure you have no problem taking a smoker's money.

So maybe you could put up a sign that say's "I won't hire a smoker, no matter how qualified. Even if you smoke on your own time and I have no involvement. I simply won't have you."

That way a smoker with a little money to spend on your field (sorry I don't know what your business is) can say in return. "Hmm, best to go to the next guy and give my money to the one who discriminates against people who have cats because he thinks they steal baby's breath instead."

I personally won't hire any company with religious logos on their vehicles. It's just a quirk of mine. I'm thinking that smokers or fat people or people who like dogs or who are obsessed with Sonic cheeseburgers might want to also be able to choose not to spend with companies that choose to discriminate for whatever reason.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> I doubt I would need to go to the lengths you're describing to know they're smokers, and it has nothing to do with insurance.


Jim - I know there are personal reasons for your choosing so don't take this the wrong way.

Look again at the press release and replace smoking with the words "over 20% body fat" or "history of family cancer" or "never married over 35" or anything else you can think of that is a choice and that may also impact future health care costs.

Replace the "urine test for nicotine" with "urine test for meat metabolites" or "dna test for oncogenes" or "investigation to ensure marriage is not of convenience".

When you do that, what do you think now?


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ChristyACB said:


> No one is forcing you obviously. However it seems very hypocritical to choose one thing that has potential for bad health and simply discriminate for that without discriminating for them all.
> 
> I personally don't care. However I do wish businesses that did choose to discriminate would let potential customers know.
> 
> ...


You're entitled to decide who to do business with. I have the right to decide who to hire. It's great to live in a free country.


----------



## DavidUnderwood (Jul 5, 2007)

I don't give a chit if they smoke six
packs a day. Smoke at lunch. Smoke
on breaks. But not on my time. And
while I'm at it, they can leave their 
cell phone in their vehicle, too. If
you have not dealt with it, you just
don't know.
As far as my customers, its a selling 
point for me. We are often in and out
of their houses. Most don't want them
smoking in there either.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ChristyACB said:


> Jim - I know there are personal reasons for your choosing so don't take this the wrong way.
> 
> Look again at the press release and replace smoking with the words "over 20% body fat" or "history of family cancer" or "never married over 35" or anything else you can think of that is a choice and that may also impact future health care costs.
> 
> ...


I think they have a right to set their own hiring standards, and I don't have to agree with them.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> You're entitled to decide who to do business with. I have the right to decide who to hire. It's great to live in a free country.


Will you also give truthful disclosure to smoker's that you are particular to discriminate against "their kind" before taking their money?


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> I think they have a right to set their own hiring standards, and I don't have to agree with them.


Jim - I have the deepest and sincerest hope that your children in particular don't come to rue the outcome of supporting such discrimination.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ChristyACB said:


> Jim - I have the deepest and sincerest hope that your children in particular don't come to rue the outcome of supporting such discrimination.


I'm reasonably certain they will come to rue the outcome of many decisions I have made in my life. I don't however, see this as being one of them.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

An "employer" absolutely has the right to set any standard, however ridiculous or practical it may be, upon those who seek employment under his/her roof.

However, any time the government is called upon to enforce such requirements, or, worse, set the requirements, you can bet that mischief is afoot.
I agree with those here who claim that something more sinister lies beneath the surface.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ChristyACB said:


> Will you also give truthful disclosure to smoker's that you are particular to discriminate against "their kind" before taking their money?


If someone asks about my hiring policies, I will be more than happy to explain them, and people can make their own choices about doing business with me. Will I post a sign? No, it would not be a normal business practice. I also won't hire people who are pierced and tattooed to the point that they look like a freak show, or have their hair dyed a color that is not found in nature, but I don't feel the need to post signs explaining that. To be fair, I won't expect my customers to make similar disclosures about who they choose to do business with.


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

ChristyACB said:


> I find this thread appalling. Not because of smoking in particular but the way in which people will choose a certain thing and treat it so generally and badly.


Why should a company be forced to hire an addict? Whether an alcoholic or a drug addict - or a smoker? Last I knew, addicts are not a protected class. And unlike smokers of the past, people willingly adopt this lifestyle choice knowing the risks.

Add me to the list of people who have seen a DISPROPORTIONATE number of smokers compared to non-smokers being unproductive at work. No way am I saying that all smokers are non-productive because that's just not true. But I have seen people repeatedly take extra breaks (not allowed but snuck in), take longer breaks than allowed, and frankly have more issues with authority than people who don't smoke. 

You are correct that there are LOTS of people out there who waste huge amounts of time on the employer's dime. I don't think those people should be spared just because they may be non-smokers.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

ChristyACB said:


> But this isn't about smoking. It's about saying Yippee to any company who will choose to hire based on something as nebulous as a potential future health impact. Calling it a choice or saying we all know it is bad for you is a straw man.
> 
> This company isn't just saying it doesn't want smoking at its site. It is saying you can never smoke...period. It is using a urine test (which can tell 20 days after smoking or pop positive if you live with a smoker).
> 
> What next? Meat over 3 oz is bad for adults. So is not eating vegetables. So is not being at peak BMI. So is having higher cholesterol regardless of diet. So is not using a light to read. So is not exercising 40 minutes a day. So is being divorced or never married after the age of 35. So is being considered less attractive than average. So is slouching.


This is really about rights, but in this case, the THE COMPANY'S rights, more more than is it the smoker's. 

Don't they deserve rights too?

Sure, all business will eventually come after the fat people, but it's pretty hard to compare overeating with smoking, anyway. Overeating is what it is, but smoking is simply a ridiculous habit, that gives "pleasure", but didn't make sense 800 years ago, let alone now, that everyone knows how unhealthy it is.

Smoking is done-for in the U.S. whether we like it or not. Maybe another 10 years, it will be nearly completely gone.

Maybe fat people will be next.

Does not really matter what we think anyway. It's curently not illegal to "discriminate" against smokers, or even overweight people (for the most part). 

Until it is, if ever, the the Company's call on whether the smoker get hired or not.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

SunsetSonata said:


> Why should a company be forced to hire an addict? Whether an alcoholic or a drug addict - or a smoker? *Last I knew, addicts are not a protected class.* And unlike smokers of the past, people willingly adopt this lifestyle choice knowing the risks.



They are in Canada, at least if you love booze and/or drugs.

Would not be surprised to see the U.S. follow Canada's folly, on how to deal with some "vices" and then sit around and wonder, why more of our jobs are going to China.

If you are a Canadian business owner, an employee's boozing, or drug problem, now becomes _YOUR_ problem. If it effects your business botton-line negatively - then too bad for you. 



> If impairment is a concern in the workplace, whether from stress and anxiety, fatigue or
> substance abuse, an employer should focus on ways of identifying potential safety risks
> and remedying them, rather than taking a punitive approach to this issue


http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/pdf/poldrgalceng.pdf


----------



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

I remember when my sister-in-law bought a house that formerly belonged to a smoker who insisted on saying her house was clean. It was...but it STANK to high heaven and we had to spend over $1k in paint and had to remodel the house and spend an additional $3k just to have the smell go away and to get rid of various smoke stained things...walls, etc.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Well, it's been fine for a long time to put a "no smoking" clause in renting property..just another notch on the board I suppose.
And as a fprmer employer...didn't have that policy, but had others that would probably put someone's knickers in a bunch...too bad...I offer a job, I paid the wages, and I determine the best person for the job...
Matt
PS, Didn't Hooters get a few lawsuits because some applicants weren't ...um...ahhh.errrr..."athletic" enough some years back? Been going on for years...just another batch of smoke and mirros...carry on.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

DavidUnderwood said:


> I don't give a chit if they smoke six
> packs a day. Smoke at lunch. Smoke
> on breaks. But not on my time. And
> while I'm at it, they can leave their
> ...


Whoever said anything about smoking at work? Every place that I have worked in the last 20 years had rules about smoking at work, and in my observation, almost everyone followed them. Are you such a poor manager that you cannot compel employees to follow simple rules?


----------



## mama2littleman (Nov 8, 2004)

I guess I am one of the few people on here that feel that it is inherently wrong for an employer to discriminate against an employee for engaging in a legal activity on their own time.

And if they are going to such lengths as to do a urinalysis to determine whether or not an employee has "cheated" that is in fact what they are doing.

How many of you here enjoy a glass of wine with dinner or an occasional nice scotch? Would you consider it appropriate that your employer could fire you or with hold employment based on the results of a urinalysis that indicated that you had an alcoholic beverage in the last week or two. You didnt show up to work impaired, you are not drinking on the job, but hey you indulged in alcohol at some point. And we all know how bad that is for you. It may drive up our health insurance rates.

Or those of you who like to occasionally have a cheeseburger and fries? Sorry, you ate transfats, can't hire you!

Yes an employer has the right to hire whomever he or she chooses. If someone walked into an interiew smelling like an ashtray I wouldn't hire them either, and I'm a smoker. But if I have to make someone pee in a cup to determine that they are a smoker, I'm just getting way too far up their butt.

Nikki


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

mama2littleman said:


> I guess I am one of the few people on here that feel that it is inherently wrong for an employer to discriminate against an employee for engaging in a legal activity on their own time.
> 
> And if they are going to such lengths as to do a urinalysis to determine whether or not an employee has "cheated" that is in fact what they are doing.
> 
> ...


You have every right to decide whether or not you are going to smoke, drink, get pierced or tattooed, eat spinach, or ride a bicycle. If I own a business, I have just as much right to decide to not hire you for doing any of the above. I don't have to like the decisions you make, nor do you have to like mine.


----------



## nebula5 (Feb 4, 2003)

ChristyACB said:


> I find this thread appalling. Not because of smoking in particular but the way in which people will choose a certain thing and treat it so generally and badly.
> 
> Young people today come to work and sneak out for cell phone breaks on a near constant basis. Assuming you can get the bluetooth out of their ear in the first place. They secretly text all the time.
> 
> ...


I haven't read all the posts yet. Please consider, the behaviors you describe above can be done *in* the workplace. If you work in a medical facility or other smoke free facility, you have to leave the facility to smoke. So, add the time to the parking lot and back every time a person wants to have a smoke.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2011)

As far as I'm concerned an employer has ZERO business poking his /her nose into my personal life..during work hours, when I am being paid to do a job, the employers rules go..after work, on MY own time, what I do is nobody's business..period. 

This kind of crap reminds me of what went on historically in Nursing..up until the late 1920's, nurses were REQUIRED to attend Sunday religious services..if your employer found out you didn't, you'd be fired for "moral" reasons.

Should an employer in 2011 be able to require employees to attend religious services? 

No?

Well then why should an employer require that an employee not smoke after business hours?


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

You do realize that some jobs have requirements, right?
How about..."*Must be legal citizen*"?..."Must have own transportation?"... "Must have experience?".. "Must have own tools?"... "Clean driving license?"...
My business, my rules. Feel free to not do business with me, nor apply for the job.
Matt


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Lots of jobs have "moral" clauses even today. For example, Law Enforcement officers aren't allowed to hang out with known felons in their "off -duty" time and lots of departments forbid smoking at any time and require yearly physical ability tests that include body fat measurements. You know the terms of employment when you are hired and should you decide you don't want to live under the restrictions then you are free to turn down the job when it is offered or even years later.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

The "its' MY business and I will hire or not hire whosoever I choose" was argued back during the days of segregation, too. A lot of people felt they were perfectly within their rights to refuse to hire people of color. And it was very controversial when the federal government said otherwise. So that argument isn't very convincing for me with smoking. Especially if you needed a urine test to even tell whether or not I smoked.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

bostonlesley said:


> As far as I'm concerned an employer has ZERO business poking his /her nose into my personal life..during work hours, when I am being paid to do a job, the employers rules go..after work, on MY own time, what I do is nobody's business..period.
> 
> This kind of crap reminds me of what went on historically in Nursing..up until the late 1920's, nurses were REQUIRED to attend Sunday religious services..if your employer found out you didn't, you'd be fired for "moral" reasons.
> 
> ...





MO_cows said:


> The "its' MY business and I will hire or not hire whosoever I choose" was argued back during the days of segregation, too. A lot of people felt they were perfectly within their rights to refuse to hire people of color. And it was very controversial when the federal government said otherwise. So that argument isn't very convincing for me with smoking. Especially if you needed a urine test to even tell whether or not I smoked.


I'll ask the question again. Who has the authority to tell me I have to hire a smoker?


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

DaleK said:


> Same here. They may exist somewhere, but I've never employed, worked alongside, or even dealt with a smoker that would give an honest days work compared to a non-smoker. Last smoker we had working here took at least 2 smoke breaks every hour until we fired him, and that's about typical in my experience. No matter how many claims they make to only smoke on "their" time.


I agree. Even if they don't take extra breaks, their minds are more on when they are going to get some nicotine rather than on their job.

Almost everyone I work with smokes. It's awful. The constant breaks, the constant whining about wanting a smoke, the breaking the rules so they can. 

Not to mention that smokers smell and it's gross to have to work with stinky people.


----------



## Jenn (Nov 9, 2004)

Had a great coworker who smoked her head off at lunch and before and after work. SPrayed herself with febreeze and smelled fine. Wonder if the febreeze was bad for her lungs. Tho I was always coughing at that job...

Now only one gal (that I know of) smokes. I always find her heading out of the building. At first I thought she was goofing off or wondering why she, and noone else ever, had regular business in a different department than ours. Finally figured out she was getting her nic fix. Can smell it on her a bit as well.

I start coughing sometimes when I have a smoker in my office. But perfumes do it as well.

I'd prefer not to hire a smoker but if I don't notice and breaks are no more than allowed/everyone else... But they never will be if you smoke during worktime- unless you can smoke and pee same time (not) or give up bathroom breaks in favor of tob breaks instead. Also think I should head outside for a breath of fresh air as often as some folks head out to smoke. Would be great for my stress levels even with out nicotine.

