Smokers won't get hired

iheartsippycups

https://now.msn.com/delray-beach-florida-bans-smokers-in-city-jobs

Delray Beach, FL is passing a law that if you are a smoker, they will not hire you. Current employees who smoke will not however loose their job.

What do you think about this?

I'm all for people not smoking, but not being able to get a job because of it, I don't know about that...

morayme1

This ties right in with the fat chick on the news! Why SHOULD an employer have to hire a smoker? Why should insurancde have to cover a smoker? Or a fatty? Why do people feel entitled to burden others with their lack of self control and crappy life choices?

Jimsgirl5821

Are all city buildings smoke free zones? I know alot of the hospitals here in CT are smoke free campuses, so you can't even smoke out in front of the building, if you are an employee who smokes you have to walk like a block away to smoke. I guess if the city offices have a similar policy, you could just argue that you dont want employees leaving the office area?

missymo

Lots of places are going this route. Several years ago a local small buisness fired all it's smokers citing health insurance reasons. They were an at will employer, so it was legal.

Two large health systems in my area just announced last week they will not be hiring smokers.

It just seems like BS to me. I totally understand where the businesses are coming from and smoking IS gross, but where does it end? Can a boss refuse to hire people who eat at McDonald's? I just think it crosses a line.

thisplaceisstupid

i think its ridic.

ridesbuttons

If I was hiring for a position and there was a smoker and a non smoker I'd hire the non smoker in a heartbeat.

Smokers are less efficient, take more sick days and cost more overall.  Plus, they stink.

Smoking is beyond stupid.  Hard to fathom how anybody starts smoking these days.

You choose to smoke, you pay the price.

PrincessFiona9

I'm cool with this. The local hospital systems just started this last year...smokers/tobacco users had to quit or be fired, and no one who uses tobacco products will be hired.

klondikebar

How far can employers take this? What else can you not be hired for? I don't like the idea of not being hired b/c of legal things you do in your personal life.

penguingrrl

I think it's crossing a line. I'm 100% anti smoking and can't even walk past someone have a cigarette on the street without my asthma flaring up. But while it's still legal I don't think an employee has the right to discriminate.

Shall we talk about other medical conditions that decrease productivity and increase insurance plans? What about discriminating against a woman because she's of child-bearing age and wearing rings? Giving birth is expensive plus you lose her (or have to pay for a temp) for some time after the birth. Cancer is also very expensive on your health plan, so let's not hire someone who walks into the place bald just in case. What about functioning alcoholics who still show up for work and get things done but go on benders every weekend? Eventually their liver will give out.

All that said, if someone had the gall to walk into an interview smelling like cigarette smoke I would think they were completely unprofessional and would likely not hire them over that. But unless they reek at the interview how would you even know  they were a smoker upon hire? MIL is a smoker, but manages not to reek of it.

iheartsippycups

I don't want anyone to loose their job, but how is it ok for current employees to smoke, but not new ones? If you are going to implement this rule then it should apply to all employees.

PrincessFiona9

I think the thing is, if a smoke-free workplace environment is created then people who are smokers are still going to find ways to smoke. There's no way that any smoker I know could go 8+ hours without a cig. We have a smoking patio for the smokers at my work and they spend well over their allotted breaktime out there except for in inclement weather. I think that's what someone meant by decreased productivity. Of course non-smokers can be slackers too, and this is all anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt.

missymo

ridesbuttons:

Smokers are less efficient, take more sick days and cost more overall.nbsp; Plus, they stink.

That's quite an assumption! While I think smoking is gross, I have certainly worked with many a smoker who worked hard and only went for a cigarette on their assigned break. You are being overly judgmental based on one aspect of a person's life.

You are a super judger. Wow.

missymo

PrincessFiona9:

I think the thing is, if a smokefree workplace environment is created then people who are smokers are still going to find ways to smoke. There's no way that any smoker I know could go 8 hours without a cig. We have a smoking patio for the smokers at my work and they spend well over their allotted breaktime out there except for in inclement weather. I think that's what someone meant by decreased productivity. Of course nonsmokers can be slackers too, and this is all anecdotal so take it with a grain of salt.

I agree nonsmokers are just a likely to be slackers. If people are over extending breaks it kinda seems like a management problem, no?

iheartsippycups

mbenit4:

For me it is not a smoking or non smoking issue. I think people see that and don't see the forest for the trees. Why stop here? Then they can not hire people who eat junk food, drink soda, have hypertension, diabetes, cancer in their family, a disabled child, etc. This policy is too instrusive for me. If an employee only smokes at breaks and lunch in areas where it is legal then that should be enough.

