"We're not denying smokers their right to tobacco products. We're just choosing not to hire them."

[The Straight Story]

More job-seekers are facing an added requirement: no smoking — at work or anytime.

As bans on smoking sweep the USA, an increasing number of employers — primarily hospitals — are also imposing bans on smokers. They won't hire applicants whose urine tests positive for nicotine use, whether cigarettes, smokeless tobacco or even patches.

Such tobacco-free hiring policies, designed to promote health and reduce insurance premiums, took effect this month at the Baylor Health Care System in Texas and will apply at the Hollywood Casino in Toledo, Ohio, when it opens this year.

"We have to walk the walk if we talk the talk," says Dave Fotsch of Idaho's Central District Health Department, which voted last month to stop hiring smokers.

...

"We're trying to promote a complete culture of wellness," says Marcy Marshall of the Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa., which begins its nicotine-free hiring next month. "We're not denying smokers their right to tobacco products. We're just choosing not to hire them."

...

After several companies, including Alaska Airlines, adopted smoker-hiring bans a couple of decades ago, the tobacco industry and the American Civil Liberties Union lobbied for smoker rights. As a result, 29 states and the District of Columbia passed smoker-protection laws.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/story/2012-01-03/health-care-jobs-no-smoking/52394782/1

[MadHound]

1. Trying to promote a culture of wellness, but instead promoting a culture of fascism,

Today tobacco, tomorrow food, day after. . .

[TheDebbieDee]

5. I agree. It's a slippery slope!

[Yo_Mama]

90. Which is by definition unwell

What next? Weigh in or don't get hired? No stoop-shouldered individuals? If caffeine levels are too high, tough luck on you?

We are turning into a pissant, petty, tight-assed society, and I don't like it one bit.

Also, people need to be aware that a number of foods contain nicotine, and it is possible to test positive for nicotine usage even if you don't use. I love eggplant and tomatillos and peppers, and unfortunately they all contain nicotine. Also potatoes, especially unskinned.

I asked a doctor who said yes, you have to be careful about your general food consumption if you are going to be tested for nicotine.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/26557-reasons-false-positives-nicotine-blood/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/293186-list-of-foods-that-contain-nicotine/
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308053290619
http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/nicotine/nicotine_testing.shtml

I eat tons of this stuff. I bet I would test positive. I've always really liked cauliflower, and we eat lots and lots of broccoli and eggplant, and worse yet, we like them kind of crunchy - we both hate mushy veggies, so unfortunately we do get most of the stuff.

My husband has CAD, and we were advised to adopt a vegetable-based diet. And we did. Now we've got really low cholesterol and triglycerides and blood pressure, but are we going to be unemployable? Apparently some kinds of black tea have nicotine also.

This is getting ridiculous, IMO.

[TheDebbieDee]

2. I quit smoking 8-1/2 years ago..........but I AM overweight.

I'd be willing to bet that conforming to some weight standard will be the next criteria for getting a job.

[one_voice]

43. I'd be willing to bet...

that employers already make decisions based on weight.

[zbdent]

55. I do recall Rush Limbaugh proposing something to that affect ...

I think he was proposing that UGLY people be forced to stay indoors ...

However, I am sure that he would have made sure there was some loophole to keep his ugly fat ass out of jail for violation of the law ...

[Marrah_G]

104. It sort of already is

It's just in that unspoken way. Many people still see overweight people as lazy, slovenly, less intelligent, less dependable, etc. The thought of having to look for another job sometime in the near future scare the crap out of me.

[SomethingFishy]

3. Makes you want to keep smoking just to fucking spite them...

A complete culture of wellness. So no hiring of people who eat trans-fats? Or who drink coffee or soda? Or how about the guy who eats deep fried Twinkies or deep fried butter? They gonna hire him? Those are some healthy motherfuckers let me tell you.

[whathehell]

10. Exactly..I smoked for decades and then quit and am glad I did, but this is just fascism at work. n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

149. "It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless." -Orwell nt

[SomethingFishy]

154. What does that have to do with my post?

Not a fucking thing.

You are nothing but a pathetic fucking troll. You contribute nothing to this site, your posts are nothing but flame bait designed to anger people and get them tombstoned. Go shit on someone else.

[Dreamer Tatum]

155. Meant to reply to the poster below you.

Sorry you don't like me.

:pout:

[Vincardog]

4. They came for the smokers, I was not a smoker so I did not stand up for them.

They came for the fat people, I was not fat so I did not stand up for them.
They came for the people with bad cholesterol but mine was OK so I did not stand up for them.
They came for people with heard disease ...
So it starts

[cstanleytech]

15. Well one list I wouldnt object "to much" for them coming for would read like

They came for the tea party and republican conservatives but since I wasnt one I popped a bottle of champagne.
They came for the CEOs and most of the other 1% but since I wasnt one of them I poured myself another glass of champagne.
They came for lawyers and lobbyists but since I wasnt one of them I popped open another bottle of champagne.

