Councilman Wants To Ban Smokers From City Jobs

[seriousstan]

A Central Florida councilman wants to ban people who smoke from taking any city jobs, according to a Local 6 News report.

Councilman Richard Contreras wants to ban smokers from taking jobs at City Hall, parks and even with the police department in Melbourne, Fla.

Current workers would not lose their jobs but applicants would be asked about tobacco use and smokers would be dropped from consideration, according to the report.

The reason given for the policy is to cut on health care costs, according to the report.
http://www.local6.com/news/6786475/detail.html

[bluestateguy]

1. I believe in the slipperly slope line of argument

Next it's fat people, then it's old or middle aged people, then it's people with pre-existing health conditions or even people with inherited tendencies to get certain diseases.

[merwin]

3. It's against the law to discriminate based on health conditions or age.

Weight, age, and pre-existing health conditions fall under that. It's not against the law to not hire smokers.

[Centered]

18. What is against the law now....

can be legal tomorrow... and vise versa. What if next year it becomes illegal to be gay or a Dem? Just because a law targets a group you might not want to be affiliated with doesn't mean it is a good thing.

These things are best left alone

[MrPrax]

4. Yup...

All those vice habits will simply increase the number of eligible fundamentalists, Mormons and 'jebus' freaks--no coffee, no drink, no smoke, no lates, appropriate dress, lunchroom prayers, no unions, etc etc...a pliant workforce is a corp wet dream.

[Katherine Brengle]

2. We have a law banning smokers from serving as police officers here

as well.

I don't know that this extends to any other jobs though.

Also, smokers who went on the job before the law was enacted were grandfathered.

[Bluzmann57]

5. While I'm not a smoker

this seems a bit extreme. If a person chooses to smoke it's their choice. As long as that foul stuff is away from me, it doesn't matter if someone smokes or not. After all, it's their life.

[megatherium]

6. I just watched my father die of lung cancer.

I am all for efforts to discourage people from smoking, particularly kids. But I think this goes too far; even if I were to agree that this was a good idea, I would worry that it would damage public sympathy for smoking prevention/cessation campaigns.

[Jersey Ginny]

10. Sorry to hear that. I watched my mother die too

Education and incentives are the way to go, not tactics such as this. Companies/organizations can provide free nicotine patches, sponsor fitness walks and encourage staff to attend, to raise awareness and proactively encourage quitting smoking.

[megatherium]

15. I'm sorry about your mother.

You're right about what to do -- but it needs to be a full-court press: proven-effective ads should be on TV on programs kids (early teens especially) watch. California was doing this a few years ago, and there was a big drop in teen smoking. Also, cigarette warning labels should be more informative, they should tell the smokers the magnitude of the risk. E.g., "smoking takes 14 years off of the life of the average smoker."

[radwriter0555]

32. Both my parents died from smoking related illnesses, as did my husband's.

I smoked for most of my life, even when I was a child, due to my parents' 3-4 packs per day habit, then started buying my own by age 13.

I quit several times as an adult, and finally quit for good 4 years ago.

I hope it's not too late and that I can undo the damage. I live in fear every single day of cancer. Not a Single DAY goes by that I don't worry.

My friend Randy's death at age 52 from throat cancer was my inspiration for quitting. Randy, in his death throes regretted ever picking up a cigarette and wanted his friends to learn from his mistakes. I honor his life and respect his death with his wish for the people he loved to quit smoking. http://www.randycastillo.com

That eulogy said, the amount of time I spent smoking while on my employer's time was astounding. At the top of my habit, with a lot of liberty to be away from my desk, I would spend at least an hour a day, on the clock, smoking. Non-smokers don't get that luxury, if they're not working, they're slacking off, right?

Smoking is bad for people, bad for business. If an employer wants to ban smoking and smokers, they should be able to.

You wouldn't allow your workers to have a shot of whiskey on the job, or to drink a beer... why let them smoke?

[megatherium]

37. I'm very sorry to hear about your friend and parents.

I can't honestly fault you for your position even if we disagree.

I'm glad you've quit smoking. I gather the odds drop substantially even if you quit relatively late in life (but alas not to zero). There is a large study underway, to be completed in 2009, to see if early screening for lung cancer is worthwhile. This is motivated by the fact that lung cancer is very treatable if it is caught in early stages (five year survival stats of 58% at stage one, if I recall correctly), and by the advent of new technology (the spiral CT scan) that has high enough resolution to detect cancer.

Best wishes.

megatherium

[Exiled in America]

7. Either make smoking illegal or shut the fuck up.

Smoking is legal.

It is not legal to ask questions in a interview that are not DIRECTLY relevant to one's capacity to do the job. So for example, asking someone whether or not they go to church on Sundays is illegal, but telling someone that the shift is Tuesday through Sunday 8-5 and asking them if they would have any problem with those times is not illegal.

There is nothing about whether or not one smokes in their private life that is a legal, relevant question for an interview. An employer may not allow people to smoke on the job, or at any place or time while on the clock. But an employer may not pry into the private legal activities of somone's personal life in order to make hiring decisions. That's federal law.

So I'm looking forward to the court challenges which would come from this.

[Psephos]

25. Google "Weyco Okemos smoking"

Plenty of long threads here on DU when this story broke.

BTW, I agree completely with you.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041002/NEWS03/410020328&SearchID=73186229035716

Peace.