And cell phones? If I'm ever a boss I'll make them be stored in the break room.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I worked for a company that you could not have anything in your mouth. No gum, no candy, no chewing tobacco Nothing.
IF you had a cold and had to use a cough drops you could ask and be given permission.
But that is the only time.
Oh BTW it was Clean Room Conditions~! So not to get anything 'contaminated" that was the reason. And I believe now you can wear Blue Jeans. Must be polyester type.
Something that can't "shed".
So a lot of work places can set up their own rules about what you can or can not do while Working. 
We had to wear a hairnet thingy and a mask covering not only your mouth but the nose as well. Plus many other things that would be worn in "
Clean Conditions"


----------



## radiofish (Mar 30, 2007)

Well I will man up, raise my hand, and admit to being a cigarette smoker..

I started smoking way back while in the Marine Corps Boot Camp, when smoking was a privilage that was earned, and got us away from the Drill Instructors for a few precious minutes. Nowadays it is something I do to relieve stress, instead of drinking alcohol, or using other drugs (legal or illegal).

When I was working, I always kept my vice to the appointed breaks, and after work hours. I did not go sneaking off to get a 'fix', during working hours, while on 'company time'.
I am conscientious about lighting up around others (I'll go off a ways), and I don't toss my cigarette butts around everywhere either. I field strip them, and police up any debris afterwards.

So with this new attitude of not hiring the most qualified applicant due to their having a "legal" personal habit that does not adversely effect their workplace performance, makes me glad that I am no longer in the workforce. I can see the reasons for giving a drug test for employment, due to knowing the effects of prescription pain medications and productivity. Let alone illegal drug use in the workplace.

But to ban employment, due to the use of nicotine?? 
I don't think that the Federal Government has gotten that totalitarian yet, as to the conduct of a Federal Employee wether they are Military or Civilian. Heck even the President sneaks in a smoke evey now and then.. I do believe he likes his 'Newport' menthols...

What would be next, a ban on caffine?? That would slow down the productivity of the workplace!!

I personally find the smell of any coffee in the market aisles, from an open container, or especially the odor from brewing coffee very repugnant! Yet I must tolerate it when around others, since it is a 'legal drug'.

If I ever start a business, maybe I'll prohibit the use or possession of any form of coffee by any employe or customer from my establishment...


----------



## GardenNut (Sep 7, 2010)

I wish the company I had come give a quote on windows didn't hire smokers. My house reeked after the guy left. I'll be going with another company.


----------



## whodunit (Mar 29, 2004)

This has likely been discussed already, but the amount of time smokers take from their employers is amazing.

We have a woman who smokes numerous times a shift. It's not just the smoking; it's the preparing to smoke, the going to the smoking area, the smoking itself and the hand washing/potty/after smoking ritual. I bet it easily totals an hour a shift. Meanwhile, the rest of us are working.

Just tonight we were coming to the end of our shift and I was doing some clean-up. She called me on the radio and told me that she needed something and then needed to be relived so she could use the restroom.

I told her it would be a few minutes and could tell she didn't like that. Of course, I knew "potty" meant a smoke break.

I relieved her and sure enough after she went potty, she went right out to smoke. So essentially I was asked to stop working and doing actual things that needed doing before the end of our shift so she could smoke. Unbelievable!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

As a part time smoker I feel that the owner of any business gets to pick who they feel best suits the business when it comes to hire an empoyee.

I have applied an been hired for jobs where smoking was not allowed. I wanted the job and followed my employors rules while on the job.

Yes, it meant no smoking in my car (odors carry, no smoking in work clothes, work clothes kept separate from other clothes. shampooing hair before work). Employers were shocked to learn that I smoked in my private live in a manner that did not cross over to impact the employor. 

I would not choose to work for a place that required drug testing to see if I was offending anyone doing something that is not illegal while not on the clock. I understood that in the case of smoking on the clock meant smoking off the clock and carring the odor of smoke. so to me it was not the action of smoking to prevent but also effects of smoking. I treated it as if I got lacks about and came in to work with smoke on me could my actions cause someone to have an asma attack.

I choose where I apply to work so I better learn what is required of me to meet the standards for employment. The employer picks the best canidated of his/her choosing. Anyone can start self employment if finding somewhere to work for is too confining.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

radiofish said:


> Well I will man up, raise my hand, and admit to being a cigarette smoker..
> 
> I started smoking way back while in the Marine Corps Boot Camp, when smoking was a privilage that was earned, and got us away from the Drill Instructors for a few precious minutes. Nowadays it is something I do to relieve stress, instead of drinking alcohol, or using other drugs (legal or illegal).
> 
> ...


It's funny. Lots of military smoke and I'd much rather have one of those guys instead of the civilians with their rigid adherence to PDs and watching clocks. Union..gag.

And in this case, with an aversion to coffee, you'd need to ensure that you required them to make a statement on their use of coffee and never indulge in coffee even when on vacation from work on on weekends and agree to random urinalysis to ensure they comply.

That is the level some of these folks are at.

I agree with you though. If we are just going to go with whatever we want then I find those who smell of woodsmoke from woodstoves offensive...so no woodstove owners, users or being around them. No fireplaces. No campfires, wood grills, food smokers or other things.

That makes me just as "fair" as them.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ChristyACB said:


> It's funny. Lots of military smoke and I'd much rather have one of those guys instead of the civilians with their rigid adherence to PDs and watching clocks. Union..gag.
> 
> And in this case, with an aversion to coffee, you'd need to ensure that you required them to make a statement on their use of coffee and never indulge in coffee even when on vacation from work on on weekends and agree to random urinalysis to ensure they comply.
> 
> ...


Let's make this about coffee if you like. I drink coffee, lots of it, very frequently. I will readily admit to being addicted to coffee. If a prospective empoloyer chooses to hire people who don't drink coffee, that would be his decision. I don't have to like it, and I even have the freedom to be offended by it. What I don't have however, is the right to demand that he hire me anyway.


----------



## CJ (May 10, 2002)

Wow... I think the problem here is that we've taken the basic right of a company to hire whomever they think is best suited for the job, and turned it into a nasty label called "discrimination"!

How many of you would hire a babysitter for your children, even if they had perfect qualifications, if something about them either offended your, or simply didn't feel right... or you just felt a personality conflict with them?

This isn't about smoking, and it isn't about discrimination. Business owners have or SHOULD have a basic right to make a hiring choice based upon what THEY feel will offer the most benefit to their company. Period. After, team dynamics are essential.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

CJ said:


> Wow... I think the problem here is that we've taken the basic right of a company to hire whomever they think is best suited for the job, and turned it into a nasty label called "discrimination"!
> 
> How many of you would hire a babysitter for your children, even if they had perfect qualifications, if something about them either offended your, or simply didn't feel right... or you just felt a personality conflict with them?
> 
> This isn't about smoking, and it isn't about discrimination. Business owners have or SHOULD have a basic right to make a hiring choice based upon what THEY feel will offer the most benefit to their company. Period. After, team dynamics are essential.


Yes, but that doesn't mean they can delve into the private life of any employee and dissect it. If it doesn't play into the qualifications for the job then it isn't their business.

How different might you feel if it was based on if their children were ugly or took ADD meds?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

On my husband's last job, he and a couple of his co-workers got disgusted by the amount of time certain fellow employees spent smoking outside the back door. So he came up with an ingenious idea: he and his friends started hanging out in the same area the smokers frequented! A half-dozen times a day, they'd go outside, stand around and shoot the bull for about as long as it took to finish a cigarette. When people asked them what they were up to, they'd say, "We're not smoking." They called them their not-smoking breaks.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

For all those who engage in lifestyle discrimination and find that just, you might be interested in this little snippet. And now...it is up to 21 states that have these laws and 2 more that have comprehensive versions that ban the delving into the private life of potential employees in order to find reasons to discriminate.



> What can be done to prevent lifestyle discrimination?
> The ACLU believes that, just as legislation has been needed to prevent
> other violations of civil liberties in the workplace, legislation is also
> necessary to prevent lifestyle discrimination. Just as federal, state and
> ...


This isn't about smoking. It is about employers delving into the private lives of potential employees and trying to regulate their existence outside work.

In case you think that there isn't creep in this matter...one oregon company (below) expanded theirs to include a MANDATORY exercise program that employees had to do or be singled out and not allowed to attend company parties or picnics.

If you go looking around you'll see, this isn't about smoking. Smoking is just an easy target that people will look over and not mind. It then becomes food, weight, hobbies...everything. 



> One of the emerging issues in the American workplace is the attempt by
> employers to control certain private habits and proclivities of their
> employees that have no relationship to job performance. Fat people are
> victims of lifestyle discrimination and a growing number of companies are
> ...


That's all from the employeelocator site linking to discrimination laws.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ChristyACB said:


> Yes, but that doesn't mean they can delve into the private life of any employee and dissect it. If it doesn't play into the qualifications for the job then it isn't their business.
> 
> How different might you feel if it was based on if their children were ugly or took ADD meds?


It does if the employee agrees to those terms when he accepts the job.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ChristyACB said:


> The ACLU supports these efforts.


I don't support the ACLU.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

bostonlesley said:


> Diabetics need not apply
> 
> Hypertensive people need not apply
> 
> ...


Sounds really awful, doesn't it? 
Yet SMOKING is NOT an illness. Is NOT "caused" by anything nor is it essential. You do not HAVE to do it. 
Your list is NOT an analogy.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

bostonlesley said:


> Diabetics need not apply
> Hypertensive people need not apply
> Obese people need not apply
> People with a first degree relative with cancer need not apply
> ...


Ahhhh how refreshing.
Someone that sees the REAL meaning behind the 'smoke screen' (no pun intended).

This is not about smoking, or being fat, or race or religion.
This is about something deeper and more sinister.
Shine those brown boots, and get in the new line dance "The Goose Step".


----------



## CJ (May 10, 2002)

And there's the kicker... who gets to decide what effect the activity in question actually plays on job performance? It's never black and white. Once you add rules, then people find ways to twist them and work around them.

Since no one has mentioned coffee drinkers,  let's use them as an example. Most people drink coffee. Not really a problem right? But then there's me. For every cup of coffee I drink. I have to run to the bathroom at least twice every 30 minutes.

I'd say that would effect my job perfomance, and my boss would be well within his rights to can me, because I would be less productive than the person next to me who didn't need a bathroom break except on their scheduled break. That's not discrimination, that's common sense. I wouldn't be a good fit. Did I mention the added expense of all the toilet paper I'd use? 



ChristyACB said:


> Yes, but that doesn't mean they can delve into the private life of any employee and dissect it. If it doesn't play into the qualifications for the job then it isn't their business.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> Sounds really awful, doesn't it?
> Yet SMOKING is NOT an illness. Is NOT "caused" by anything nor is it essential. You do not HAVE to do it.
> Your list is NOT an analogy.


I think you missed the point......
(And a lot on this list are 'caused' by 'choices')
And why isn't smoking an illness? People can claim disability for being obese. And last time I checked, no human being is born obese. 
It is a choice.....just like smoking. :shocked:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

SunsetSonata said:


> Why should a company be forced to hire an addict? Whether an alcoholic or a drug addict - or a smoker? Last I knew, addicts are not a protected class. And unlike smokers of the past, people willingly adopt this lifestyle choice knowing the risks.
> 
> Add me to the list of people who have seen a DISPROPORTIONATE number of smokers compared to non-smokers being unproductive at work. No way am I saying that all smokers are non-productive because that's just not true. But I have seen people repeatedly take extra breaks (not allowed but snuck in), take longer breaks than allowed, and frankly have more issues with authority than people who don't smoke.
> 
> You are correct that there are LOTS of people out there who waste huge amounts of time on the employer's dime. I don't think those people should be spared just because they may be non-smokers.












And those here who are equating food w/cigs KNOW you're wrong...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mama2littleman said:


> I guess I am one of the few people on here that feel that it is inherently wrong for an employer to discriminate against an employee for engaging in a legal activity on their own time.
> 
> And if they are going to such lengths as to do a urinalysis to determine whether or not an employee has "cheated" that is in fact what they are doing.
> 
> ...


If you have a drink w/dinner do you reek of alcohol the next day?
If you eat a cheeseburger do you reek of foul smoke at work?

Be real here folks, you know smokiers do NOT have a right to foul the air.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ChristyACB said:


> Yes, but that doesn't mean they can delve into the private life of any employee and dissect it. If it doesn't play into the qualifications for the job then it isn't their business.
> 
> How different might you feel if it was based on if their children were ugly or took ADD meds?


How on earth do you think those examples are even remotely alike???

I'm gonna say if you smoke on your own time & NO ONE could ever tell, at work that you did, then fine. However this doesn't help w/health ins. requirements, which may be one of the reasons employers could require non smokers.
Insurance companies (some) already have provisions for smokers & nons.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Ahhhh how refreshing.
> Someone that sees the REAL meaning behind the 'smoke screen' (no pun intended).
> 
> This is not about smoking, or being fat, or race or religion.
> ...


If you call an employer having the right to make his own business decisions sinister. You're right though, it's not about smoking, it's about the freedom to choose (don't you like that phrase?) who you are going to employ in your business. If you don't want to hire a smoker, it's your choice. Maybe you don't want to hire someone who is obese, that's your choice as well.

It's funny, you equate this freedom by private citizens with brown boots and "The Goose Step", yet I'd be willing to bet you would be happy for the government to take away that right of the private citizen to enforce your idea of what that citizen should do.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> If you have a drink w/dinner do you reek of alcohol the next day?
> If you eat a cheeseburger do you reek of foul smoke at work?
> 
> Be real here folks, you know smokiers do NOT have a right to foul the air.


So.....what I do in the privacy of my own home, (assuming I do not take any smoke breaks at work, the only place I smoke is in my home/on my own property) some how now becomes 'public knowledge' and "judgeable" by an employer?

And how about this:

*I* don't smoke, by my dh does. In the house. AND he's a 2 pack a day guy. My clothes are gonna smell like smoke.......but *I* do not smoke, take smoke breaks, etc. So now *I* am demonized because I reek of foul smoke, when *I* have not put one to my lips?

Heavy smokers are stinky. 
Heavy drinkers, are stinky. 
Obese people are stinky. 
People who take garlic pills are stinky. 
People who eat an Asian food diet exclusively stink. 
People who eat a middle eastern diet exclusively stink. 
People who wear cheap perfume, and a lot of it, really stink. 
People who use Rogain stink. 
People who do not brush their teeth have bad breath. 
People who do not shave their pits, or wear dehodarant smell. 
Women, with poor hygene habits, really smell once a month. 