[Vincardog]

21. I would probably be rolling around on the floor with you in those cases however the OP

is about the fucking insurance FURTHER gaining influence over our lives. I am opposed to that.

[SammyWinstonJack]

113. Health Insurance corps trying to promote a culture of wellness...

[SixthSense]

72. those have already come to pass

the dirty secret is that business health insurance is based on the worst health risk in the business... if you are worse than their worst health risk they will not hire you on that basis, but you will never be told so

Why do they do this? Because the insurance companies will put them out of business if they don't.

This is called Fascism and this is the country we now live in.

[KamaAina]

6. I see. It's designed to promote health.

oh, right, "and reduce insurance premiums". NOW I get it.

[PA Democrat]

46. Yep. It's all about the money.

[demtenjeep]

7. prohibition did not work

hummm

[eridani]

8. Can't figure out how nicotine patches invade other peoples' air space

Nicotine isn't harmful--it's the other components of combustion that are. This trend is getting way out of hand, IMO.

[Tunkamerica]

11. I go back and forth on the gum and it's not hurting anyone. My company has a no tobacco policy but

haven't gone to no nicotine yet.

[Yo_Mama]

92. No, of course it isn't.

That's the problem with this. Companies that refused to hire skiers and softball players would probably save more on insurance, but good lord, there is a line that should exist. A company should own your work time, not your play time, and not your soul.

[ejpoeta]

14. it's not about that... it's about insurance premiums.

But where does it end? I mean the question is.... can a company dictate what you do on your own time? Can they start asking you how many people you've slept with? We don't hire promiscuous people. We don't hire overweight people.... how about a test to see what you might get.... I hear about these tests to see what your chance of getting certain diseases is... My fear is that such things would be used to not cover you. I know that sounds crazy, but frankly I'd believe it.

I quit smoking 14 years ago...my husband three years ago. And I am glad my husband quit. But I still believe people have a right to do things on their own time. They may not be healthy, but they ARE legal. And I don't believe your employer or a potential employer should be able to fire someone or refuse to hire someone based on what they do on their own time.

[arcane1]

80. Companies will dictate this as long as they are pitching in for insurance

The bottom line is all they are looking at. If hiring you means they have to kick in an extra 20 cents a month to pay their contracted insurance corporation for employing you, they will say "no" every chance they get.

[Mosby]

24. its almost like they want to punish people

Who are quiting smoking.

Weird.

And your right, nicotine by itself is a mild, non addictive stimulant. That's why NRTs work.

[emcguffie]

130. nicotine, non-addictive?

I thought I was mightily addicted to it. You mean I was addicted to something else? if I was, then why did nicotine patches help?

[Mosby]

148. You're addicted to the free base nicotine in cigs

Last edited Fri Jan 6, 2012, 08:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Nicotine replacement therapies(NRTs) break that addiction by replacing the highly addictive nicotine in tobacco with non-addictive liquid nicotine. Once a smoker makes the transition its fairly easy to taper off the NRT.

I used the nicotrol inhaler to quit (almost 3 years ago), followed the European guidelines and I hate to say this but it was pretty easy. I used to smoke 40 cigs a day and could not even cut down to one pack until I tried the inhaler.

Phillip Morris figured out how to free base nicotine around 1965, their two main brands at the time, Marlboro and Kool shot to the top of the best selling brands very soon after. Interestingly tobacco is freebased the same way as with coke, heat and ammonia. There are also a lot of additives in cigs that makes the smoke "smoother" so one can inhale more for longer.

Edit - I should add that before the manufacturers started freebasing nicotine cigs still had a fair amount because the burning of tobacco results in some of the liquid nicotine converting into vaporous nicotine. Some researcher in Colorado has been testing the vapor nicotine and so far the worse one (by a mile) are the natural American Indian brand.

[Fawke Em]

151. The low levels in old-school cigs were far less addictive.

However, these days, cigarette companies put higher levels and other additives into the product to make you become addicted.

Foods such as broccoli, green tomatoes, etc. have natural levels of nicotine in them and we don't become addicted to that. It's only when it's artificially inflated that the addictive problems begin.

[surrealAmerican]

9. This is a good argument for ending the connection between health insurance and employment.

They buy some of your time, they don't own you.

[Capitalocracy]

12. I hate cigarettes, but this is just awful.

It's a total violation of people's rights, and I'm sad to see the trend continue and expand. And yes, what's next, people who are too fat? People who drink alcohol? What else?

[WillowTree]

13. If the employer contributes to the cost of employees' health insurance...

....I don't have any problem with this.