[MnFats]

8. when will they dump candidates who consume too much fat or sugar?

and they sure as hell don't want anyone that doesn't get daily exercise.
smoking is a terrible habit, sure (I'm a smoker, dammit) but this is a slippery slope: "Did any of your parents or grandparents suffer from:
1. Diabetes;
2. hereditary cancers;
3. other hereditary diseases such as cystic fibrosis, ....
ah, hell. you get the idea.

[Jersey Ginny]

11. I don't smoke and I agree with you-bad idea! n/t

[IdaBriggs]

9. As a small business owner, I under this.

When I hired a smoker in 1999, her monthly health insurance costs (coming out of my pocket, mind you, because she wasn't generating enough income to cover her wages, let alone her benefits) was literally TWICE the amount I would have been paying if she wasn't a smoker. This was something like four hundred versus eight hundred a month -- meaning her smoking habit was personally costing me (her employer) several thousand dollars a year.

We don't have employees anymore, and my numbers are from 1999, but I don't think its gotten any better. If I ever do decide to have employees again (highly unlikely, for a variety of reasons), they are going to have to be three steps better than (deity of your choice) to justify the expense of their benefits. I'm not working for free AGAIN so someone else can kill themselves with their own stupidity, and no insult to anyone here, but health insurance costs money. Perhaps I'll just do something like "we'll chip in XXX dollars per employee to the health plan of OUR choice, and you can pay any extra costs for yourself due to your pre-existing conditions, life choices, and/or wanting to have your family covered."

Its not ideal, but when you start looking at benefits costing nearly a thousand dollars a month per employee BEFORE they get their paycheck, I just don't know what else to do, especially if I want to get all crazy and pay them a living wage.

:shrug:

[rinsd]

12. Why would you provide immediate benefits?

Even as a lure to hire someone always have a 6 month probationary period.

[IdaBriggs]

35. Hindsight is always 20-20 -- and I am the world's WORST boss,

because I was a complete pushover. Sigh. I also had this very "old fashioned" view that I was supposed to "take care of" my employees, and they would then "take care of the business" by doing a good job. Unfortunately, this completely ignored the "people are lazy, and the vast majority will do as little as they can do to collect a paycheck" which is reality, versus my "work hard" ethic.

As I said, I won't have employees again; I take the responsibility for being "too easy" on people (and not firing the ones who weren't working their butts off, which meant the ones who did work hard lost their jobs too when I couldn't afford to stay in that business anymore). I was naive, and (big surprise) there were people who took advantage of it. I was also generous -- health insurance is important to me, and I believed my employees deserved it, too.

LOL! I won't make those mistakes again.

[rinsd]

36. The lessons of trial and ERROR are always the longest lasting...

Mine is never hire a friend.

Nothing wrong with generosity, its just unfortunate that these days we must be careful who we share it with.

[sandnsea]

13. Ban fat people and drinkers too

Their medical costs are just as expensive as smokers. Hitler was into the physically perfect specimen too, if I recall.

[devilgrrl]

14. When are ASSHOLES going to be prevented from taking government jobs?

How about stupid people? How about women with children? What about drunks?

[PVK]

17. What about Republicans? n/t

[Odin2005]

16. I'm for public smoking bans, but this goes WAY too far.

:thumbsdown:

[nevergiveup]

19. How about banning

people who have traffic tickets for speeding or reckless driving?.....how about people who ski or sky dive? or gay males because of their increased risk for AIDS? or anyone who has seen a physician more than 4 times in a one year period ? This councilman should check his own closet.

[High Plains]

20. Would they still expect me to pay taxes as a second class

citizen?

[Sadie5]

21. Smokers might be second class citizens to some

but they certainly look to us at tax time.

[High Plains]

24. We're a fucking cash cow for politicians too timid to pass

progressive tax increases.

[Endangered Specie]

22. Oh boy, smoking flamewar ahead!

[donco6]

23. Ban gay people too.

Everyone knows they all get AIDS. That's really expensive, I hear.

:sarcasm:

[AngryAmish]

26. The totalitarian impulse is strong

First they came for the communists...

[Charlie Brown]

27. ACLU needs to get involved with this one

A municipal gov't CANNOT decline jobs to US citizens b/c of how they lead their personal lives.

[depakid]

30. Too late now

That argument might have had some merit back when Nancy Reagan fueled the fires of Zero Tolerance in the 80's which brought us drug testing and similar privacy intrusions.

People lost their rights on this one A LONG TIME AGO.

And they ain't getting them back.

[Charlie Brown]

31. Even for the public sector?

I understand it's anything goes for private businesses, but a city government? Surely, there's some precedent with which to fight this (proposed) law.

[depakid]

34. Public sector's been using drug testing without suspicion

since the 80's. The Supreme Court's already ruled on it- and there wasn't much outrage from smokers about it, either- because they lacked the foresight to recognize that somewhere down the line- they'd be next.

Obesity? it'll be coming that way, too. For the same "justifications."

<on edit- there wasn't much hue and cry from the Dem majority in Congress, either>

[JusticeForAll]

28. which liberty would the ACLU be protecting? n/t

[Charlie Brown]

29. equal protection under the law

Smokers are US Citizens, and cannot be disenfranchized from employment anymore than the obese, handicapped, or homosexuals (all of which could entail a health risk for employers).

[MrSlayer]

33. This is bullshit.

So ridiculous to discriminate against anyone, let alone someone for using a legal product. How soon before anyone who uses alcohol in their own time gets beat on next? Or those that eat until they are obese? I hate all this fascist bullshit.