They were talking about this on the radio this morning, saying that smokers are not the only high risk employees. What about overweight people, people with other medical issues, etc.- you can give them a job, but not someone who smokes? What will be the next thing.

kwitt22

I agree it?s slippery slope. Next it will be bc someone is overweight. What about alcoholics, I mean they could come to work drunk, need medical coverage for potential health problems like liver failure. I do not like this at all. What you do in your personal life should not affect how if you are hired or not.  

 

Smootchy

I'm fine with smokers having to pay a higher premium for health insurance, but to not get a job is a bit ridic IMO

 

driveshorses

One of our hospitals is a smoke free campus and will make any potential employees take a test to detect nicotine. If a company doesn't want to hire a smoker, they don't have to. 

I had applied to a company that had that policy and it didn't keep me from applying, nor did I even think twice about it. 

driveshorses

ridesbuttons:

Smokers are less efficient, take more sick days and cost more overall.  Plus, they stink.

I don't agree with that. My dad is a smoker and with all of his vacation/sick leave/personal days he hasn't used, he has well over a year of time. He's worked at the same company for over 31 years, he started the year I was born, and I was in HIGH SCHOOL when he took his first sick day.

You can't paint them all with the same brush. I also know a lot of smokers who don't stink. No one ever knew that I smoked when I did, because I didn't want to stink so I took steps to avoid it. I also didn't take sick days.

I didn't get sick and take time off until I had kids....sooo people with kids take more sick days and are less efficient! LOL 

weberm05

I'm totally against smoking but i truely don't care etiher way...doens't effect me.

The local hospital banned workers from smoking during their shift.  It seems like smokers are going to be mad.........non smokers will either be happy or not care.

 

stilts1

chapski:

I'm fine with smokers having to pay a higher premium for health insurance, but to not get a job is a bit ridic IMO

 

Yep. This.

grr_aargh

KlondikeBar:

How far can employers take this? What else can you not be hired for? I don't like the idea of not being hired b/c of legal things you do in your personal life.

Eating muthafuckin' Snickers bars and being thick in the middle increases my sick days and insurance premiums and all that shiz as well.  Will they be asking for my meal plans during an interview? 

What if I fan the wrong football team?

How far can we go with this?

Are we talking admitted smokers who look and smell like smokers? Occasional smokers?  Recreational versus addicted smokers?  What if they smoke twice a year and we see them, can we fire them?

And on and on and on.  

CoffeeBeen

ridesbuttons:

Smokers are less efficient, take more sick days and cost more overall.  Plus, they stink.

I know a lot of people are disagreeing with this claim, so I just want to point out that it's not an opinion, rather it's pretty well established that smokers have worse absenteeism and presenteeism (not to mention health care costs) than nonsmokers.  You may know some exceptions, but that doesn't mean that it makes financial sense for an employer hiring on a larger scale.

 ETA:  That doesn't mean I'm in support of the policy.  I think that deterrents are good, but not a deterrent that affects an important factor in quality of life (i.e., employment).   It will also disproportionately discriminate against lower socioeconomic classes, which leads to wider wealth and health gaps.  Hiring smokers will cost a company more money, but I think that's an acceptable burden given the alternatives.

MrsWindyCity

I don't agree with it. Unless smoking is illegal, I don't understand how being a smoker can prevent you from being hired. I get that it increases insurance premiums. But smoking is certainly not the only thing that is bad for your health (and insurance premiums) so where do you draw the line?

grr_aargh

mbenit4:

EllaHella:

CoffeeBeen:

ridesbuttons:

Smokers are less efficient, take more sick days and cost more overall.  Plus, they stink.

I know a lot of people are disagreeing with this claim, so I just want to point out that it's not an opinion, rather it's pretty well established that smokers have worse absenteeism and presenteeism (not to mention health care costs) than nonsmokers.  You may know some exceptions, but that doesn't mean that it makes financial sense for an employer hiring on a larger scale.

Just as in skittle stories, anectdotes about this one person you know doesn't equal broader facts and overall statistics. 

And I will openly and fully admit that smoking is one of the areas where I am major judgy and possibly irrational and myopic.   

I never heard of this. I never knew this was established as fact. I don't have a story of one person. I have been in my field 16 years and I based me calling BS on this on having to manage people as a main job duty here.

Truth be told my people with attendance problems are women with children.

Childbearing is voluntary.  Should we be allowed to ask women if they intend to have a child and use that as a mechanism to disqualify them?