[SomethingFishy]

16. So then when they decide that

anything but organic foods are bad and they won't hire anyone who east pre-packaged processed food products, you'll be ok with that too?

[_ed_]

109. Yes

If, as an employer, I'm required by law to provide healthcare for my employees, I think I should have the option to require my employees to try to be as healthy as possible to reduce my costs. This is the problem with the employer mandate: gov't pawns off the issue of insurance to employers.

This type of argument just shows that we need universal single payer.

[ProfessorGAC]

116. Actually I Would Say That It Shows. . .

. . .that you haven't completely thought this through.

Any attempt to control behavior just leads to ways to circumvent the system and ultimately accomplish little.

Look how well prohibition and the drug war have worked out.
GAC

[Kellerfeller]

119. Yep

Because I won't work for that company.

And if all of the companies do it, then I will start an LLC and work that way.

Now if the gov't starts policies like that, then we can start talking about fascism and it may be a problem (depending on how the SCOTUS rules). I could make an argument for both sides since, unlike gender, age, handicaps, etc, it is something people choose and can control.

[Tikki]

18. I agree with that...

Tikki

[Luminous Animal]

20. Those employer paid premiums are, in effect, wages.

Would you also claim that since the employer pays the employee, they also have the right to dictate what they do on their own time?

[Kellerfeller]

121. They already do

In many companies, you cannot moonlight or date other employees, even on you off-time. And those policies have held up in court.

[Happyhippychick]

17. I don't see why this is wrong.

Smoking is a choice, it's not a discrimination to prohibit employees who smoke. Many companies wont hire someone who takes drugs, why is this any different?

[The Straight Story]

19. So you are in favor of choice when it comes to smoking in bars as well?

And the difference is smoking is legal - I personally want to make sure a company I work for does not hire women who have had abortions, and I am glad you are ok with that too.

[Happyhippychick]

25. If you are going to be snarky them I can't have a discussion about this

I'm trying to have a discussion and I'm being respectful. Don't you DARE tell me how I feel about abortion or anything else.

[The Straight Story]

128. Called 'choice' over one's own body

No one makes a person go to a bar, your body, your choice.

For some reason, people who claim to be pro-choice are often the most anti-choice people around because they don't actually believe in the concept they spout off but only for one thing (so not sure why they use that slogan)

[uppityperson]

137. In that case, no one makes you work a job that won't hire you because you smoke.

No one makes you go into a non-smoking bar either.

I do believe that you have the right to smoke in the privacy of your own home, that should not be penalized economically by not being hired or being fired though.

[grantcart]

138. The fallacy in your argument is that its' not your body

when you exhale the smoke you are now putting it into other people's body.

People who worked in bars with smoking and airline crew inside cabins with smokers had higher incidence of cancer.

If you want to smoke in a bar just don't exhale, then you are affecting only your own body.

[uppityperson]

135. Not just abortions and smoking in bars.

He equates any limitation of any sort with smoking and/or abortions. After all, if you believe in choice for anything, you "should" believe in choice for everything. Seat belt laws, for instance. "your body, your choice".

It is pretty amusing to watch it.

[uppityperson]

145. Next thing there'll be employers who won't hire unless you smoke. Your choice.

Again, I wish tobacco were illegal as it does cause a whole lot of problems. But, not being so, I find it ridiculous that an employer can dictate your out of work life in this way. If they were truly concerned over insurance costs, they'd take better care of their employees overall.

[LanternWaste]

99. Precisely. If I choose to never bathe again, my employer and co-workers should simpl

Precisely. If I choose to never bathe again, my employer and co-workers should simply hold their noses. The onus of responsibility for my decision not bath lies on them, not me.

(the great thing about hypothetical variations on a theme is that they can go in more than direction...)

[surrealAmerican]

26. Everything you do in your "free time" is a choice.

Would it be fine with you to prohibit employees who eat junk food?
... drive cars?
... live in a "bad" neighborhood?
... have children?

[Happyhippychick]

30. No. And I wouldn't ban smokers either but I can't say that employees don't have that right.

[uppityperson]

33. Are you saying you believe an employer has the right to prohibit you from something

legal during your non-work time? Are you saying employees have no right to doing anything, unless their employer says they can? I am trying to understand what you are saying.

[Happyhippychick]

39. You raise good points. I guess I'm saying this: I believe employers should provide health

coverage, I believe this coverage is a right. Smokers jeopardize this right for all employees by choosing to smoke and driving up the costs of insurance, thereby affecting others. It does a smoker a huge favor to incentivize them to quit so I'm not really feeling sorry for them if that's what it takes.

[uppityperson]

45. Which would encourage someone to stop smoking. Get fired and not be able to find a job, or working

with them in a program to stop smoking? And if someone has stopped smoking, is using a nicotine patch, they still should be fired.