It's a smelly world. 
Why is one smell more demonitc than the next?

This is more about control. Peirod.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> This is more about control. Peirod.


You are absolutely right, it is about control. People like you want to control who I hire for my business. Where do you get that authority?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> So.....what I do in the privacy of my own home, (assuming I do not take any smoke breaks at work, the only place I smoke is in my home/on my own property) some how now becomes 'public knowledge' and "judgeable" by an employer?
> 
> And how about this:
> 
> ...


I respectfully disagree. 
You do know how many folks have asthma? Set off by a drinker's smell? Yeah, right. 
You DO know how many deaths could be prevented not to mention illness by NOT smoking?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

deaconjim said:


> If you call an employer having the right to make his own business decisions sinister. You're right though, it's not about smoking, it's about the freedom to choose (don't you like that phrase?) who you are going to employ in your business. If you don't want to hire a smoker, it's your choice. Maybe you don't want to hire someone who is obese, that's your choice as well.
> 
> It's funny, you equate this freedom by private citizens with brown boots and "The Goose Step", yet I'd be willing to bet you would be happy for the government to take away that right of the private citizen to enforce your idea of what that citizen should do.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

deaconjim said:


> If you call an employer having the right to make his own business decisions sinister. You're right though, it's not about smoking, it's about the freedom to choose (don't you like that phrase) who you are going to employ in your business. If you don't want to hire a smoker, it's your choice. Maybe you don't want to hire someone who is obese, that's your choice as well.
> 
> It's funny, you equate this freedom by private citizens with brown boots and "The Goose Step", yet I'd be willing to bet you would be happy for the government to take away that right of the private citizen to enforce your idea of what that citizen should do.



No, I do not call an employer's right to hire whom he chooses sinister..

If I owned my own restaurant, I would not hire a server with tattoos and fishing tackle in his or her face. Why? Because that is not the 'look' I am going for. That's why I went into business for myself, to make those calls.

However, me not hiring a tatted up tackled up kid is not because I think it's dangerous or ugly or morally wrong.....
It's because to a lot of folks (the paying customers) it's very shocking and disturbing, and they may never come back.....and that's money walking out the door.
*I* personally don't mind a tatted up tackled up kid. It's their thing, they 'ain't hurtin' no one'. 

50 years ago it was ok to smoke
Today, it's not cool. You are a minion of satan if you are a smoker.

My question is: "Who's Next".
Today, it's the smoker that is the antichrist.
Who will it be tomorrow? 

Does that make more sense?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> You do know how many folks have asthma? Set off by a drinker's smell? Yeah, right.
> You DO know how many deaths could be prevented not to mention illness by NOT smoking?


We will just have to respectfully disagree!!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

whodunit said:


> This has likely been discussed already, but the amount of time smokers take from their employers is amazing.
> 
> We have a woman who smokes numerous times a shift. It's not just the smoking; it's the preparing to smoke, the going to the smoking area, the smoking itself and the hand washing/potty/after smoking ritual. I bet it easily totals an hour a shift. Meanwhile, the rest of us are working.
> 
> ...


Yep, having to go out for a smoke break costs the company a lot of valuable work time. It seems silly to me too. Why not just let people smoke while they are doing the job? That way they can be far more productive!


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

I only hire smokers, they pay more then their fair share of taxes and it provides low income Healthcare for children. I respect them for sacificing themselves for a good cause.
Besides how would you like to pay an extra 50 bucks for something you really didnt want to live without.
Soda?
Milk?
Coffee?
Gas?..which by BTW....You can sit in an enclosed garage and smoke a cig and not die. But sit in a enclosed garage and leave the car running. Think about it.Which is really doing more harm?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> If you have a drink w/dinner do you reek of alcohol the next day?
> If you eat a cheeseburger do you reek of foul smoke at work?
> 
> Be real here folks, you know smokiers do NOT have a right to foul the air.


And who determines whether or not cigarette smoke is a "foul" odor? Do smokers not have the right to use the air as they see fit..... same as nonsmokers? Who died and put non smokers in charge of what is foul?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And who determines whether or not cigarette smoke is a "foul" odor? Do smokers not have the right to use the air as they see fit..... same as nonsmokers? Who died and put non smokers in charge of what is foul?


That's my whole point!!!!!!
Thank you so much.

Person A says "smokers are foul and they make my _____ go crazy"
Person B says "heavy perfume wearers are foul and make my ____ go crazy".
(There are a lot of churches in my area that encourage women to NOT wear perfume or scented lotions, and if they "have to" to please sit in back, so they do not offend others)
Person C says "fat people are foul and make my _______ go crazy".

THIS is what I am talking about.
The ONLY ONLY ONLY ONLY reason why smokers are under the gun today, -vs- 40 years ago, is because BIG BROTHER has TOLD us (indoctrinated us) from Kindergarten that "smoking is bad bad bad bad". 

That's my whole point. First it's the smokers. Get people all riled up about it, and they will turn on smokers. Ok, now that they are eliminated, who's next? 

(( And I love it when someone says "oh, I am allergic to smoke". GIVE ME OXYGEN......No, you don't like the smell, it's offensive, but you will not go into Anaphylactic Shock, swell up, stop breathing and die. Drama Queens!!))


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Here is the list of 29 states (I missed a few on the earlier report) plus the DofC that have laws in which it is ILLEGAL to penalize or discriminate based on what a person does off duty...specifically smoking.

Your State Information:

State "Smoker Protection" Laws 
Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have laws in effect elevating smokers to a protected class. 
State - Year - Code 
California 2005 CA LABOR CODE Â§ 96(k) & 98.6 
Colorado 1990 CO REV. STAT. ANN Â§ 24-34-402.5 
Connecticut 2003 CT GEN. STAT. ANN. Â§ 31-40s 
District of Columbia 1993 D.C. CODE ANN. Â§ 7-1703.3 
Illinois 1987 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 55/5 
Indiana 2006 IND. CODE Â§Â§ 22-5-4-1 et seq. 
Kentucky 1994 KY REV. STAT. ANN. Â§ 344.040 
Louisiana 1991 LA REV. STAT. ANN. Â§ 23:966 
Maine 1991 ME REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 26, Â§ 597 
Minnesota 1992 MINN. STAT. Â§ 181.938 
Mississippi 1994 MISS. CODE ANN. Â§ 71-7-33 
Missouri 1992 MO. REV. STAT. Â§ 290.145 
Montana 1993 MONT. CODE ANN. Â§Â§ 39-2-313 & 39-2-314 
Nevada 1991 NEV. REV. STAT. Â§ 613.333 
New Hampshire 1991 N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. Â§ 275:37-a 
New Jersey 1991 N.J. STAT. ANN. Â§Â§ 34:6B-1 et seq. 
New Mexico 1991 N.M. STAT. ANN. Â§Â§ 50-11-1 et seq. 
New York 1992 N.Y. [LABOR] LAW Â§ 201-d 
North Carolina 1991 N.C. GEN. STAT. Â§ 95-28.2 
North Dakota 1993 N.D. CENT. CODE Â§Â§ 14-02.4-01 et seq. 
Oklahoma 1991 OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 40, Â§ 500 
Oregon 1989 OR. REV. STAT. Â§Â§ 659A.315 & 659A.885 
Rhode Island 2005 R.I. GEN. LAWS Â§ 23-20.10-14 
South Carolina 1991 S.C. CODE ANN. Â§ 41-1-85 
South Dakota 1991 S.D. CODIFIED LAWS Â§ 60-4-11 
Tennessee 1990 TENN. CODE ANN. Â§ 50-1-304 
Virginia 1989 VA. CODE ANN. Â§ 2.2-2902 
West Virginia 1992 W. VA. CODE Â§ 21-3-19 
Wisconsin 1991 WIS. STAT. Â§Â§ 111.31 et seq. 
Wyoming 1992 WYO. STAT. ANN. Â§Â§ 27-9-101 et seq. 
Last updated: 11/19/09 

Let me repeat again. This isn't about a smoke free workplace or requiring any employee not to smoke during working hours period. That is legal, logical for many professions, and absolutely reasonable. They can wear a patch during the day if they really like it. 

It is about delving into a private life and an employer or potential employer trying to control what a person does in their own time. No employer or potential employer should even be asking what a person does in their off time. It isn't their business. 

I suggest those who have openly admitted here that they are engaging in illegal discrimination might want to edit their posts to remove the concrete proof of their illegal activities. Wouldn't want the labor board to find out, eh?


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> That's my whole point!!!!!!
> Thank you so much.
> 
> Person A says "smokers are foul and they make my _____ go crazy"
> ...



Or even better...the ones who claim that while bragging on their wood stove, use of fireplaces or campfires. That is offensive and they smell like they just came out of a forest fire.

And here is some factoids for the who wood stove group who simultaneously decry smoking.



> Although wood smoke conjures up fond memories of sitting by a cozy fire, it is important to know that the components of wood smoke and cigarette smoke are quite similar, and that many components of both are carcinogenic. Wood smoke contains fine particulate matter, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, sulfur dioxide and various irritant gases such as nitrogen oxides that can scar the lungs. Wood smoke also contains chemicals known or suspected to be carcinogens, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxin.


And wood sucks in contaminants dropped by rain or which leaches horizontally through ground water movement and incorporates it into the fiber as it is growing. That means that MUCH of the wood in the United State is already contaminated at fairly signficant levels with toxins, industrial by products and other nastiness that just increases the carcinogenic levels.



> The EPA estimates that a single fireplace operating for an hour and burning 10 pounds of wood will generate 4,300 times more PAHs than 30 cigarettes. PAHs are carcinogenic.


But you don't see public service announcements about that!

http://www.ehhi.org/woodsmoke/health_effects.shtml


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

Good post thank you for this information Christy, BTW I was being sarcastic in my previous post about only hiring smokers..just making a point about reverse decrimination.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And who determines whether or not cigarette smoke is a "foul" odor? Do smokers not have the right to use the air as they see fit..... same as nonsmokers? Who died and put non smokers in charge of what is foul?


C'mon man. 
All you'd have to do is pick up a couple of legit studies to answer your ?s.

Think of the sickness it has caused, think of who's rights are trampled when smoke-not even your own-causes illness & missed work days.
Think of how smoking in the workplace fouled the air & made many ill.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Well look at that ! I completely agree with Laura about something other than what is the coolest breed of doggie 

Oh..oh..there's another one for the list! Some people are allergic to cats or dogs, does that mean cat/dog owners can be shut out of a job too?


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

Any smoker who honestly cannot understand the business reasons why an employer would not want to hire a smoker is embracing the denial addicts are known for.


----------



## mommymushbrain (Jan 10, 2005)

I smoke.

I don't get the taking time out of work to smoke. I always smoked during my alotted breaks.

I've seen more people playing on the cell phones wasting time than I did smoking.

I hope they go after us parents next - you know cuz we take off that extra time to do stuff with our kids or have to stay home when they are sick... and everyone else has to pick up our slack! Cuz after all, having kids is a choice, just like my smoking is a choice.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Null


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

I only hire people that can ride bicycles to work..I dont want their oil dripping, asthma provoking exhaust fume vehicles stinking up my property.


----------



## mommymushbrain (Jan 10, 2005)

mommymushbrain said:


> I smoke.
> 
> I don't get the taking time out of work to smoke. I always smoked during my alotted breaks.
> 
> ...


Oh wait... my kids are sick because I smoke. :bash:

Actually I smoke outside, have a special jacket to wear over me, and wash my hands. I get the "thirdhand smoke" lecture all the time from pediatricians, even though my kids are no sicker than the other average child. 

I can't smoke in the car with them... I never did that anyway even before the law was passed because I remember how horrid it was as a child.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> No, I do not call an employer's right to hire whom he chooses sinister..
> 
> If I owned my own restaurant, I would not hire a server with tattoos and fishing tackle in his or her face. Why? Because that is not the 'look' I am going for. That's why I went into business for myself, to make those calls.
> 
> ...


No, my reasons for not hiring a smoker are different, but I am just as entitled to make that decision as you are to make yours. No one has a right to a job that I am offering, but I have a right to decide who gets it.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ChristyACB said:


> Any _fatty _ who honestly cannot understand the business reasons why an employer would not want to hire a _fat person _ is embracing the denial _fatties _are known for.
> 
> Any _DNA reject _ who honestly cannot understand the business reasons why an employer would not want to hire a _failed DNA screening_ is embracing the denial _the evolutionarily unfit_are known for.
> 
> ...


Anyone who cannot honestly understand why a business owner should not have his rights infringed is embracing denial. 

Don't you see the point yet?


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

If you have bad breath...you need not apply.
If you fart a lot....you need not apply
If you wear perfume....you need not apply
If you work on a farm and smell of poop...you need not apply
If you drink alcohol...you need not apply

Really People....do you not see your own discrimination within yourselves? or do you just like picking on one group of people because it's the "IN" thing to do?


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Fowler said:


> If you have bad breath...you need not apply.
> If you fart a lot....you need not apply
> If you wear perfume....you need not apply
> If you work on a farm and smell of poop...you need not apply
> ...


I think they can't. 

The difference is in any employer or potential employer even thinking that they have the right to determine what another person does with their own time. Employers don't actually own any person, they employ their services. And many don't see the difference..the crucial difference...in that. At least until they realize they themselves are now a part of a system in which their own lives are now controlled by another's whim.


----------



## mommymushbrain (Jan 10, 2005)

*First They came... - Pastor Martin Niemoller*

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Anti smokers really are an ugly crowd. Give any topic about how people behave in their own time and they are likely stand on their soapbox and defend freedom, but mention smoking they turn into stark raving fascists.

A couple of points going back to the OP. What about second hand smoke? Will the employer be able to fire folks who test positive to nicotine because they were exposed to second hand smoke? 

Now about all the arguments about odors, and time spent smoking, and so on. Nearly every ban on smoking I've seen also includes chewing tobacco. 90% of the arguments supporting the bans go out the window when chewing is included. 

There are plenty of groups that are often more expensive to hire because of their age, gender, status, etc.