 

I mean, that's kind of my point regarding using smoking.  It's cool to hate on smoker's so we're all kind of in on that kind of workplace discrimination.  Smoking is a choice that increases absenteeism and decreases productivity.

So's childbearing.

 

CoffeeBeen

mbenit4:

EllaHella:

CoffeeBeen:

ridesbuttons:

Smokers are less efficient, take more sick days and cost more overall.  Plus, they stink.

I know a lot of people are disagreeing with this claim, so I just want to point out that it's not an opinion, rather it's pretty well established that smokers have worse absenteeism and presenteeism (not to mention health care costs) than nonsmokers.  You may know some exceptions, but that doesn't mean that it makes financial sense for an employer hiring on a larger scale.

Just as in skittle stories, anectdotes about this one person you know doesn't equal broader facts and overall statistics. 

And I will openly and fully admit that smoking is one of the areas where I am major judgy and possibly irrational and myopic.   

I never heard of this. I never knew this was established as fact. I don't have a story of one person. I have been in my field 16 years and I based me calling BS on this on having to manage people as a main job duty here.

Truth be told my people with attendance problems are women with children.

Isn't that the truth!  I'm so glad that's protected.

kcisthebombdotcom

I can tell you as a former HR Manager that smokers are discriminated against (though not openly) all the time for the aforementioned reasons. The second a smoker walked into the office for an interview they were fighting an uphill battle.

Point being--if you are unemployed and need to work, stop smoking.

CoffeeBeen

mbenit4:

CoffeeBeen:

mbenit4:

EllaHella:

CoffeeBeen:

ridesbuttons:

Smokers are less efficient, take more sick days and cost more overall.  Plus, they stink.

I know a lot of people are disagreeing with this claim, so I just want to point out that it's not an opinion, rather it's pretty well established that smokers have worse absenteeism and presenteeism (not to mention health care costs) than nonsmokers.  You may know some exceptions, but that doesn't mean that it makes financial sense for an employer hiring on a larger scale.

Just as in skittle stories, anectdotes about this one person you know doesn't equal broader facts and overall statistics. 

And I will openly and fully admit that smoking is one of the areas where I am major judgy and possibly irrational and myopic.   

I never heard of this. I never knew this was established as fact. I don't have a story of one person. I have been in my field 16 years and I based me calling BS on this on having to manage people as a main job duty here.

Truth be told my people with attendance problems are women with children.

Isn't that the truth!  I'm so glad that's protected.

How is it protected?

I don't know if it's considered gender discrimination or something else, but it's illegal to ask an interviewee if they have children, you're not allowed to use it as an employment consideration. 

morayme1

Inkogneetoh:

Other pps have said it well enough that I really don't need to elaborate.  Smoking is a legal activity, and until it becomes illegal to do it, then I don't think it should be allowed to be taken into consideration for a job.  What's next?  You'll have to put your BMI (which is crock anyway), how often you eat out, or how high risk you are for cancer on your resume? 

 

Being an a$shole or having a face tattoo is legal also. Doesn't mean a business has to want to hire you. Wouldn't forcing businesses to hire people they don't want hire be much worse than the business choosing healthy over non-healthy workers?

numeria11

mbenit4:

CoffeeBeen:

mbenit4:

EllaHella:

CoffeeBeen:

ridesbuttons:

Smokers are less efficient, take more sick days and cost more overall.  Plus, they stink.

I know a lot of people are disagreeing with this claim, so I just want to point out that it's not an opinion, rather it's pretty well established that smokers have worse absenteeism and presenteeism (not to mention health care costs) than nonsmokers.  You may know some exceptions, but that doesn't mean that it makes financial sense for an employer hiring on a larger scale.

Just as in skittle stories, anectdotes about this one person you know doesn't equal broader facts and overall statistics. 

And I will openly and fully admit that smoking is one of the areas where I am major judgy and possibly irrational and myopic.   

I never heard of this. I never knew this was established as fact. I don't have a story of one person. I have been in my field 16 years and I based me calling BS on this on having to manage people as a main job duty here.

Truth be told my people with attendance problems are women with children.

Isn't that the truth!  I'm so glad that's protected.

How is it protected?

FMLA, ADA and the protections in place under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to name a few.  Not to mention not being able to ask about children/family planning or marital status in an interview since it is also discriminatory.

 For those of you who are ok with singling out smokers (and I'm not one nor have I ever been) are you also ok with your company saying sorry we wont be hiring anyone over a size 12 or with a BMI over X?  Because guess what Obesity and obesity related health problems are the fastest growing costs in healthcare.  So if you don't think that this is a slippery slope you have to be fooling yourself.  As long as you are ok with that then fine feel free to tell smokers they can't have jobs but be prepared when they say the same thing to you some time down the road.

morayme1

CoffeeBeen:

mbenit4:

EllaHella:

CoffeeBeen:

ridesbuttons:

Smokers are less efficient, take more sick days and cost more overall.  Plus, they stink.