Yes "incentivize them to quit" but not by firing them as that won't "incentivize them to quit".


I guess you are ok with mandatory cholesterol tests and those whose numbers are too high should also be fired as they choose to eat/not exercise which drives up the costs of insurance also. And women should be mandated to be sterilized as pregnancy also drives up costs of insurance.

[Happyhippychick]

50. Care to make any other assumptions about me? Or have you had your fill? I guess it isn't

possible to have a civilized conversation and even learn from each other. Too bad because that's what I was trying to do. You are more concerned with ramming your opinions down someone's throat while putting them down.

Too bad I won't see an answer to this if you have one since my ignore list is beckoning.

[uppityperson]

51. At what point do you decide what is legally ok but a fireable offense?

I ask you difficult questions and come up with similar situations and you put me on ignore. Gotcha. Bye.

[Happyhippychick]

58. I am answering your questions but your retorts are full of unflattering assumptions about my

character. So I don't choose to continue.

[uppityperson]

77. since you haven't answered ANY of these questions to clarify, I am assuming from what you do write.

If it is unflattering, then you know how to clarify. (hint, to clarify, answer the questions instead of complaining about my asking and assuming from what you have written)

Here are the questions I have asked you which you haven't answered:

Which would encourage someone to stop smoking? Get fired and not be able to find a job, or working with them in a program to stop smoking?

At what point do you decide what is legally ok but a fireable offense?

Are you saying you believe an employer has the right to prohibit you from something legal during your non-work time? Are you saying employees have no right to doing anything, unless their employer says they can?

What else should they be able to control? No fast food, no processed food, must ride a bicycle or a car that gets more than 50mpg? How about no shoes make of leather?

If they don't want to go along, they don't have to work there? Is this right?

[bighart]

108. So the natural prgression of this could then lead to pre-employment screening for:

Cholesterol
Body mass index
Alcohol consumption
Dietary fat intake
Family history of heart disease, diabetes etc.
Allergies

All of these things could be argued to effect the cost of health insurance as the lead to more claims.
Not to mention getting into reviewing your hobbies and excluding someone based on the fact that a persons
off work interests make them "more likely to suffer a catastrophic injury".

[LanternWaste]

101. Yes.

"Are you saying you believe an employer has the right to prohibit you from something legal during your non-work time? "

Yes. I have signed four non-disclosure agreements, and am prohibited from publicly writing anything negative about my company unless it gets vetted first.

[Kellerfeller]

122. Do you mean like

working another job (even a competitor)? Or dating a company employee?

[surrealAmerican]

36. This is about companies, who pay you for a few hours a day ...

... trying to dictate your activities for the hours they are not paying you.

I don't smoke, but it's a legal activity just like the other things I listed. So long as it isn't something you're doing while at work, they shouldn't have any rights here.

[uppityperson]

27. Drinking coffee is a choice, it's not a discrimination to prohibit employees who drink coffee even

on their days off?

It is different because smoking and drinking coffee are legal, whereas taking drugs isn't.

What else should they be able to control? No fast food, no processed food, must ride a bicycle or a car that gets more than 50mpg? How about no shoes make of leather? Those are all choices also.

[Happyhippychick]

34. Yes I used a bad example since drugs are illegal, my wishful thinking that tobacco should be

illegal.

I don't see it as employers controlling an employee, I think employees have a choice to not work in a place that has policies that they disagree with.

But I understand that I'm in the minority, I hate everything about smoking and I think people should quit. If there job is at stake then I say "good incentive."

[uppityperson]

37. So you believe and employer can demand anything of its employees. If they don't want to go along,

they don't have to work there? Is this right?

So an employer could say you have to go to a particular church, or none, that you have to eat a particular diet, or buy a particular car, or anything else, or not have sex, or only watch particular shows on tv. And you believe employers should have this right. To dictate what you do during all the time you are not at work.

Incredible. Employers have the right to demand anything of their employees during their non-work time. Incredible.

[Happyhippychick]

41. I'm done. It's difficult to have conversations tonight without people being rude and condescending

[uppityperson]

47. Not being condescending here, trying out other examples.

I will go edit out the personal comment about your "hippy" user name though, if that would help.

[U4ikLefty]

86. Ha ha, it looks more like you were unprepared to defend your position & bailed.

funny to read

[SlimJimmy]

52. Do you agree with my edit? This is also bad for my health.

Yes I used a bad example since drugs are illegal, my wishful thinking that being overweight should be illegal.

I don't see it as employers controlling an employee, I think employees have a choice to not work in a place that has policies that they disagree with.