Young women are likely to get pregnant. This raises insurance rates and increases time away from work. Can I fire a woman for failing a random pregnancy test? After all, the choice to have sex on their own time doesn't give them the right to cost me money. How about folks who attend church? Sometimes we are very busy and need to work Sundays. What about any employees with children? They also raise insurance rates. 

I've noticed that folks who are offended by the smell of smokers are also rabid anti-smokers. They choose to be offended by the smell because it fuels their hatred. If someone came on here complaining about the smell of someone else's kid's stinky diapers you all would crucify them, and rightly so.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

If I ran a hospital, I would think long and hard before I hired an obese nutritionist.


----------



## DavidUnderwood (Jul 5, 2007)

tinknal said:


> Anti smokers really are an ugly crowd. Give any topic about how people behave in their own time and they are likely stand on their soapbox and defend freedom, but mention smoking they turn into stark raving fascists.
> 
> A couple of points going back to the OP. What about second hand smoke? Will the employer be able to fire folks who test positive to nicotine because they were exposed to second hand smoke?
> 
> ...


You are really missing something here.
I'm not an anti-smoker. I smoke myself.
And no-one has a responsibility to hire me.
I wouldn't. And I will hire whomever I wish.
A buisness owner should have the option
of employing anyone they choose.


----------



## mama2littleman (Nov 8, 2004)

How about this for another example. Some of you said you wouldn't hire an employee that has visible piercings and tatoos. Does you being thier employer then give you the right to strip search them to make sure they don't have any of these?

It's a similar premise.

Nikki


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

DavidUnderwood said:


> And I will hire whomever I wish.
> A buisness owner should have the option
> of employing anyone they choose.


Ahh there is the rub! The government has already decided that you can be told who you must hire, and who you may not fire under specific circumstances. The trouble is that they have cherry picked the protected classes to advance their agendas.


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

This really isn't about smokers, obese folks etc. It is about an employer having the FREEDOM to set whatever standards they wish for employment at their company. And if a potential employee doesn't want to want to meet those standards then they have the FREEDOM to not accept employment there.


----------



## DavidUnderwood (Jul 5, 2007)

I'm sorry Tink, but I don't play that game.
Couple years ago, NC passed a law of no
smoking in restaurants. Said employees and
other patrons should be protected. BULL!
If there is truely a market for a smoke free
place, it won't require a law. Other patrons
and employees can go somewhere else.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> Well look at that ! I completely agree with Laura about something other than what is the coolest breed of doggie
> 
> Oh..oh..there's another one for the list! Some people are allergic to cats or dogs, does that mean cat/dog owners can be shut out of a job too?


if they continue to bring them in the workplace after being hired in the premise of NOT doing that.


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

mama2littleman said:


> How about this for another example. Some of you said you wouldn't hire an employee that has visible piercings and tatoos. Does you being thier employer then give you the right to strip search them to make sure they don't have any of these?
> 
> It's a similar premise.
> 
> Nikki


I don't get this analogy. You said "visible tatoos". Why would that require a strip search? If they have to strip to reveal them, they're really not visible are they? Why would smokers require a strip search or anything else that would be such an invasion of privacy?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

mama2littleman said:


> How about this for another example. Some of you said you wouldn't hire an employee that has visible piercings and tatoos. Does you being thier employer then give you the right to strip search them to make sure they don't have any of these?
> 
> It's a similar premise.
> 
> Nikki


BWhahahaha!!
Employers have a right to hire whomever they please, and WHY would you STRIP search for VISIBLE tats???

This is gettting downright stupid...


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

DavidUnderwood said:


> I'm sorry Tink, but I don't play that game.
> Couple years ago, NC passed a law of no
> smoking in restaurants. Said employees and
> other patrons should be protected. BULL!
> ...


That is the exact kind of irony I'm talking about. Here in MN the law states there may be no smoking in _any_ indoor workplace with more than one employee, or that is open to the public. So even if I and everyone of my employees smoke, the state has declared that we may not smoke here.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

DavidUnderwood said:


> I'm sorry Tink, but I don't play that game.
> Couple years ago, NC passed a law of no
> smoking in restaurants. Said employees and
> other patrons should be protected. BULL!
> ...


My thinking too.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

I don't think that you can ask people what they do in their private life but a lot of things are pretty obvious when you walk through the door into my workplace. I can't refuse to hire you if you sit around and eat pizza all day at home but if you walk into my company and aren't fit enough to do the job, I don't have to hire you.

If you smoke at home but come in showing no trace of smoking I don't think I would be able to refuse to hire you. However, if you come in stinking like cigarettes, you are now affecting my workplace and it will affect my decision whether or not to hire you.

We discriminate all the time when hiring for a job. News anchors will likely be someone good looking. A construction crew likely won't hire an obese person (or if they do the person won't be obese for long!). We require a certain level of skill or education to qualify for a job. Sales people are usually required to be groomed to a certain standard because they put out a certain image the company is looking for. Those who own a company should be able to hire a person who they feel is best suited to a job. If what a person does at home doesn't affect them at work, it's non of the employers business, however, there are things you bring to work with you from home and smoking is one of them. If you don't want to wear deodorant, fine, but one consequence of that is usually smelling bad, my other employees are going to complain and that upsets the cohesion of the workplace which upsets my productivity.

If someone does something in their own private life and I don't know about it, it's obviously not affecting my business. If I know about it and I feel it will negatively affect my company, I should have the right to refuse employment to that person. If I hire someone who is a smoker without knowing about it and it comes to my attention they are taking extra smoke breaks or now smelling like cigarettes, that becomes my business and I should be able to deal with it however I see fit. Whatever they do at home is their business until it affects my business.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> C'mon man.
> All you'd have to do is pick up a couple of legit studies to answer your ?s.
> 
> Think of the sickness it has caused, think of who's rights are trampled when smoke-not even your own-causes illness & missed work days.
> Think of how smoking in the workplace fouled the air & made many ill.


I havent seen any "legit" studies..... and I have seen a lot of them. They are literally ALL done by the anti tobacco forces with very biased results. I am well aware of the health hazards associated with tobacco use, but have seen literally NO real evidence of ill affects from second hand smoke other than from those who are personally offended by it.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

SunsetSonata said:


> Any smoker who honestly cannot understand the business reasons why an employer would not want to hire a smoker is embracing the denial addicts are known for.


Post of the day award!


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> if they continue to bring them in the workplace after being hired in the premise of NOT doing that.


 The OP is about what people do on their own time. 

I'm not talking about bringing animals to work, but a person with a cat at home will bring cat dander to work.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

The issue of smoking, or any other supposed vice that an employer might find inappropriate for the atmosphere he/she seeks to create for the purpose of conducting business with the world, is a smoke screen.

The issue is the right of the employer, period.

Were I an employer, whether in sales or manufacturing, I would be seeking to create an atmosphere most productive for the workers and most conducive to the promotion of my product. That would mean screening employees to suit the ends that I sought.

In a free society, I would have that right.

If that right were infringed upon, and government or public began to force upon me employees wholly unsuitable to my ends, by my discretion, as their wages come out of my pocket, I would happily close up shop and let the inescapable consequence of such foolishness eventually impoverish those whom I might have cheerfully employed and watch the country disintegrate from within for lack of sustainable employment, just as is happening before our very eyes today.

Take the shackles off the nation's employers and watch her come back to life overnight.

Meanwhile...._ACLU_ ? Give me a looooong overdue break.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2011)

I'm very glad that I read this thread..now, when I go into a business, I shall ask if the owner refuses to hire smokers..if the answer is "yes", I'll take my business elsewhere..

BTW, I am a former smoker..It's my belief that in less than 15 years, America will be unrecognizable to those of us who were born before 1960.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Forerunner said:


> The issue of smoking, or any other supposed vice that an employer might find inappropriate for the atmosphere he/she seeks to create for the purpose of conducting business with the world, is a smoke screen.
> 
> The issue is the right of the employer, period.
> 
> ...


I agree. This is were I personally see the BIG difference between Private and Public employment.
In Privated employment the OWNER selects to his personal preference as to what his workplace needs to be to met the Private owners goals. This allows for flexablity to meet a changing world quickly with out legislation.

In a Public employment siduation the Owner is the public and the public has a say in the form of voting and petitioning the govermental body to met the needs that the public wishes. Yes, this may (most of the time) limits quick changes to meet the every changes that results from events from a need to alter and adapt to the unknow issues that arrise and bring forth new cercumstands.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

tricky gramma said:


> > Originally Posted by Tiempo
> > Well look at that ! I completely agree with Laura about something other than what is the coolest breed of doggie
> >
> > Oh..oh..there's another one for the list! Some people are allergic to cats or dogs, does that mean cat/dog owners can be shut out of a job too?
> ...


You just made the point for us.

What you have been agreeing to isn't just having a restriction on bringing a dog to work. It is the ability of the employer to require that you never own a dog, live with a dog or pet a dog in YOUR OWN LIFE not associated with work.

Why would he ever consider it appropriate to ask such a question?

And while it may be nice for some folks to think because they are hiring, own the jobs and so on that they can now use this to exercise control over any random aspect of a potential employees life...at their whim...is sick. It is morally wrong. No decent person would assume they had the right to ask such questions of a person's personal life.

They would, if they were decent, simply set the rules for their company (no dogs or dog hair, no smoking or smoking odors, no hamburgers or greasy marks from eating them..whatever) and leave it there. 

Trying to base hiring decisions or control another persons freedom by virtue of economic slavery or simple power tripping is not appropriate. If it is part of their personal life it has no business at business.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Forerunner said:


> The issue of smoking, or any other supposed vice that an employer might find inappropriate for the atmosphere he/she seeks to create for the purpose of conducting business with the world, is a smoke screen.
> 
> The issue is the right of the employer, period.
> 
> ...


I believe you are very right about everything you said.

That said, you are a person who engages wholeheartedly that people have freedom.

So how is it right or moral for any employer to make a requirement for any employee about what they do in their personal life for whatever whim they want. Isn't that taking the concept of being an employer and using that as a way to encroach upon the freedom of their life outside work...to hold in economic slavery...a person in all parts of their life. 

Just because today it is easy to say, "I won't hire a smoker no matter if they don't smoke at work because I am free to do so.", doesn't mean it won't be equally perfectly legal to say, "No longer will companies hire those that grow their own food because I just don't like it." or vote republican, or eat meat, or any other thing.

If they don't do it at work and it is part of their personal life, then it isn't within the moral scope of what an employee may dictate.


----------



## whodunit (Mar 29, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> On my husband's last job, he and a couple of his co-workers got disgusted by the amount of time certain fellow employees spent smoking outside the back door. So he came up with an ingenious idea: he and his friends started hanging out in the same area the smokers frequented! A half-dozen times a day, they'd go outside, stand around and shoot the bull for about as long as it took to finish a cigarette. When people asked them what they were up to, they'd say, "We're not smoking." They called them their not-smoking breaks.



I thought about trying something like this- match break for break, but I doubt anything would ever get done.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

ChristyACB said:


> Just because today it is easy to say, "I won't hire a smoker no matter if they don't smoke at work because I am free to do so.", doesn't mean it won't be equally perfectly legal to say, "No longer will companies hire those that grow their own food because I just don't like it." or vote republican, or eat meat, or any other thing.
> 
> If they don't do it at work and it is part of their personal life, then it isn't within the moral scope of what an employee may dictate.


I have an even better analogy. How about making new hires sign a form saying that they will never seek another job? No reading the classifieds, filling out job applications, responding to unsolicited job offers, etc. It could be verified by random polygraphs.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Fowler said:


> Really People....do you not see your own discrimination within yourselves? or do you just like picking on one group of people because it's the "IN" thing to do?


I'm not picking on anybody, and my decision would certainly not be about it being the "IN" thing to do. My dad was a smoker, causing me to have asthma as a child. I watched him slowly die at the end of an oxygen line. As an EMT, I had to take the body of my neighbor out of his bed after he literally coughed up a lung. As it stands now, my children only know 2 people that smoke, and both of them are relatives. 

I can assure you that if you smoke, you will not be an employee of any business I own. Yes, that is discriminatory, and I am well within my rights to be discriminatory in that regard. You don't have to like it, you can dislike me, cuss me, and boycott my business; but one thing you can't do is work for me.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Where am I wrong that no one is OWED a job. That if a person chooses to start a business that it is HIS/HER property to use as they choose.

If an employee wants to work in a business (private) and can not due to not being hired by the owner then the potential employee can

Start a company in competion to the one or ones that find him /her to be an unacceptable employee.

or start a business in a field that they choose.

Where is the lose of freedom. Come on how many of us reject or rejected other persons who ask you out or to marry or refuse to ask out or refuse to marry. A job is a chance to explore ones freedom.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> I'm not picking on anybody, and my decision would certainly not be about it being the "IN" thing to do. My dad was a smoker, causing me to have asthma as a child. I watched him slowly die at the end of an oxygen line. As an EMT, I had to take the body of my neighbor out of his bed after he literally coughed up a lung. As it stands now, my children only know 2 people that smoke, and both of them are relatives.
> 
> I can assure you that if you smoke, you will not be an employee of any business I own. Yes, that is discriminatory, and I am well within my rights to be discriminatory in that regard. You don't have to like it, you can dislike me, cuss me, and boycott my business; but one thing you can't do is work for me.


I'm very happy for you that you feel comfortable regulating the lives of any potential employees while they are at home and have nothing to do with you.

Let's just hope you don't take it into your head to dislike certain sexual positions, the ownerships of dogs or find yourself emotionally overwrought by someone else's affliction of contact dermatitis and determine that all polyester must be banned from all employees homes or they'll be fired.

This is the kind of junk that got unions started (and look what that wrought) and made it acceptable for "employers" to demand the first night of a marriage with their employees new bride.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Tricky Grama said:


> C'mon man.
> All you'd have to do is pick up a couple of legit studies to answer your ?s.
> 
> Think of the sickness it has caused, think of who's rights are trampled when smoke-not even your own-causes illness & missed work days.
> Think of how smoking in the workplace fouled the air & made many ill.


We are not talking about sickness, or foul air. We are talking about......nevermind. You are an anti-smoker, and you would sell a soul to suit your personal preference instead of think deeper to the real meaning of this issue, which is NOT about 'smoking'. So, whatever. 