I know a lot of people are disagreeing with this claim, so I just want to point out that it's not an opinion, rather it's pretty well established that smokers have worse absenteeism and presenteeism (not to mention health care costs) than nonsmokers.  You may know some exceptions, but that doesn't mean that it makes financial sense for an employer hiring on a larger scale.

Just as in skittle stories, anectdotes about this one person you know doesn't equal broader facts and overall statistics. 

And I will openly and fully admit that smoking is one of the areas where I am major judgy and possibly irrational and myopic.   

I never heard of this. I never knew this was established as fact. I don't have a story of one person. I have been in my field 16 years and I based me calling BS on this on having to manage people as a main job duty here.

Truth be told my people with attendance problems are women with children.

Isn't that the truth!  I'm so glad that's protected.

 

It's not protected..it is "protected". If you have attendance problems for any reason eventually you will lose your job. A business has a position, an employee is hired to fill that position and to do a job. When that employee..smoker, fata$s, chimpanzee, preggo with 8 kids...whoever, fails to do that job to the extent the business needs it done..see ya.

kcisthebombdotcom

mbenit4:

KC_13:

I can tell you as a former HR Manager that smokers are discriminated against (though not openly) all the time for the aforementioned reasons. The second a smoker walked into the office for an interview they were fighting an uphill battle.

Point being--if you are unemployed and need to work, stop smoking.

This is just stupid. How do you know they smoke??

I have interviewed hundreds of people in my life and I don't recall anyone smelling like smoke.

Are you a smoker? I'm guessing you are if you've done hundreds of interviews and have never smelled smoke on someone.

Cigarette smoke is a smell that not only clings to your clothes but to your skin. Even if you wash your hands/put pretty smelling body lotion on/spray perfume before the interview, a nonsmoker can smell a smoker instantly. I know I can--maybe I just have a really good sense of smell.

morayme1

Inkogneetoh:

morayme1:

Inkogneetoh:

Other pps have said it well enough that I really don't need to elaborate.  Smoking is a legal activity, and until it becomes illegal to do it, then I don't think it should be allowed to be taken into consideration for a job.  What's next?  You'll have to put your BMI (which is crock anyway), how often you eat out, or how high risk you are for cancer on your resume? 

 

Being an a$shole or having a face tattoo is legal also. Doesn't mean a business has to want to hire you. Wouldn't forcing businesses to hire people they don't want hire be much worse than the business choosing healthy over non-healthy workers?

Comparing not hiring someone because they smoke to reduce the cost to a business for insurance premiums is not comparable to not hiring someone for being an *** or having a face tattoo.  And not all unhealthy people are smokers.  Not all smokers are unhealthy people.  Nice try though.

Why should a business have to pay higher premiums for some one elses crappy unhealthy choice? Not all businesses are big giant corporations, some are small family owned businesses.

LuckyDad

Torn. As legitimately hard as it is to quit smoking, the fact is it is a choice. It's not race, it's not sexual orientation, it's a lifestyle. It also has real, legitimate costs to a company when it comes to health insurance costs, and that's before you take lost productivity due to smoke breaks into account.

 

So on the one hand I have zero problem with a company having hiring policies banning smokers. But the question in my mind is "can government take the same approach"?  And yeah, slightly torn on that regard.

robinsokj

I didn't read all responses so sorry if this is a repeat. 

 

Smoking is not a medical condition, so that comparison is stupid.  

It is a habit.  I think it should be treated like alcohol.  No partaking during business hours, and at home, do as you please.  But, that shouldn't mean that they can't raise your insurance premiums.  

robinsokj

Inkogneetoh:

morayme1:

Inkogneetoh:

Other pps have said it well enough that I really don't need to elaborate.  Smoking is a legal activity, and until it becomes illegal to do it, then I don't think it should be allowed to be taken into consideration for a job.  What's next?  You'll have to put your BMI (which is crock anyway), how often you eat out, or how high risk you are for cancer on your resume? 

 

Being an a$shole or having a face tattoo is legal also. Doesn't mean a business has to want to hire you. Wouldn't forcing businesses to hire people they don't want hire be much worse than the business choosing healthy over non-healthy workers?