But I understand that I'm in the minority, I hate everything about being overweight and I think people should not eat too much. If there job is at stake then I say "good incentive." [/div class]

[Happyhippychick]

59. No because you can't live without food. You can live without smoking.

[SlimJimmy]

61. I didn't say food for basic sustenance, I said eating too much and being overweight.

There's quite a difference between the two. One we must do to survive, the other is a choice (just like smoking).

[Happyhippychick]

100. Only if someone can scientifically prove which foods make one overweight which science has

failed to do. One team says its carbs, another says it's animal fats, a third says its a mixture of dairy and protein, and on and on and on. No consensus in the nutrition field. Also no consensus as to why these foods will make some gain weight and others not, is it hormones or genetics or something else?

Plenty of consensus that smoking harms and kills not only the smoker but harms others as well. All smokers are blackening their lungs, not everyone who eats pastrami is clogging his arteries.

[SlimJimmy]

105. It doesn't matter *what* makes them overweight. If they are overweight then

they shouldn't be hired. It's the same as smoking. It doesn't matter what brand they smoke, if they have nicotine in their system, not hired. Using the same logic, if a person is overweight, not hired.

Being overweight is also a health risk. Extra weight lowers life expectancy, and raises health costs. Not all that different than smoking.

[Dreamer Tatum]

63. +1 nt

[uppityperson]

139. By the way, I think tobacco should be illegal, like marijuana is.

I see tobacco as hurting so many people in so many ways, their health, economically, in man ways. But Big Tobacco has too much money for that to happen.

[MFrohike]

31. Try this

Why should an employer have regulatory power over an employee's life regarding legal activities? Your example regarding ILLEGAL drugs isn't valid because we're talking about an activity that violates no law. The distinction is simple. I doubt many people would disagree with an employer who fired someone over drunk driving, but I doubt very many would agree for firing someone for drinking period.

[markpkessinger]

64. Lots of people seem to have no problem with public school teachers being fired ...

... for what appears to be drinking in photographs published on Facebook.

[MFrohike]

73. As they should

This culture is way too voyeuristic and moralizing for all the stuff we do on a daily basis. Whatever happened to the old rule of minding one's own business?

[uppityperson]

141. Did you mean people should have A problem with teachers being fired over photos showing drinking?

the poster wrote "seem to have no problem with public school teachers being fired ", wanted to clarify what you meant. Thnks.

[MFrohike]

152. Good catch

Yeah, I misread that.

[uppityperson]

140. I have a problem with teachers being fired over fb photos showing drinking.

People over 21 have the legal right to drink. They also have the right to put stupid photos of themselves out there.As MFrohike said "This culture is way too voyeuristic and moralizing for all the stuff we do on a daily basis. Whatever happened to the old rule of minding one's own business?"

[Cerridwen]

54. Smoking begins as a choice and becomes an addiction.

I don't like business telling me what I can do in my off hours or attempting to regulate it when it impacts my work performance not at all.

I feel the same about drug testing. I don't care if the parts guy at my auto repair is high as a kite if he can find the damned part and run the register.

This idea that business gets to run our life makes my teeth itch...at the least.

I don't care how they justify it. They don't give two shits about their employees' health. If they did, they'd pay them more, work them less, and reward them frequently.

[CrispyQ]

112. You nailed it here:

"They don't give two shits about their employees' health. If they did, they'd pay them more, work them less, and reward them frequently."

They would also fight for universal health care. But they like that they can use health insurance as a way to manipulate & control the employees.

This country is so fucked up. Our everything-for-profit mentatlity has created a cultural cesspool.

[arcane1]

83. The ultimate problem is "health" insurance benefits...

as long as our for-profit system exists, you're right: this kind of policy is perfectly logical. Companies would not give a rat's ass if they didn't have to also deal with our medical insurance. Our medical care is beholden to bean-counters working for our employers. THAT is the problem!

[Happyhippychick]

102. Thank you! I raised this point and it is the crux of my feeling. Health care is a right and until

weuntil we embrace that we will be at the mercy of for profit companies. If people are opposed to this policy then they need to examine the root and fix it, not whine about their rights which frankly dont exist!

[mrmpa]

94. Because drugs are illegal and smoking is not and

if you are on the patch, they won't hire you, but if you need to go to rehab, your employer can't discriminate against you because you would have a viable argument that you're covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

[RobinA]

125. Pregnancy Is a Choice

So my company can refuse to hire people during their fertile years?

And it is wrong to not hire people who take drugs unless they show up unfit for work. The deal with the company is "You work, you get paid."

I agree with the person upthread who said that we are becoming a mean, petty society. I hate it. The "gotchas", the rules against the smallest thing... I'm beginning to feel the way I did in first grade when there was ALWAYS somebody telling me to do this, don't do that. Signs, signs, everywhere a sign...

[uppityperson]

143. I recall being askes about my reproductive plans at my first "real" job interview.

It took me aback, even then. Single, 22, none of your f*ing business. I had to reassure them that I wasn't planning on "starting a family" for several yr so they were safe to hire me.