SunsetSonata said:


> Any smoker who honestly cannot understand the business reasons why an employer would not want to hire a smoker is embracing the denial addicts are known for.


Right, insert the word FAT/UGLY/BUCK TOOTHED/GAY/CHILD MOLESTERS into the slot you have put 'smoking'. See how ridiculious that looks???
It's not about smoking for the 99th time.



Wags said:


> This really isn't about smokers, obese folks etc. It is about an employer having the FREEDOM to set whatever standards they wish for employment at their company. And if a potential employee doesn't want to want to meet those standards then they have the FREEDOM to not accept employment there.


Phew, someone who reads!! Hoooray!!! We are getting warmer.....



Tiempo said:


> The OP is about what people do on their own time. I'm not talking about bringing animals to work, but a person with a cat at home will bring cat dander to work.


Ding Ding Ding!! WE have a winner.
It's not about smoking. It never was.
Oy Vey

ChristyACB, you are spot on.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

If _anyone_ can force you to hire one employee that doesn't fit your decor, then they can force you to hire all manner of flotsam and jetsam that would result in bringing your entire enterprise crashing down.

Years ago, before union mentalities and entitlement programs, this country was a far better place if only for the fact that people seeking work had motivation to take care of themselves, put some effort into their appearances, strive for a marketable work ethic,
pursue a competitive spirit in all that they do, etc.
Now, as just about anything goes and employers hands are already tied far beyond the point of crippling their productivity, look where we are.

Just as working people have every right to _seek_ employment wherever they may, so do the employers have every right to discriminate in any fashion they deem necessary in attempt to meet their goals. The smallest step in the direction of forcing an employer to act in a manner unbefitting his goals is a criminal infringement, period.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

I hope the employees of the place mentioned in the OP unionize over this. It would serve them right.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Forerunner said:


> Years ago, before union mentalities and entitlement programs, this country was a far better place if only for the fact that people seeking work had motivation to take care of themselves, put some effort into their appearances, strive for a marketable work ethic,
> pursue a competitive spirit in all that they do, etc.
> Now, as just about anything goes and employers hands are already tied far beyond the point of crippling their productivity, look where we are.
> 
> .


Pretty much the opposite, but nice try. In the past any company could deny work due to age, race, gender, dating habits, marital status, beliefs, political affiliation and so on. Ironically back then no one would have even considered banning smokers from the workplace.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

To Mr. DeaconJim.....Sorry to hear about your dad. My mom smoked my whole life and I didnt get asthma nor did my siblings.
I have a friend that died of lung cancer and didnt smoke..go figure. My great grandmother lived to 96 and smoked like a freight train...lol I personally dont like the way smoke smells. But I only have to temporary smell it when walking by them...it's no different then walking behind a car or driving behind a diesel. Or when someone leaves a foul order in the grocery isle...*that one gags me*..I dont judge you by what you put into your body, are you fat? ( I dont eat fried foods)...maybe you drink? (I dont drink alcohol)....eat garlic? (cant stand bad breath)...have rooten teeth due to genitics.(maybe you cant afford a dentist)..and so on and so on.
You sir choose to be discriminatory because you have a legal right by law to hire a non-smoker.
This is sad too me.
&#8220;Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.&#8221;


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

tinknal said:


> Pretty much the opposite, but nice try. In the past any company could deny work due to age, race, gender, dating habits, marital status, beliefs, political affiliation and so on. Ironically back then no one would have even considered banning smokers from the workplace.


My MIL worked for Kroger, 3rd shift, stocking shelves, IN the grocery store. AS LONG AS the employee brought a portable ashtray, they could smoke, right there, in the isles they were stocking.
Kroger, is union.

I hate unions and what they represent today......because of the greed. But, the reason they were formed were for the reasons stated above. Do we really need to regress??


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

Let's say a scientist that is highly allergic to cat dander is need of an assistant. Should that person not have the right to specify as part of the job description that the person he hires not have a cat or associate with cats?

What if you need to hirer a care giver for your very ill child who also happens to be highly allergic to peanuts. Should you not have the right to specify that any care giver you higher not touch peanuts or peanut products?

No one is forcing anyone to accept employment that limits their "off duty" activities - it is entirely voluntary. In fact all employment is voluntary in the USA - we no longer have indentured servants or slaves.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wags said:


> Let's say a scientist that is highly allergic to cat dander is need of an assistant. Should that person not have the right to specify as part of the job description that the person he hires not have a cat or associate with cats?
> 
> What if you need to hirer a care giver for your very ill child who also happens to be highly allergic to peanuts. Should you not have the right to specify that any care giver you higher not touch peanuts or peanut products?
> 
> No one is forcing anyone to accept employment that limits their "off duty" activities - it is entirely voluntary. In fact all employment is voluntary in the USA - we no longer have indentured servants or slaves.


Well. Of course not!! Only the 'workers' have rights!! Matters not, if your child will die of an anaphylactic shock if exposed to peanuts, matters not. The 'worker' has the right to eat them & you don't have the right to hire someone who doesn't.

"Workers of the World Unite". Its not just a slogan anymore.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

tinknal said:


> I hope the employees of the place mentioned in the OP unionize over this. It would serve them right.


And that is just what we don;t want is more unions to think they have more power then the owners of a business have,


----------



## beaglebiz (Aug 5, 2008)

tinknal said:


> I have an even better analogy. How about making new hires sign a form saying that they will never seek another job? No reading the classifieds, filling out job applications, responding to unsolicited job offers, etc. It could be verified by random polygraphs.


I had to sign a non compete document in order to sell insurance for a particular insurance company. If I left, I could not sell insurance, in their market for five years.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

beaglebiz said:


> I had to sign a non compete document in order to sell insurance for a particular insurance company. If I left, I could not sell insurance, in their market for five years.


That is not quite the analogy I used, I meant _any_ job. As far as that goes I've heard that most of those non-compete agreements are full of holes and easy to get around, and hard to enforce.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And that is just what we don;t want is more unions to think they have more power then the owners of a business have,


Speak for yourself. I like a balance of power. As employers become more and more overbearing, unions will rebound.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

Wags said:


> Let's say a scientist that is highly allergic to cat dander is need of an assistant. Should that person not have the right to specify as part of the job description that the person he hires not have a cat or associate with cats?
> 
> What if you need to hirer a care giver for your very ill child who also happens to be highly allergic to peanuts. Should you not have the right to specify that any care giver you higher not touch peanuts or peanut products?
> 
> No one is forcing anyone to accept employment that limits their "off duty" activities - it is entirely voluntary. In fact all employment is voluntary in the USA - we no longer have indentured servants or slaves.


If these are the best analogys that you can come up with you have pretty much lost that argument. The scenarios you posed create a specific reason for the conditions imposed.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

ChristyACB said:


> I'm very happy for you that you feel comfortable regulating the lives of any potential employees while they are at home and have nothing to do with you.
> 
> Let's just hope you don't take it into your head to dislike certain sexual positions, the ownerships of dogs or find yourself emotionally overwrought by someone else's affliction of contact dermatitis and determine that all polyester must be banned from all employees homes or they'll be fired.
> 
> This is the kind of junk that got unions started (and look what that wrought) and made it acceptable for "employers" to demand the first night of a marriage with their employees new bride.


I'm not regulating the lives of anyone, I'm giving them a choice. They can either smoke or work in my business. If they choose to smoke, more power to them, I'll offer the job to someone else. There are plenty of qualified workers in the world looking for work, and I will offer my job to someone who doesn't smoke. 

Whatever criteria I choose for hiring employees is my business. It's okay with me if you don't like them, because more than likely I wouldn't like your's either. The wonderful thing about living in a free country is that you get to make your decisions, and I get to make mine.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Fowler said:


> To Mr. DeaconJim.....Sorry to hear about your dad. My mom smoked my whole life and I didnt get asthma nor did my siblings.
> I have a friend that died of lung cancer and didnt smoke..go figure. My great grandmother lived to 96 and smoked like a freight train...lol I personally dont like the way smoke smells. But I only have to temporary smell it when walking by them...it's no different then walking behind a car or driving behind a diesel. Or when someone leaves a foul order in the grocery isle...*that one gags me*..I dont judge you by what you put into your body, are you fat? ( I dont eat fried foods)...maybe you drink? (I dont drink alcohol)....eat garlic? (cant stand bad breath)...have rooten teeth due to genitics.(maybe you cant afford a dentist)..and so on and so on.
> You sir choose to be discriminatory because you have a legal right by law to hire a non-smoker.
> This is sad too me.
> âOpportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.â


We all choose to be discriminatory, the difference is the criteria we use. Do you allow just anyone to walk into your home, eat at your table and sleep in your bed, or do you choose to limit that priviledge to members of your family? Do you socialize with drug addicts, car thieves and hookers, or do you choose friends with values that reflect your own? Did you choose your spouse (assuming you're married) by looking for someone you loved and respected, or did you just choose a stranger at random?

I hire people who will be a good fit with my business, reflect well on me, and who's judgement I trust. Frankly, I have to question the judgement of people who choose to smoke. I'm sorry that my hiring criteria saddens you, but I can live with that. I sleep well at night, I hope you do as well.


----------



## neal68 (May 29, 2005)

tobacco is my peoples (native american) way to get even with the white man for stealing our land!


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

Wow, what a thread!

What bothers me the most about the OP is this: That companies feel it's their right to govern behavior after hours. 

Now just ponder that for a few minutes (as I did as I read through this thread) and then think about the implications for everyone. And I do mean, all of us.

Where is the line between working for wages, and being completely held hostage as in a modern day work camp? 

IMO, very blurred and much closer than you (the collective you) are thinking. 

Up here, the school district has been granted enough power to punish kids for what they do on their own time, even if it's not on school property. There is no difference between what that school district is doing, and what the OP was about. JMO.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Pouncer said:


> Wow, what a thread!
> 
> What bothers me the most about the OP is this: That companies feel it's their right to govern behavior after hours.
> 
> ...


So who do you think should determine what criteria an employer can use to hire employees, where do they get that authority, and how do they arrive at their criteria?


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

deaconjim said:


> So who do you think should determine what criteria an employer can use to hire employees, where do they get that authority, and how do they arrive at their criteria?


Seems that the simpler we make the argument, Jim, the more difficult it gets for the entitlement mindset to comprehend.
I'm going to take one more stab at this before I depart the thread.


Jim's questions, above, get us very close to the heart of the matter.
The choice to hire, or not to hire, is a matter of conscience.
An employer has every right to draw upon his/her conscience to determine whether or not to hire. This is directly related to the guaranteed freedom of religion, and I would be quite confident making that argument in court.
The freedom of religion is the freedom to follow one's conscience, under any and all conditions, at any time, and in direct opposition to the collective will of any number of people, government officials, military forces, etc.
Sure, might often trumps right, but there will always be a reckoning.
By the very law of nations, no man can be forced without his consent.
(forgive my intended gender neutral use of the term, "man")
No individual nor collective group of any creed nor bent can force another to act upon the collective conscience, without that single individual's consent.
The not-so-deeply-buried truth behind this topic of discussion is that just about every "employer" _has_ consented to collective rule by participation in a scheme foreign to the several states, but we'll address only the matter of uncompromised right to conscience.

To force any man or woman who seeks the pursuit of their own happiness and to better their situation by profitable occupation of common right, to hire according to any other conscience than their own is a usurpation by very definition. 
You cannot force your conscience on another, period.
You cannot force your values on another, period. 
You can set your own standards, and advertise for like-minded to join you.
You can be disgusted to no end by the conscientious decision-making process of any employer in the country, but you _do not have the right_ to force your way into his place of employment, against his will.


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Heavy smokers are stinky.
> Heavy drinkers, are stinky.
> Obese people are stinky.
> People who take garlic pills are stinky.
> ...


Please, should any employer be forced to hire someone with personal hygiene issues??? I would never expect someone who reeks at a job interview to get hired, whatever their reason for stinking. People with personal hygiene issues show poor judgement if that's how they show up to work.

By the way, some employers do restrict heavy use of perfumes and colognes. They are known triggers for migraines, other headaches and asthma. Much like cigarette smoke.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Maybe add in people who wear so much perfume or colone they leave a wake


----------



## NickyBlade (May 27, 2008)

My daughter and I are EXTREMELY sensitive to the smell of alcohol. I can't sleep beside my husband if he's drank a single beer because I can smell it on his skin. However, the smell of smoke (cigarettes or wood stoves) doesn't bother me at all.

If I had a waitress that reaked of alcohol, it wouldn't make me quit eating at that restaurant. I'd still leave a good tip for good service. The biggest reaction I'd have is maybe mentioning to my husband on the way home that the waitress stunk. 

This world is totally overflowing with self appointed smell police.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ken Scharabok said:


> Maybe add in people who wear so much perfume or colone they leave a wake


I will 2nd that~! woof


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

willow_girl said:


> On my husband's last job, he and a couple of his co-workers got disgusted by the amount of time certain fellow employees spent smoking outside the back door. So he came up with an ingenious idea: he and his friends started hanging out in the same area the smokers frequented! A half-dozen times a day, they'd go outside, stand around and shoot the bull for about as long as it took to finish a cigarette. When people asked them what they were up to, they'd say, "We're not smoking." They called them their not-smoking breaks.


I take "smoke" breaks too...but I don't smoke. I just go sit down for a minute. I don't do it near as often as the smokers though.


----------



## Buffy in Dallas (May 10, 2002)

Smokers stink. :yuck: I'm sorry but it true. I can always tell when a smoker walks past. I could not share an office space with a smoker. It would make me gag.