Comparing not hiring someone because they smoke to reduce the cost to a business for insurance premiums is not comparable to not hiring someone for being an *** or having a face tattoo.  And not all unhealthy people are smokers.  Not all smokers are unhealthy people.  Nice try though.

Yeah, yeah they are

morayme1

Inkogneetoh:

morayme1:

Why should a business have to pay higher premiums for some one elses crappy unhealthy choice? Not all businesses are big giant corporations, some are small family owned businesses.

I didn't say they should.  But they're not targeting all people with, as you put it, crappy unhealthy choices, just smokers.  That's discrimination. 

So?

kcisthebombdotcom

Inkogneetoh:

morayme1:

Inkogneetoh:

Other pps have said it well enough that I really don't need to elaborate.  Smoking is a legal activity, and until it becomes illegal to do it, then I don't think it should be allowed to be taken into consideration for a job.  What's next?  You'll have to put your BMI (which is crock anyway), how often you eat out, or how high risk you are for cancer on your resume? 

 

Being an a$shole or having a face tattoo is legal also. Doesn't mean a business has to want to hire you. Wouldn't forcing businesses to hire people they don't want hire be much worse than the business choosing healthy over non-healthy workers?

Comparing not hiring someone because they smoke to reduce the cost to a business for insurance premiums is not comparable to not hiring someone for being an *** or having a face tattoo.  And not all unhealthy people are smokers.  Not all smokers are unhealthy people.  Nice try though.

How is choosing not to hire someone with a face tattoo somehow different? They're both choices the individuals make.

We can argue until we're blue in the face whether it's right or wrong, but it does happen and regardless if there's a law or not it will continue to happen. Maybe there are plenty of smokers who don't take breaks to smoke, miss more time because they're sick more frequently, and costs companies less than their non-smoking counterparts--but there's decades of research to back those claims up.

Hiring employees is all about managing risks. Smokers are a risk just like people who job hop/people who got fired from their last 3 jobs because they couldn't get along with management/people who come into job interviews in unprofessional attire.

Leinistar

I work for a local government and they started charging a smoking surcharge of $25 per paycheck for people who smoke. It's supposedly to cover the extra coverage they would need for their insurance. Florida is an At Will work state meaning any employer can fire you for whatever reason at anytime so I don't see an issue for them not to hire someone to begin with for that reason. I think the discrimination laws only apply to sex, age, religious affiliation and sexual orientaion and not to smoking habits.

ASmallWonder

penguingrrl:

I think it's crossing a line. I'm 100% anti smoking and can't even walk past someone have a cigarette on the street without my asthma flaring up. But while it's still legal I don't think an employee has the right to discriminate.

Shall we talk about other medical conditions that decrease productivity and increase insurance plans? What about discriminating against a woman because she's of child-bearing age and wearing rings? Giving birth is expensive plus you lose her (or have to pay for a temp) for some time after the birth. Cancer is also very expensive on your health plan, so let's not hire someone who walks into the place bald just in case. What about functioning alcoholics who still show up for work and get things done but go on benders every weekend? Eventually their liver will give out.

All that said, if someone had the gall to walk into an interview smelling like cigarette smoke I would think they were completely unprofessional and would likely not hire them over that. But unless they reek at the interview how would you even know  they were a smoker upon hire? MIL is a smoker, but manages not to reek of it.

I'm in this same boat. I'm very anti-smoking but it's not illegal. My dad is a (mostly) functioning alcoholic. He definitely has missed days because he got too drunk the night before and was sick as a dog. My mother, an insane chain smoker, has not missed work because of illnesses related to her smoking.

CoffeeBeen

mbenit4:

CoffeeBeen:

I don't know if it's considered gender discrimination or something else, but it's illegal to ask an interviewee if they have children, you're not allowed to use it as an employment consideration. 

Duh, I know you can't ask but that still does not "protect," which is the word that was used.

Because that's the word the law uses.  If you can't discriminate against a class of people, it's called a protected class.  Duh.

kcisthebombdotcom

mbenit4:

CoffeeBeen:

I don't know if it's considered gender discrimination or something else, but it's illegal to ask an interviewee if they have children, you're not allowed to use it as an employment consideration. 

Duh, I know you can't ask but that still does not "protect," which is the word that was used.

You are talking about the hiring process. I stated that in my experience my employees with absenteeism problems have nothing to do with smoking. More with them having children. Someone said this is protected. Uh no. This isn't someone having a baby or getting hired. If you have a problem coming to work, it will be addressed. At the end of the day, you need to be at work to do the work.

That might be your experience--but the plural of antecdote is not data.

The reality is decades of research states otherwise. At the end of the day, people are going to use that to make hiring practices.