I agree with "you do the work, you get paid" thing and as far as insurance premiums, it is a slippery slope as so many things can and do affect your health.

[emcguffie]

133. What if they said they wouldn't hire people who went skiing, or played softball, as suggested above?

They have higher risks for injuries, and skiiers, I would guess, much more expensive injuries, but I guess the softball players as well.

That's a choice. Would it be all right to exclude them from the work force?

Just curious. Not sure I follow your line of thought.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

22. DU legal minds: wouldn't the nicotine patch prohibition constitute a pretty good lawsuit?

If someone is wearing a nicotine patch, but does not smoke or otherwise ingest tobacco products, wouldn't it be discriminatory not to hire that person based on the nicotine patch alone? I agree with others that this is a slimy move all the way around, but it seems to me that not hiring the patched is discriminatory. Am I correct in this? Thank you.

[Laelth]

103. Certainly, it is discrimination.

Employers (and people) discriminate all the time, and it is perfectly legal to do so unless an employer discriminates on a specific basis that is illegal. It would be perfectly acceptable, for example, for an employer to reject an applicant because he or she has a nice smile. On the other hand, it would be illegal to reject an applicant on the basis of race, age (in some cases), sex (in most cases), religion, and/or national origin. Nictoine use (in any form) is a perfectly legal basis for discrimination, as are weight, attractiveness, fashion sense, height, intelligence and every other non-protected human trait or quality.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--bad example replaced.

[Codeine]

120. All hiring decisions are inherently and unavoidably "discriminatory".

There's no legal protection regarding nicotine patch use and thus no real grounds to sue. I discriminate in hiring against people with visible gang- or neighborhood-related tattoos because that can cause friction with customers who are affiliated with other gangs and intimidate those who are afraid of people like that.

I discriminate against people who are so unable to express themselves that they'll never be able to speak openly to customers and against people who have noticeably poor hygiene. I discriminate against people who lack even the rudimentary math skills needed to handle and count money and make change or people with records of stealing from other employers.

Every decision ever made at the hiring level involves discriminating against some aspect of a person's behavior or personal traits. That's life, and it's not even vaguely illegal.

[ixion]

23. culture of wellness my ass

If you want to incorporate wellness, find ways to reduce stress. I'm sure they're not worrying about that one bit. The corporate model is suck'em in, burn'em out, and then kick them to the curb when they're exhausted.

[Journeyman]

28. I recognized this trend decades ago. Part of the reason I quit smoking. . .

Don't agree with it, just didn't want it to limit my options. . .

(Smoke-free 26 years tomorrow at 5:30 pm)

[Dreamer Tatum]

29. I'm fine with this. nt

[uppityperson]

32. What else are you fine with them prohibiting? No fast foods or processed foods, no high fat

or high salt foods at home? Only organic fresh fruits/vegetables?

How about not hiring anyone who drinks soda?

[Dreamer Tatum]

38. Eh. Whatever is fine. nt

[uppityperson]

40. An employer can dictate what you do during the time you aren't at work, even legal things.

They can dictate your sexuality, how often you bathe, what you eat or drink, what you do for recreation, what you own, where you go, etc etc etc, all legal things during the time you are not at work.

And you are fine with that. Incredible.

[Dreamer Tatum]

57. But none do that.

Not wanting stinking-assed, time-wasting, often-ill smokers is perfectly understandable.

[Texasgal]

66. Yeah, not yet

as the non-smoker ban becomes more popular the other things will come. Guaranteed.

Overweight? No job for you!

Diabetic? No job for you!

Pregnancy age? No job for you!



I could go on...

[Dreamer Tatum]

67. And Congress would soon remedy that.

I'm not worried.

[Texasgal]

68. I'm glad someone isn't.

I don't trust that congress will do the right thing.

[hughee99]

87. But it's okay to have one as president?

I don't think President Obama likes your broad brush of smokers.

[Dreamer Tatum]

88. I don't give a flying motherfuck what anyone thinks of my disregard for smokers. nt

[hughee99]

89. Even your "stinking-assed, time-wasting, often-ill" President? n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

91. I don't know if he wastes time, but if he still smokes, he fucking stinks.

What, does his shit not stink, either?

[hughee99]

95. Don't forget, often-ill.

It's refreshing to see someone who's not afraid to broad brush a whole group of people, including the president, over a single issue. Especially smokers, who, unlike non-smokers, waste time, are often sick, and stink, and deserve whatever punishment society decides to give them.

[Dreamer Tatum]

111. I will broad-brush smokers as STINKY all I like, thanks.

Including *shudder* THE PRESIDENT.

They make broad brushes for a reason. This is one of them. Smokers reek.