----------



## mrpink (Jun 29, 2008)

I only read about 4 pages of this thread and don't care to read any more. I will start out by saying I am a smoker about a pack a day. the op was about an employer not being willing to employ smokers. thats fine they should have that right. as to those that have tried to change the post to employers being required to hire smokers, well that was never implied. its skirting the op. the problem I have and several other I believe is in the testing. If I never smoke on the job and you need to do a chemical test to see if i smoke at home in private that opens up a whole ball of wax. as has been said smokers smell of smoke no test needed. how much of our freedoms are we willing to give up?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

mrpink said:


> I only read about 4 pages of this thread and don't care to read any more. I will start out by saying I am a smoker about a pack a day. the op was about an employer not being willing to employ smokers. thats fine they should have that right. as to those that have tried to change the post to employers being required to hire smokers, well that was never implied. its skirting the op. the problem I have and several other I believe is in the testing. *
> 
> If I never smoke on the job and you need to do a chemical test to see if i smoke at home in private that opens up a whole ball of wax. as has been said smokers smell of smoke no test needed. how much of our freedoms are we willing to give up?*



:goodjob::goodjob::goodjob::goodjob::goodjob:
Thank you so much!! You get it!!!!

And don't forget about the spouses of smokers, who have never touched a cigarette in their lives.....but because they LIVE with a smoker, are falsely accused?


----------



## shawnlee (Apr 13, 2010)

WOW is all I can say........:stars:

Everyone opinion is valid in this post and has to be appreciated, but remember you also have to suffer the repricusions of said opinion and the moralities of it... one way or the other it will be dealt out to you as you deal it out to others...



Employers have the right to hire who they want and as a former employer I can tell you the laws mean little, I could have hired anyone I wanted and denied whoever I wanted with no reprisals from the law....based on whatever notion I had for the day.........but I did not.

Anyone who thinks you can`t is unaware of how things actually work, I have watched it with my own eyes on many occasions and also been hired because of it on many occasions. I was hired as a foreman to oversee a job I knew little about because of my race...customers did not like dealing with the mexicans.......I promtly quit once I learned of this. I was told bold face by the owner of the company thats why he hired me...because of race.


I only hired people that fit the program regardless of who they were and what they did on thier own time ...I demanded qualified people who wanted to work.....bottom line.


As a employee, I choose freely where I work and who I will work for...would you want to work for person/company who tried to controll what you did in your free time? This person/company is bound to have other issues to be dealt with......rarely is this type of flaw a solo deal, they are usually riddled with them.I also freely choose not to do business with companies of that nature.


I don`t and have never used illegal drugs, but will not work for any company that urine tests employees for the simple fact that I know this is not right and will not condone/enable it by working for them.I also choose to not do business with those types of companies either.


I can`t believe that people are actually soo judgemental of others as to not be able to overcome body odor , smoke smells{I said smells, not the actuall smoke} and other things you might not like such as looks.....all I can say it is a long way down off of that high horse you are on.

No wonder this country is failing....it`s failing on a personal level and people need to figure out what is really important...looks and body odor ,smells are pretty low on that list...we are caught up in the mundane because of how easy it has been for years.


The company from OP`s post will be stopped from urine testing for smoking at home.....I can almost guarantee it will happen if not by law, then lawsuit....

If you have a allergy it is perfectly within your right to "ask" a employee or employer to comply with that protocol and the persons morals to abide by that if they both agree......




It`s pretty easy to put the pieces together here...your right to do as you please is stepping on my right to do as I please ...something has to give or we all lose.....



I chose to pull the splinter out of my eye before pointing out the telephone pole in yours...funny thing is... once I removed the splinter from my own eye, I realized the telephone pole in yours did not offend or bother me at all.


To make it short and sweet....the OP`s employer in question has the right for now to urine test for nicotine.......but the bigger question is should he do it even though he can.....what will it lead to or open the door for.......the very implementer of this law may in the future find him or herself at the business end of the stick on another issue this opens the door for.

We seldom like the business end of this, but freely engage in the weilding end of it........


----------



## seagullplayer (Nov 6, 2008)

Smoking and drinking are choices you are allowed to make, they effect other people, an employer should be allowed to make choices too.

If you work and want to smoke that's up to you, it is your money.

I think they need to test everyone that takes food stamps and a well fare check.
You spend your money and you can do what ever floats your boat, you spend mine and I should have some say.

On a side note if a person draws a check for a mental condition should they be allowed to drive? I mean if a person is so unstable that they can not hold down a job, do you want them on the road?


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> We all choose to be discriminatory, the difference is the criteria we use. Do you allow just anyone to walk into your home, eat at your table and sleep in your bed, or do you choose to limit that priviledge to members of your family? Do you socialize with drug addicts, car thieves and hookers, or do you choose friends with values that reflect your own? Did you choose your spouse (assuming you're married) by looking for someone you loved and respected, or did you just choose a stranger at random?
> 
> I hire people who will be a good fit with my business, reflect well on me, and who's judgement I trust. Frankly, I have to question the judgement of people who choose to smoke. I'm sorry that my hiring criteria saddens you, but I can live with that. I sleep well at night, I hope you do as well.


This is funny to me because you have no idea the statement you just made....lol. Here's your answer, Yes, I have allowed many wayward souls into my home and eat at my table and help placed them on a more productive path for themselves and others. It's very ironic that you mention "socialize with drug addicts, car thieves because that would be my newest member to my family, He came from New York on a bus, and ended up at my home. He was a stranger, meth addict and a had a criminal history, He was looking for help to become a better person, a chance for a more productive life. I didnt know him from Adam. This young man was looking for a "do over" and I am just thankful that I was able to provide him with the guidance and understanding that he needed and longed for. With a lot of hard work this young man that can barely read and write now has a job no longer does drugs, understands that stealing is wrong, and you earn your way in this world. He still lives with us and works as a roughneck, he pays his way at our farm, he works hard cutting wood, cleaning stalls, mending fences, etc. He is now my son a member of our family. He just needed direction. 
My morals and values also revolve around giving people a second chance at being a better person. I make my own life better by helping others less fortunate and not judging them so harshly without trying to see where they've come from first. Without people like me, people like you would just throw them in the Garbage! To quote from your own statement "I sleep well at night, I hope you do as well."


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

I don't think it's discrimination. Smoking is a choice; none of us were born with a cigarette attached to our faces.

Also, in my experience, smoking can affect work performance. People who smoke get crabby and very difficult if something comes up and they either miss a work break or have to skip it. They smell like cigarettes. They stand outside and make a mess with cigarette butts and blow smoke on other people who don't smoke. It may be a legal addiction but it is still very much an addiction, and working with an addict is never as fun as it would be if they weren't one.

And then there are the health issues....the hacking and coughing, the bronchitis, the frequent colds....people who smoke get sick more often and stay sick longer....*and they choose to engage in the activity that does this.*

We don't usually get to drink on the job, I don't think we should be able to smoke on the job, either.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Fowler said:


> This is funny to me because you have no idea the statement you just made....lol. Here's your answer, Yes, I have allowed many wayward souls into my home and eat at my table and help placed them on a more productive path for themselves and others. It's very ironic that you mention "socialize with drug addicts, car thieves because that would be my newest member to my family, He came from New York on a bus, and ended up at my home. He was a stranger, meth addict and a had a criminal history, He was looking for help to become a better person, a chance for a more productive life. I didnt know him from Adam. This young man was looking for a "do over" and I am just thankful that I was able to provide him with the guidance and understanding that he needed and longed for. With a lot of hard work this young man that can barely read and write now has a job no longer does drugs, understands that stealing is wrong, and you earn your way in this world. He still lives with us and works as a roughneck, he pays his way at our farm, he works hard cutting wood, cleaning stalls, mending fences, etc. He is now my son a member of our family. He just needed direction.
> My morals and values also revolve around giving people a second chance at being a better person. I make my own life better by helping others less fortunate and not judging them so harshly without trying to see where they've come from first. Without people like me, people like you would just throw them in the Garbage! To quote from your own statement "I sleep well at night, I hope you do as well."


That's great, and I applaud you for doing the things you do. They were all choices you made, and I assume for every unknown person you've taken into your home, there are a couple of million you have not taken in, all by your own choice. I want the same freedom in my business.


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

Seems to me that the potential applicant is free to do what ever they please in their personal life, the employer is free to refuse employment to them for what ever reason he chooses, the applicant is free to disagree with the employers decision and also free to seek employment elsewhere. The employer is not telling the applicant what to do with their life, just that they can't work at that job if they do something the employer isn't happy with. Also, any customer is free to not patronize the business if they disagree with the employers hiring practices. 

Nobody should be able to tell the applicant they can't smoke in their own house. Nobody should be able to tell the employer he has to hire the applicant if he doesn't want to. Nobody should be able to tell the customer they have to use that business. Each one has the free will to make their own decisions and the free will to disagree with the others.

This brings up the slippery slope factor, though. How far should the freedom to hire whoever you want to for your business go before it starts discriminating against people for basic things like race/gender/religion. etc.? Should an employer have the ultimate and total decision as to who they hire? As some have pointed out, this isn't just about smoking.


----------



## Fowler (Jul 8, 2008)

deaconjim said:


> That's great, and I applaud you for doing the things you do. They were all choices you made, and I assume for every unknown person you've taken into your home, there are a couple of million you have not taken in, all by your own choice. I want the same freedom in my business.



"there are a couple of million you have not taken in, all by your own choice."

it takes a village to raise a child, I am just one person. If they find their way to my doorstep all is given the same respect.

Good luck in your business.


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

I've never gotten the whole thing about race/gender/religion thing with employment. Really, if you're, say, a green person, and somebody doesn't want to hire green people......... having the government force them to hire you as a green person might make you feel powerful, but do you really think that's ever going to make that a good work environment for you? If you want to stand outside with a sandwich board or tell all your friends that company X won't hire green people, and let others make their business decisions based on that, fine.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Should Hooters be forced to hire male waiters? Their basic business core isn't wings.

I once had an federal EEO complaint filed against me. This woman was a secretary and had been interviewed something like 25 times for an advancement program. EEO ruled she had a prima facto (sp?) case based on this, but decided just to cite the last three. Actually had to go before an EEO investigator. I point out she had done nothing to improve herself since high school - absolutely nothing. She listed a couple of dozen organizations she belonged to, but had never held an 'officer' position in any of them. EEO eventually ruled against her.

Was it Paine who said your liberties end at the point of my nose. Well I don't want to have to inhale any of your smoke odors, much less second hand smoke.


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Ken Scharabok said:


> Should Hooters be forced to hire male waiters? Their basic business core isn't wings.
> 
> ...
> 
> Was it Paine who said your liberties end at the point of my nose. Well I don't want to have to inhale any of your smoke odors, much less second hand smoke.


I think there was a recent case involving a male waiter suing Hooters; forgot how it ended. But that is an equal opportunity issue based on gender. In my mind, hiring non-smokers is completely different. An employer's decision not to hire a drug addict (isn't nicotine a drug?) who would possibly offend co-workers and clients is perfectly reasonable. I think there have been studies to show that smokers are generally less productive (requiring smoke breaks), and they definitely have higher health care costs.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bostonlesley said:


> It's my belief that in less than 15 years, America will be unrecognizable to those of us who were born before 1960.


And you are waiting the 15 years for what exactly??? LOL This country is already unrecognizable from what it was during my growing up years!


----------



## Truckinguy (Mar 8, 2008)

> I think there was a recent case involving a male waiter suing Hooters; forgot how it ended. But that is an equal opportunity issue based on gender.


That's a case where hiring a male waiter could hurt business. The whole premise of Hooters is in the name. Whether it's sexist or not, guys go to Hooters to be served by sexy women. I don't want to go to Hooters to be served by a guy. The waitresses are part of the marketing campaign and, as such, are expected to be female.

Hooters has the freedom to hire whomever they want. If someone doesn't like that, they have the freedom to go elsewhere. If enough people don't like it and exercise their freedom to go elsewhere, Hooters will go out of business. However, lots of people feel free to go there so Hooters survives. Isn't that what freedom and a free market are all about?


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

shawnlee said:


> The company from OP`s post will be stopped from urine testing for smoking at home.....I can almost guarantee it will happen if not by law, then lawsuit....


I don't think so. This is not a new controversy it has been going on for years. About half the states have laws on the books to prevent employers from regulating off-duty conduct. In states that don't have those laws, courts have upheld the employers right to fire an employee who violates the employers rules.


----------



## Pouncer (Oct 28, 2006)

What I find eye opening is the attitude against smokers in general here. Most of you think that they are lousy employees for one presumed reason or another. Have to take breaks, irritable, can't do the job and etc.

I find that amazing, really. Is this what you really think of people who smoke? Most of the people I know who smoke, can work just about anyone right into the ground. But then, they know how to WORK, which is another topic altogether, lol 

Some of the statements made here, could be construed as inflammatory at the least, and bordering on hate speech at the other end. Wow. I can't imagine living with that kind of hate, I really can't.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

I find it hard to believe that a homesteading group would be so agreeable to business intruding on their PERSONAL lives. 

I guess it is because the subject is "smokers" and not "drinkers, bad credit, divorced"..but it could be soon. After all drinkers have liver problems, folks with bad credit could be security risks and divorced folks..well they got a whole bag of problems associated with that..might even have an ex spouse that is nutz.."

Yep you can certainly hire who you want..but I can guarantee if this post was about any thing other than smokers, there would be an uproar that would melt the fat pipe. to the tune of "what does my credit have to do with getting a job?" etc. and it might not have anything to do with it..might just be because the employer says that is their right.. 

no one with a credit score under 700 need apply.

now how would you all feel about that assuming you would never touch money in your new potential job? Maybe you are the receptionist at that local hospital or a nail driver at the local construction company.

That is the point here. Where are you willing to draw the line because today it is smokers, tomorrow it will be X..(name your poison here).

When business can intrude deeply into the personal lives of their employees and regulate what that employee does, (to the tune of requiring a TEST which could be considered invasive in itself) I believe business in general has gone to far. What I do in my personal life (as long as it is legal) is my business.

This reminds me a bit about "company stores, company houses, company volunteerism". Of course, some are so desperate for jobs they would agree to anything.
I just happen not to be one of those people.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Does the military have a right to require random drug testing on service personnel?

Well, that's a different occupation and you knew the policy going in. How does that differ from a business doing so?

Apparently many prisons and jails have gone to a no smoking - period - policy. Cigarettes use to be the equivalent of a monetary system. I wonder what has replaced it.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> Does the military have a right to require random drug testing on service personnel?
> 
> Well, that's a different occupation and you knew the policy going in. How does that differ from a business doing so?


The drugs they are testing for are illegal, no?


----------



## Wags (Jun 2, 2002)

sidepasser said:


> I find it hard to believe that a homesteading group would be so agreeable to business intruding on their PERSONAL lives.
> 
> I guess it is because the subject is "smokers" and not "drinkers, bad credit, divorced"..but it could be soon. After all drinkers have liver problems, folks with bad credit could be security risks and divorced folks..well they got a whole bag of problems associated with that..might even have an ex spouse that is nutz.."
> 
> ...


Credit scores are considered for many types of employment. 

The bottom line is no one is forcing anyone to take a particular job. If you don't want an employer that dictates your off duty time then you don't have to go to work for them.

I've worked in Law Enforcement where off our duty conduct was regulated, including zero tobacco use and regular testing for fitness. I've known preachers and teachers that had moral clauses in their employment contracts as well. They were not allowed to smoke, drink or frequent places of ill repute or do anything else that might damage the reputation of their employer.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Service members are required, from E-1 to 4-stars, to take a semi-annual physical test. Has been push-ups, sit-ups and running a prescribed distance in a prescribed time, all adjusted by age.

The Army (including Guard and Reserves) is getting even tougher:

http://www.aolhealth.com/2011/03/02...?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl7|sec3_lnk1|204302

If you are a smoker chances are good you are going to weaned out if you can't pass these physical tests.

On random urine testing illegal drugs apply to the non-military workforce as well.

When I was a civilian employee of the AF, one officer got called for a random screening. He had to be at the base hospital within a given amount of time and someone stood there and watched him fill up the cup.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

sidepasser said:


> I find it hard to believe that a homesteading group would be so agreeable to business intruding on their PERSONAL lives.
> 
> I guess it is because the subject is "smokers" and not "drinkers, bad credit, divorced"..but it could be soon. After all drinkers have liver problems, folks with bad credit could be security risks and divorced folks..well they got a whole bag of problems associated with that..might even have an ex spouse that is nutz.."
> 
> ...


Let's not forget that, when we say "businesses", just like when we say "employees", we're talking about people. Businesses are people that have invested money, time, talent and a lot of hard work. In the process, if they are successful, they are able to hire people. They do not owe anyone a job.

The business owners have a right to determine who they employ. By choosing to not employ someone, there is no way they can intrude on the life of that person. If however, you think the government should interfere in the hiring process, you are intruding into the life of the business owner. Frankly, I can't believe how many people think the government should force people to hire employees that don't fit their hiring criteria.


----------



## deaconjim (Oct 31, 2005)

Pouncer said:


> What I find eye opening is the attitude against smokers in general here. Most of you think that they are lousy employees for one presumed reason or another. Have to take breaks, irritable, can't do the job and etc.
> 
> I find that amazing, really. Is this what you really think of people who smoke? Most of the people I know who smoke, can work just about anyone right into the ground. But then, they know how to WORK, which is another topic altogether, lol
> 
> Some of the statements made here, could be construed as inflammatory at the least, and bordering on hate speech at the other end. Wow. I can't imagine living with that kind of hate, I really can't.


I won't try to speak for anyone else, but I don't really have a problem with the work ethic of a person just because they happen to be smokers. I've worked with smokers who were hard working, dependable, and quite competent at their job. I've also worked with non-smokers who were lazy, incompetent and totally unreliable. I don't hate smokers either. If anything, I pity them for what lies in their future if they continue. 

When I was single, I would never consider dating a woman that smoked. I didn't hate them, I just didn't want to date them and I certainly wouldn't marry one. I also won't hire a smoker, and that is just my personal preference. Why is that so wrong? If a person has the right to choose whether or not to be a smoker, why can't I choose whether or not to hire a smoker?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

My position (even as a smoker) that employers in the PRIVATE business reguardles of the number of employees should have the freedom to hire the best qualified person per the critia set forth by the person who ownes the business.

I am a homesteader and I want the same freedom to run my homestead as I choose. 

I will not tresspass on the rights of a business owner on his own site to attempt to force him or her to my standard. 

I do not want to assume the standards of another persons goals for my homestead when it is I who voluntered to risk my money and time to see my dreams come to reality.

If someone where to come to my homestead and attempt to dictate to me how I needed to remove animals becasue it is better to eat only vegs or I needed to hire a person who did not speak any formate that I speak. 

I most hardly would informed the person that what they suggest sounds so good that I can't wait to see first just what an impovement end up being and when can I visit their homestead that operated that way. 

Believing that I have no greater rights that anyone else I stand by my position. I will not block any person from developing their own employment.


----------



## George in NH (Jun 24, 2002)

I rarely post anymore but after reading this thread I decided to chime in. I am a non smoker and absolutely without a doubt, I am sick and tired of the way some non smokers control smokers. An employer has the right to not hire smokers and the government has the right to tell a business owner that they and their employees can't smoke in a building that is owned by the business owner. It is completely ridiculous! Once smokers are fully under the control of government and employers then who will be next, drinkers? I don't drink either. Employers say they have the right to do this and that because it is their business. Yes, it is their business but guess what, most businesses need employees to help that business operate. There is no way on earth I'd pass up a potentially good employee because they smoked, that's not good business sense (I have managed two multi-million dollar businesses that employees, smokers and non smokers helped make successful), smoking is the least of my worries when hiring a person. I want to know that they're reliable enough to get the job done properly and that their efforts help make the company profitable. I don't care what they do on their free time as long as it doesn't interfere with their job. Again, a good employee is as important to a successful business as a good employer is. Too often employers forget who exactly it is that is the backbone of the company and the employer believes that they have the right to control every minute of every day of the employees lives. To me, an employee only owes the employer a good days work and the employer owes the employee a good work environment without intruding into the personal lives of their employees. If employees smoke then ask them to be considerate of non-smokers. If you're going to strip employees of their right to do what is legal on their own time than shouldn't employees have the right to demand that the employer pay them a fair amount of money for stripping them of their right to smoke cigarettes etc... while at home since technically the employee would still be following the employers orders even when off the clock? Like I said, I am a non smoker but I am not as fanatical about smokers as some are. My only request is keep it clean and be considerate of other around you when you smoke. I think American's have a fetish for controlling others and somewhere along the line it has to stop.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, This is one doc we should all know.
Happiness is not a right. The Freedom to seek it is.

a slave has no power to control who has authrity over them- and rarly gives consent
an employee controls who they work for and thus freely constent to abide by the employer or is FREE to seek other employement. It is all about Self responacbilty and not looking for an excuse or justifcation. 

The lose of the can do spirit is really fading away. 

If an employers demands rid him of any and or not enough employess then the employer would have to face his own mirror and change and adapt. Or face failing at his growth potential. He might have the greatest ideas but he would have to work alone maybe it would work and maybe it would not ..................But it would be his pursuet of happeness and with out any employees would it matter to NON EMPLOYEES how he faired?
To claim something that is not yours that someone eles control, created, ownes due to the sweat of their brow is over stepping on to thier rights.

What is stopping You from starting your own compeating company where you set the criteria as YOU see fit. Then be prepared to defend how your criteria is not injust to those who disagree with what your goals are for your investment and risk.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

If you are any color but white, I cannot say I will not hire you, but I certainly could find a way to find you not qualified enough to hire.

If you don't speak English well enough, I can find a way not to hire you.

If you voted for Obama/Bush, I can find a way not to hire you.

If you are a Christian, I can find a way not to hire you.

If you are homophobic, I can find a way not to hire you.

If you are anti-abortion, I can find a way not to hire you.

If you are too liberal/conservative, I can find a way not to hire you.

If I just don't like your looks, I can find a way not to hire you.

All of these things are legally protected, but hypothetically as an employer I can still find ways not to hire you or to find ways to fire you that have nothing to do with any of the protected classifications.

It is all within my rights as a business owner. I can also take a dislike to the fact that you have children, you are too old, your beliefs are not to my liking or I don't like the fact that you do origami in your free time at home. As an employer I can do whatever I want, I just have to find the right way to do it so that it fits my world view.

I am being extreme in my examples for a reason. Someone can express their dislike and outright hatred as a business owner, they just have to find a way to do it that does an end run around any legalities.

If someone doesn't want to hire smokers, that is their business. But I can also not buy from a vendor or business that I think doesn't fit my beliefs. I mean, I shouldn't patronize a business with _those _ kind of people running it or employing _those_ kind of people, right?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Well as a smoker I've been called all kinds of names, but lazy has never been one of them..

I don't miss work even when those who live closer can't make it to work I'm still here.. Working!

To those that called smokers lazy and other things.. I can't say what i think of you! 

As to business hiring/not hiring smokers, that it their business.. But not the Governments.. If a business want to allow smoking the Government should butt(pun intended) out..

Also know that if this type of discriminatory hiring becomes public knowledge, the business may lose business..

If I know that a business is discriminating against people I won't do business with them..

It's that simple.. 

Do as you will, just remember there are consequences for your actions, be they good or bad..


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Interesting read: http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-ba...ion-byu-not-at-fault-for-upholding-honor-code.

As I recall Oral Roberts University has very strict rules as well.


----------



## DavidUnderwood (Jul 5, 2007)

beowoulf, you are exactly right.
The market will sort it out.
Government intervention not needed.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

DavidUnderwood said:


> beowoulf, you are exactly right.
> The market will sort it out.
> Government intervention not needed.


Ditto that in re every challenge/obstacle on the planet.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Nothing worse than a reformed smoker or prostitute nether one wants anyone else to have any fun :bow:

At present i only hire smokers required to always have smokes on hand, so when i run out i can bum one :croc:


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Nothing worse than a reformed smoker or prostitute nether one wants anyone else to have any fun :bow:
> 
> At present i only hire smokers required to always have smokes on hand, so when i run out i can bum one :croc:


There ya go....

And we are looking to move to Tenn 
So do you know of anyone that is looking for an old broken down Teamster, Grain Miller who is now a Draftsman/CADD operator?:gaptooth::cowboy:


----------



## Aunt Elner (Feb 6, 2005)

I kind of like the way my employer handles it. Our insurance rates went up 10% this year, however, if you are a non-smoker, are willing to join the wellness program (free), and agree to be tested for nicotine use, then you get a 15% discount on your insurance. 

The wellness program provides rewards for those who work at meeting standardized goals: 
If you're overweight, reducing your weight by a certain percentage
Maintaining good blood glucose and cholesterol levels
Cancer screening (something as simple as a stool smear test for blood, mammogram, etc..)
Exercising (walking, arobics, weightlifting, just about anything) 5 x week
Eating healthier - reducing meat, increasing vegetable protiens, increasing fruits/veggies/whole grains to dietary recommendations etc...

Twice a year I go in for an evaluation that takes about 10 minutes; I pee in a cup, they poke my finger, I get weighed, I fill out a questionnaire and return it. If I meet 5/5 goals, I get a check for $200, 4/5 goals gets $100.

So, not only do a I get a 5% decrease in cost on my insurance from last year (about $1100) but I also get $400/yr - for pretty much doing what I've been doing, or ought to be doing, anyway.

And it's all voluntary. If I want to pay extra on my insurance or decline some extra $$, I can certainly do so.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

When I worked at the animal shelter, 3 of our 5 workers smoked. I was not one of them. Every hour, those three would head out the back door to smoke and would come back 10 minutes later. Me and the other non-smoker were left to handle the entire place by ourselves, and when we got busy that was HECTIC. They always seemed to time their smoke break around when we were the busiest or when something came up they didn't want to do, too 

Do the math here: 8 hours to a working day. Take out smoking during lunch break and before/after work, there were about 5 smoke breaks a day. 5 breaks x 10 minutes = 50 minutes. So nearly an hour of work each day per employee lost to smoke breaks.

If we ALL had the same number of breaks, that'd be one thing. But basically they were discriminating against non-smokers by making us work more hours in a day for the same pay as the smokers.

One day I decided I'd had enough. Got a pack of candy cigs and when the smokers went out the back door I followed them. They lit up, I pulled out a candy cig and started chewing on it. Wasn't out there 30 seconds before the boss emerged from his office to come tell me to get back to work. I told him "I'm taking a cig break, boss, be back when I'm done!" with a cheery smile on my face. He wasn't amused and insisted I either get back into the building or get fired. Unless I was willing to actually pick up smoking as a habit, I would do my work (and for 10 minutes out of every work hour, I'd do my work and their work too).

I've worked at a good number of places in my day, and I hate to say it but this was typical of my overall experience with smokers. Didn't matter how strict the boss was, didn't matter what setting we were in, the addicts would head out as often as possible to smoke. If their smoke break got delayed they were beastly to work with and you had to listen to them bi**ch and moan about "their" break being "taken away" from them.

Only exception was when I worked for GEICO. To get in or out of the building you had to use your ID badge. Supervisors got a report every morning showing what time each of their employees badged in, what doors they entered/exited during the day and exactly what time, etc. You were held to a very strict "2 breaks of 15 minutes each, one 30 minute lunch break" and they knew to the SECOND how long you were outside the building. They would hire smokers and most of them wouldn't make it thru the first *week *because they couldn't do what they had done on all their other jobs - sneak out for cig breaks.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bluemoonluck said:


> When I worked at the animal shelter, 3 of our 5 workers smoked. I was not one of them. Every hour, those three would head out the back door to smoke and would come back 10 minutes later. Me and the other non-smoker were left to handle the entire place by ourselves, and when we got busy that was HECTIC. They always seemed to time their smoke break around when we were the busiest or when something came up they didn't want to do, too
> 
> Do the math here: 8 hours to a working day. Take out smoking during lunch break and before/after work, there were about 5 smoke breaks a day. 5 breaks x 10 minutes = 50 minutes. So nearly an hour of work each day per employee lost to smoke breaks.
> 
> ...


Yep, regular smoke breaks are a problem to the other workers who dont smoke, doesnt seem hardly fair does it? Maybe we should do away with smoke breaks and just let everyone smoke whenever, where ever they want to like the old days. I recall many years ago when I had "regular" jobs, we smoked while working, and nobody complained. :shrug:


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, regular smoke breaks are a problem to the other workers who dont smoke, doesnt seem hardly fair does it? Maybe we should do away with smoke breaks and just let everyone smoke whenever, where ever they want to like the old days. I recall many years ago when I had "regular" jobs, we smoked while working, and nobody complained. :shrug:


No, it isn't fair.