[LanternWaste]

136. painting

"They make broad brushes for a reason..."

Painting. Everything else is simply a self-validating justification for vulgarity.

[RobinA]

126. No Alcohol

I hate drunks. No eating brussels sprouts, no bleached blonde hair, no tatoos or piercings where I can see them. Nobody who went to a school with the colors blue and white. And no large SUV drivers because some SUV drivers get on my nerves.

I'm promoting wellness, the non-eating of gross tasting vegetables, natural hair color, non-boring school colors, nonarrogance, and most importantly - people just like me.

[L0oniX]

85. +1

[TheKentuckian]

35. Smoking liberals come on to the Commonwealth where smokers are a protected class

Hell, non-smoker liberals come on in too, just don't bring that nanny state shit up in here.

[bluestate10]

42. Smoking is a choice. nt

[uppityperson]

49. Smoking during your non-work hours is legal. Eating at McD's is a choice also. Is it a fireable

offense?

[bluestate10]

65. The article was not on firing. It was on not hiring.

Reliable statistics show that people that smoke miss more days from work, require costlier health care intervention and are generally not as productive as people that don't smoke.

[uppityperson]

79. Would eating at McD's be a non-hireable offense?

Reliable statistics show that people that eat high cholesterol and high sodium foods miss more days from work, require costlier health care intervention and are generally not as productive as people that don't.

[arcane1]

84. Exactly! The problem is not smoking, or hiring

the problem is our for-profit employer-based health care system!

[stevenleser]

96. Its still a problem if your taxes go to paying for.these folks' care in a single payer system

When you smoke, your choice is going to burden the health care system for.everyone else no.matter which system it is. Yes, even countries with single payer and other universal systems are wrestling with how to cope with smoking and obesity related illnesses that result.from deliberate choice (as opposed to genetic causes of obesity, for.instance).

Sorry to you smokers but thought of in the broader context of society and paying for.the care you are going to need, it is an unconscionably obnoxious and selfish act to smoke.

[RobinA]

127. Based on Reliable

statistics, you wouldn't hire me, a smoker. Single digit sick days in 32 years of work, most expensive health care in 32 years - broken arm, I can and do produce circles around most of my co-workers, and an IQ that comes in handy at time. Best to hire people, not statistics.

[The Straight Story]

53. If you don't want to hire mormons is that ok? Atheists? Those are choices to

Do tell what other choices people make in their own life you are OK with when it comes to people not hiring - can they test for virginity? What kind of car you drive?

[Cerridwen]

74. Smoking is an addiction.

It begins as a choice and continues as an addiction.

Consider yourself damned lucky if you've never experienced it or you've been able to get out from under it. But it is an addiction. It changes pathways in the brain; physiological changes.

[ecstatic]

44. Maybe they should hire them, but not put them on the group insurance

or let them pay a higher premium for joining the insurance plan? I think the issue is insurance costs associated with smokers.

[Matariki]

48. Every person in this country needs to say NO to urine testing.

No exceptions.

[HappyMe]

56. What bullshit.

Nobody has any right to tell me what I can or cannot do on my own time.


I suppose they will be going after the overweight and obese next. They drive up insurance premiums and claims too.

[Arkansas Granny]

60. I can understand restricting smoking in the workplace, but they are treating smokers

as if they are using an illegal substance. The last I heard, tobacco was a legal product and people who smoke are not breaking any law by doing so.

[Dreamer Tatum]

62. The criterion is clearly not law-breaking.

It's related to costs and lost productivity.

[Arkansas Granny]

69. Maybe so, but I don't think your employer has the right to restrict your legal activities when

you are away from the workplace. They hire you, they don't own you.

[Dreamer Tatum]

75. They CHOOSE to hire you, you mean. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

70. I believe you're completely wrong

Tell me how a nicotine patch is related to cost and loss of productivity, and maybe your terse claims will begin to gain the merit they don't enjoy now.

[Dreamer Tatum]

76. Maybe an exception can be created for patch wearers.

But smokers smell like shit and everywhere I've ever worked they leave for a smoke break every hour.

[PA Democrat]

71. As a non-smoker, I think this is wrong.

I feel this is a slippery slope. Next they'll refuse to hire who are overweight, people who drink socially, people with a family history of cancer, people who have had multiple sexual partners, people who ride motorcycles, people who skydive, people who ski, people who skateboard, people who live in high crime areas......

[randome]

106. Don't you think you're engaging in a little 'man on dog' hyperbole there?

[PA Democrat]

107. No.

[arcane1]

78. This is the kind of news that makes me really miss Bill Hicks n/t

[OmahaBlueDog]

81. High BMI will be next

It's the combination of high health care costs and the fact that American HR Executives view Dolores Umbridge as their role model.

[Pisces]

82. It is disgusting to see doctors and nurses smoking outside of the hospital. i wouldn't want these

health care providers by any patients with respiratory problems. You can still smell the smoke a mile away. This policy at
hospitals makes sense.

[Yo_Mama]

93. Let's reword that a little...

It is disgusting to see doctors and nurses overeating in the hospital cafeteria. I wouldn't want these health care providers treating any patients with weight problems. You can see their rolls of fat a mile away. This policy at hospitals makes sense....

[Zalatix]

97. I absolutely hate your argument but your logic is simply too solid!!!

I will say this, though, smoke affects other people besides the smoker. However if you're smoking outside, away from other people, that doesn't work as a counter-point either... as I said, that was a darned good argument you made.

[Pisces]

124. The logic does not stand. Residual smoke and smell does affect patients with respiratory problems.

Smoke particles stay on your clothing and hair. Being fat does not affect the patient, they can't catch it or inhale it unlike
second hand smoke. We are talking about a hospital, where people are ill, not a common workplace.

As much as smokers would like to compare it to overeating, drinking coffee, etc. none of those things affect the patient like
second hand smoke. When your choice personally affects the health of the patient then I think the hospital has a say.

They don't let doctors operate who have been drinking this is a better analogy.

[Pisces]

114. Their fat does not affect anyone's health, unlike lingering smoke on someones clothes etc can affect

a respiratory patient. This is not an apples to apples comparison. Smoke and it's by product affect everyone whether you are a smoker or not. In a hospital in particular this would seem to make the most sense.

[marions ghost]

115. you can't compare smoking to eating

--eating --in moderation-- is good.

Smoking is never good and there's no way to smoke in moderation. Smoking is more like having a bad alcohol addiction, in that it's harmful to the user and can be dangerous to others.

I am in favor of employers intervening in cases of alcoholism, severe obesity, and smoking. But I would take a more positive approach and offer incentives and concrete help, in quitting or controlling these life-threatening addictions. Some employers will help cover the cost of weight watchers, hypnotherapy, clinics, rehab, etc...

That's where we fail in this--nobody takes any responsibility for others. These addictions need assistance. People can't do it alone without understanding and tools.

[RobinA]

129. It's Disgusting

if you know a few doctors away from work and realize how much many of them drink. I don't want these drunks and hungover anywhere near patients with a scapel. Nobody who drinks should be employed by a hospital. Not to mention the insurance cost of cirrohsis - WAAAAY higher than lung cancer.

[Romulox]

110. "But I was not a pot-head, so I said nothing..." nt

[DeathToTheOil]

117. K'd & R'd

Enthusiastically

[ScreamingMeemie]

118. I am hoping that those same companies also do not participate in corporate softball leagues...

If they do, they better get ready for some discrimination lawsuits. Sames goes for bowling leagues, "team building exercises" in the woods etc...

[Douglas Carpenter]

123. If we deny an employer the right to control their employees - whether at work or outside

of work - If an employer cannot even decide what an employee is allowed to do in their spare time - Is it not just a matter of time before people will be running wild and getting up to all kinds of unacceptable activities?

[RobinA]

131. Anarchy

for sure. Citizens run amok. Even...dare I say it? Thinking for themselves. Forming in packs to talk about what's wrong at work and how it could be made better. Demanding cha...oh, forget it, I got a little manic there for a second.

[Douglas Carpenter]

134. exactly - if we don't have employers or governments or landlords doing their job and controlling us

we will not only be running amok and doing all kinds of bad things - people will become so arrogant that they will think they can make their own decisions.

[krispos42]

142. "Wellness" my fat ass. "Profit, bonuses, and dividends" is more like it. n/t

[Taverner]

146. First they came for the pot smokers...but I didn't complain...

Sorry, this is bullshit, patently unconstitutional and a violation of privacy

[LanternWaste]

156. If a company does not hire me because I refuse to sign a writing-compliance agreement...

If a company does not hire me because I refuse to sign a writing-compliance agreement (an agreement which stipulates that I will not write anything negative about the co. without it first being vetted by the co.) also unconstitutional and/or a violation of my privacy

Writing is, after all, a first amendment right, yes...

[Taverner]

157. Yep

[ParkieDem]

150. This is exactly why health care needs to be de-linked from employment

Life insurers "discriminate" against smokers all the time, and no one seems to care because it makes actuarial sense. That's why life insurers can test for cholesterol, drugs, etc.

None of this would be an employer's business if the employer didn't provide health insurance. It's an antiquated system dating from the 1940s. It sucks, and we all know it.

[ZombieHorde]

153. Authoritarians at it again. nt

[firehorse]

158. some smokers at their jobs get more free time with all their smoking breaks

in addition to their lunch breaks. Not fair to those who don't smoke.

Go ahead and flame.