I'd love to see you smoking around all the asthmatics that abound in the world today. My DD goes to school with a girl who carries an EpiPen because she's so allergic to nicotine that walking near someone with second-hand smoke on their clothing would send her into anyphalactic shock. Sure, let the teachers smoke in their break room like they did in the "good ol days", why not? 

My Dad is a smoker. 3 packs a day, started when he was 9 years old and he's now 70 years old. I have asthma because he smoked around me as a child, but I love my Dad and recognize that he is addicted; he didn't smoke around me to be mean, he did it because he is a slave to his nicotine addiction.

FWIW I don't care what you do on your personal time, but when you are at work I expect you to arrive in a presentable fashion (ie clothing appropriate to the job, not reeking of anything including perfume/body odor/smoke of any kind) and ready to WORK. 

The problem is, smoking is an addiction. I'd argue that the vast majority of addicts simply CAN'T set aside their addiction for 8 hours and pull a full day's work. That goes for crack heads, alcoholics, and smokers alike. A company wouldn't hire someone who drank alcohol all day long - even thou that's perfectly legal as long as you're over 21 years of age. They can argue all they want that they are a functioning alcoholic, and that drinking is legal, but it would affect the productivity of the workplace. 

Smokers can say all they want that they won't smoke at work, but they are addicts - when the urge hits for a nicotine fix they can't simply ignore it and finish the remainder of the day at 100% capacity any more than a meth head could finish his shift when the craving hits.

Companies can fire people for taking unauthorized breaks, and they do. I've seen it done... doesn't matter if that break is for texting your girlfriend or smoking, you can and should be fired. 

In an ideal world, everyone would be given a shot at a job they meet the qualifications for, regardless of whether they smoke or not. But the first time you're caught smoking "on company time" you should get shown the door. That gives the smokers an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is....How many smokers would be willing sign a contract specifying that the first offense = immediate termination of employment?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I have to wonder where all these chronic asthmatics were for all those years before smoking became the pet peeve of the health industry? I dont recall ever seeing any of them 30 or 40 years ago? :shrug: 

Maybe a little exposure to second hand smoke cured them all?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

bluemoonluck said:


> How many smokers would be willing sign a contract specifying that the first offense = immediate termination of employment?


You would have to ask a smoker who wants a job that question. I have never been confronted with the issue during my 45 years of employment. Mostly thats due to having worked for myself the greatest portion of that time, and what few jobs I did have was working for sensible people that allowed smoking on the job, in my workstation.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I'm thinking Bars and Restaurants should be able to hire only smokers so that they can have smoking in in their establishments if they want. Post it on the door-This is a Smoking Area. Heard the other day a Auto company built a factory. The Union was set to move in. The Auto Co. walked away. Good for them I say. The Union lost a whole bunch of people Jobs. Whether one is an employer or a worker, we should all have Freedom to make choices.Deal with what the end results.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

Related article: http://www.aolhealth.com/2011/03/04...?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl4|sec1_lnk3|204695.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Ken Scharabok said:


> Related article: http://www.aolhealth.com/2011/03/04...?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl4|sec1_lnk3|204695.


When I was a kid,had earakes all the time. My dad would blow,some good ol Lucky Strike in my ear. Don't remember if it worked,but getting my tonsils out sure cured it.


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have to wonder where all these chronic asthmatics were for all those years before smoking became the pet peeve of the health industry? I dont recall ever seeing any of them 30 or 40 years ago? :shrug:
> 
> Maybe a little exposure to second hand smoke cured them all?


Are you serious? They were there all along... until people stopped being so darn polite and sucking it up. Some people get asthma symptoms, some people get migraines, and some people get distracted by the smell as if having to work next to someone who passed wind all the time. (Oh no, since the latter is an involuntary physical issue that just MIGHT be protected! Shudder!)

Of course there are people who don't care either way. Regardless, BlueMoon's experience is what I have seen as well. I am SURE there are smokers here who have acted like that on the job - not like anyone is going to admit it here!

I think there probably should be businesses owned by smokers who hire only smokers. Nothing wrong with hiring the like-minded. Edited to add, Oops, what 7thswan said!


----------



## Jan Doling (May 21, 2004)

I remember when people smoked on the job. Much of their time was wasted cleaning their ashtrays, working their lighters, starting, finishing, or enjoying their ciggies. By the end of the day, there was little visibility above the desks. The air was thick and gray-blue. It offended many people, but they were bullied into submission by the smoke addicts who felt their right to smoke trumped anyone else's right to breathe (much like today's fragrance bullies).

Being employed is not a God-given right. If you insist on having things your way, start your own business.

I think I'd rather not have to deal with someone stupid enough to smoke...but that's just my choice. Why should I pay additional insurance premiums because of their poor choices?


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

Smokers support health care in Arkansas. The tax on smokes now $1 per pack goes to the children health care. The money is drying up but is it cruel to have something necessarily going to children and have the money stop when they have to quit to be hired?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Um.....
The OP was not about "smoking".
Why is it so hard to stay on point?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Um.....
> The OP was not about "smoking".
> Why is it so hard to stay on point?


"Smokers need not apply" was the thread title, and the OP brought forward the issue of discrimination against smokers in the workplace. :shrug:


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Um.....
> The OP was not about "smoking".
> Why is it so hard to stay on point?


Of course it was. The topic has probably stayed "on point" more than most on this forum.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I thought the 'meat' of the topic was employers delving into ones private life off the clock. Maybe I missed the point??


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I thought the 'meat' of the topic was employers delving into ones private life off the clock. Maybe I missed the point??


That aspect has been mentioned in the thread, and variations upon that theme as well, but the op was directed primarily at the hiring or not hiring of smokers. As Steve pointed out, this thread is now into the 200 plus post range, and its amazing that we havent drifted far further than this by now! That being said..... what is your stance on employers delving into ones private life off the clock? Should we be able to date who we wish? even if he or she happens to be a key player in a competitors management team? What about using recreational drugs on weekends? In my opinion an employer should have the right to hire or fire anyone they choose, for any reason. I also believe an employee has the right to quit any job, for any reason. Now heres one that really bugs me.... does an employer have any right to dictate who someone may work for in the future?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Ones private life can impact ones ablity to employment.

A TB carrier is not the ideal employee in many fields
A person with farm animals is not an ideal employee for corp farm animal operations.
A person with a history of DV or Child endangerment might not be my first choice for a camp councler

Because of background checks persons past and current behaviors do impact ones chances of employment in spefice job opening.

Do you want a person publicly involed with organizations which promote the killing of "infadels" or "blacks" or "abortion doctors" (does not matter the what the target group is to make the point --listing many to be as PC as my time allows) working in a place where ammo, bombing material, abortion clincs,. 



Limitations are a fact in Nature.


----------



## ||Downhome|| (Jan 12, 2009)

it happens, employers geting into your PB that is, more often then not.

the thing that got me was that current employees will not be held to the new standard.

but yes employers should have the right to hire and fire as they see fit. though I think the OP is looking for more then just "smoker discrimination". 

I also think that if a companies employment practices are not acceptable to the public let them vote with the check book. 

the whole thing though is I would not work for a company that delved into my personal life to far, somethings I could see. but the way I see it they are paying for my time not buying my soul.

here is a question what about those on prescription drugs? is it ethical for a company to deny employment or even ask? seems we are talking tongue in cheek about "health costs". what about people prone to disease? can a employer request your medical records? sure they can but is it legal or ethical? what about young people that may or may not go out and get crazy every now and again and damage themselves?

there are a lot of potential health cost that could be incurred in any number of ways besides smoking, how shall we weed these people from the fold?

I think that is what a few people have seized on, and the invasion of your personal life.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

First off, I have always thought a person should be able to decide who will be hired and who won't - regardless. If it is your business, it's your business.

Now, this is definitely a proverbial slippery slope. Now it's the smokers and those who aren't smokers can continue to feel good about themselves and feel they are in no way being harmed by this. 

As someone said, what if it is someone with diabetes, or HBP. Now I know some won't believe it, but there are a whole lot of people out there who are on medication for both these diseases and are not obese. 

Also, what if diabetes, heart trouble, cancer are prevalent in your family - should you be denied employment?

Another thought - would an employer be justified in firing someone who develops some medical condition?

As for the smell of smokers, it is offensive sometimes - but as someone else said, so is smoke from a wood stove - as much as I love wood stoves. I have to make sure our bedroom door stays shut so the smoke smell doesn't get in there or I won't be able to sleep.

And my big no-no for smells is perfume. There is nothing that takes my breathe away like perfume. It doesn't even have to be heavy to do the job - there are only a few I can tolerate. Fabric softener scents get to me as well.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> That aspect has been mentioned in the thread, and variations upon that theme as well, but the op was directed primarily at the hiring or not hiring of smokers. As Steve pointed out, this thread is now into the 200 plus post range, and its amazing that we havent drifted far further than this by now! That being said..... what is your stance on employers delving into ones private life off the clock? Should we be able to date who we wish? even if he or she happens to be a key player in a competitors management team? What about using recreational drugs on weekends? In my opinion an employer should have the right to hire or fire anyone they choose, for any reason. I also believe an employee has the right to quit any job, for any reason. Now heres one that really bugs me.... does an employer have any right to dictate who someone may work for in the future?



Hmmmmmm
Do you know, that here in my state, if high school kids, get into a fight on a Saturday night, NOT on school property, and the Principal gets wind of it, the student is suspended from school, and it goes on his/her perminate record??

So the public schools are now 'following' the kids around on the weekend.
They also check their 'face books / my spaces / twitter' accounts, regularly. And if they see 'behavior' they do not like, they are repremanded by the school, and it goes on their perminate record.

All of this "documentation" on the perminate record then gets looked at by potential colleges......who may deny them, based upon this NON SCHOOL TIME, OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS documentation. So the child really has NO personal life........No personal space.......No personal, freedoms. Because the "Big Brother" school is watching and snitching on your every decision.

I see this in my very own school district. It really does happen.

So, I guess, is this the way it's gonna be?
What if my employer is a holy roller? And I go hang out at a "shake joint" on a Saturday night. When I report for work Monday, can they fire me?

What if my employer is a wiccan? And I go to church on Sunday and get baptized Baptist. When I report for work Monday, can they fire me?

I guess it's ok to say 'no smokers'. But what if you said "no fat chicks". What if you said, no ugly guys?

This happenes every day.
How many 400lb servers do you see in restaurants?
How many folks with severe acne or facial scarring or birth defects do you see working in the public (starbucks kid / server / busser / drive thru kid)

It happens every day.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Oh my, are they still using the "permanent record" in our schools to intimidate the kiddies? I would have thought they had come up with something else by now! You know, something that might even work. What a knee trembler it must be to the drug dealing thugs to know that Ms B is going to note their misdeeds committed in the classroom on their "permanent record".

My concerns with the "smokers need not apply" is not that an employer may discriminate against smokers.... or fat people or ugly people or stupid people, but that our government is passing laws requiring them to do so!


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Oh my, are they still using the "permanent record" in our schools to intimidate the kiddies? I would have thought they had come up with something else by now! You know, something that might even work. What a knee trembler it must be to the drug dealing thugs to know that Ms B is going to note their misdeeds committed in the classroom on their "permanent record".


It's not the thugs, but the kids that get bullied and don't do a thing on school grounds because they DO care about 'the permanent record".......and when the bully runs into the kid OFF school grounds and the kid defends himself........HE STILL gets in trouble.
That's such a huge load of carpola.



> My concerns with the "smokers need not apply" is not that an employer may discriminate against smokers.... or fat people or ugly people or stupid people, but that our government is passing laws requiring them to do so!


Right......own a restaurant free and clear, taxes paid on time....and try to light a smoke in your own place in my county.
YOU WILL be fined.
Do it again? YOU WILL be fined, heavily.
Do it again? THE government will revoke your liquor license and your work permit.....


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The majority of people who are employed applied for the job that they, the employee, began the employor employee relationship.

Typically, there is a job openning announcement for which the potential employee was made a where of. There are lots of job announcements and lots of way for the news of a job to reach a person seeking a job.

A person looking for a job sorts thur the offers (hopefully) with a diserning eye. 
Is it a job I can do
Is it a job I am willing to do
is it a job that will meet my needs
is it a job located where I can get to
is it a job that will not be a burden to me
Then once the future worker believes that there is enough positive reasons the future employee goes to the next step and starts the paperwork.

It is very common that there is an interview aspect to follow. This is a chance for BOTH sides to ask questions and LEARN more about the details. Yes, by law many questions can not be asked and many facts do not have to be revealed. This should be an important freewill choice that both parties make. So, why is that employees would choose to work for a person or company that goes against and interfers with his/her personsonal beliefs or life in a way that is unacceptable. It is the respocablity of both the employer to be and the employee to be to make the choice to get in to the work relationship. It is also to be known that unless certain types of contracts are signed that if any party to the work relationship finds at a later time that they wish to end the relationship they can. It is about responceablity. 

Seems like the examples given are very weak in that a employee that fails to do any homework on who they are going to be interview is or what the company does now is unprepared for the fact that they (the employee) freely choose to work for someone with out finding out important information. So, now the poorly prepared soon to be exemployee is now a victim of the mean employor vs accepting responceablity for actions (accepting and agreeing to work in job that fails to suit them). The acceptance of responceablity greatly improves the chance for knowledge and improvement in ones self. As long as we can blame someone else for the bad results of a siduation we do not have to face our self as to how we contributed to the end results.


----------



## Shrarvrs88 (May 8, 2010)

I am a quitter. I can tell you for a fact that a nonsmoker has A LOT more time than a smoker...and if I had a business, I wouldn't hire a smoker, either. I think people should be able to choose. 

AND I think .gov should keep their regulations to themselves.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

On a permanent record, I did some things, fairly minor stuff, in high school I shouldn't have. Yet, when I was in the Navy after about a year I was put in for a Top Secret clearance and it come though. Several of my references said the FBI did come and talk with them.

I think some latitude should be given towards prior records.


----------

