DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum "smoke-free" work environment... a rant

So I applied to work at this huge computer company in Dayton (don't want to say the name). My friend has been trying to get hired there for about 8-10 years. I get a call back the first time I apply!! I'm stoked, right?

Well, one of the first questions they ask on the phone is "do you use any tobacco products?" Well, I smoke cigarettes, I'm really bad at lying, so I just said "Yes"... thinking 'how could this be a problem, further more, why is it any of their business?' Turns out it's a HUGE problem and they "aren't even able to look at my resume until I've been smoke free for three-six months"

I asked why they have this policy... it has to with the owner's insurance rates being lower, blah, blah, blah. I don't need insurance from them, I have my own! That didn't make a difference. Did they fire all the smokers when the policy took effect? How are they legally aloud to discriminate? I'm just upset because they don't have a policy against overweight people with diabetes, alcoholics with liver failure, or clumbsy people who trip on things, etc. There's no guarantee that I WILL get lung cancer, and people who have never smoked in their lives have gotten it. I could be the very best qualified person to do this job, and they send me away for something so trivial, IMO. They might as well say "we only hire blondes who are 5'9"" or "No Baptists alowed".

To me, it's just a big joke, where do you draw the line? Am I to quit smoking and apply in six months when they have no openings? Or should I have just lied? I know people will say "just quit". It's not that easy, and I will do it when I'm ready. I just don't think it's fair to be punished and overlooked, treated like I'm a bad egg.

Idk, I feel like we discussed this before, and I remember being upset then. Now it really hits home for me, and I'm a little upset. Has anyone else run into this? Or if you were to encounter this, how would you handle it?

I worked for a period of time as a consultant for a company here in Cleveland that is the IT arm of Medical Mutual of Ohio and WebMD.... and at the time, they went to this same practice.
Absolute zero-tolerance for any tobacco use.

Right or wrong isn't an issue at all.... it is their company and it is within their rights to hire people based upon the criteria that they choose, as long as that criteria isn't something that a person is born into (Race, Creed, Color, Sex). Religion.... I believe they could disciminate based on that as it is a choice, not an innate quality... though they would likely get crucified publicly (pun semi-intended).


I personally think it's silly, but I also agree with it. It is akin to my feelings on the Smoking Ban in bars and restauarants that I think is bass-ackward.... I feel it is the place of the business itself to choose these things, not government or whiny (not directed at you) citizens to determine. Unfortunately, freedom for everyone only extends as far as legislation can remove it when it is inconvenient for some (see no smoking in private establishments).

First of all, what happened to the real estate thing?

Second, most people will say it's unfair to single out smokers and allow others with bad habits through... and it probably is. But in the grand scheme of things I've always said private employers should have as much latitude as possible in who they hire... sorry.

OnB, I feel badly for you. However, this is becoming more and more common.

The argument is that smokers have more health problems than non-smokers. Regarding the fact you have your own insurance, they may refuse to hire smokers because smokers get sick more (their argument, at least), so smokers miss more days.

Quote:

---

How are they legally aloud to discriminate?

---

They're legally allowed to do this because, as an at-will employer, the only things they can't discriminate against are race, age, gender, religion or disability. Being a smoker is not a protected class. Now, you could argue that they're violating a public policy, but you wouldn't win that case.

Your argument about obesity is a good one, and I think employers need to take a good hard look at that. I know many employers have really started to push not only smoking cessation programs, but also general wellness programs. That helps keep their insurance costs down and helps keep the wellness of their employees up.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with that employer's policy. I'm just trying to give you the bare-bones breakdown of what you're going through. You're not alone.

Taking a break from the real estate thing... burned me out emotionally.

Thanks guys for your thoughts on the issue. I do see their side, though I still think it unfair. I actually have another gig pretty much in the bag, just had to get that stuff off my chest.

Did they ask if you rode a motorcycle, sky-dived, ate fast food regularly, were obese, or engaged in unprotected sex?

Didn't think so.

As a fellow smoker I do tire of hearing all this bias against smokers now a days, but also agree it is a bad habit and always look at both sides of the coin. However, if the job you do isn't impacted at all for smoking then I don't think you smoking should hold any relevance in getting a job. For example, if you work in health care or food service, teaching maybe, then I can see why company's could have a smoking issue. I know there are more but these come to mind.
Smoking is still legal and a big tax money maker so I am sure it will always be legal but shouldn't be held as any kind of reflection of what kind of person you are. Why don't they ask if you are a drinker? You can screw up your liver and run a higher risk of getting into a car accident or legal trouble if you drink a lot. Even from an insurance standpoint drinking causes health problems and a higher risk of hospital visits from abuse and accidents. Ya know?

I know I should quit but I just don't want to and don't think I can right now. I have a high stress job where my performance is always being looked at. My boss gives us a 10 minute smoke break at the top of the hour and I have come to really look forward to those. I only smoke like 1/2 a pack a day and have curbed it down a lot more since my daughters were born, but with all the stress of school and my job,,plus the girls being typical kids I think I would flip out if I added quitting smoking on top of all that

The moral of the story is LIE your butt off! It's all about the money , is a two way street. They have a responsibility to thier share holders bla.. bla.. bla. You have a responsibility to yourself. These slime ball employers think of nothing but the money. You owe them nothing, not even the truth.Lie cheat and steal thats the kind of organization they're building so play thier game.

Wow.

Most companies with a zero tolerance for tobacco use also have drug and tobacco testing programs that are a condition of employment. You are not going to be able to lie your way around it.

My question for Onb would be "Do you really want to work for these people?".

Maybe it wasn't all about insurance and perhaps a cigarette stench made you smell like crap?

30 years ago I was once offered a job by Swan Hose on route 23 just north of Columbus. I said I'd take it, but then the guy started telling me how to wear my hair. Even though my hair was short enough to meet regulation, I declined the job. The notion of him telling me how to groom didn't sit well with me.

No, it's about insurance. Smokers smell much better than people that bathe in cologne/perfume every morning, trust me.

or people who don't bathe at all

Micah Berman: Hiring only nonsmokers is legal and beneficial
Thursday, July 12, 2007
By MICAH BERMAN


The Cleveland Clinic, Ohio's second-largest employer with nearly 37,000 employees, has announced that smokers need not apply. The hospital already has begun screening job applicants for tobacco use and, starting Sept. 1, those who test positive will be denied employment.

Several large companies, such as Scotts Miracle-Gro, Union Pacific Railroad and Alaska Airlines, have implemented similar policies, as have 6,000 other U.S. employers, according to the clinic.

Nonetheless, the clinic's announcement was met with the usual mixed opinions. Some praised the policy as eminently fair, while others protested that it encroached upon basic freedoms.

The clinic says that its goal is to "walk the walk" when promoting a healthy lifestyle, but for other businesses, such policies are much more about the bottom line. In comparison to nonsmoking employees, those who smoke tend to impose substantial additional costs on the companies that employ them. Health-care costs are just the beginning. The more substantial costs come from productivity losses due to smoking breaks, extra time off work due to more frequent illnesses, and "presenteeism" -- lost concentration at work because of nicotine withdrawal.

Many employers are unaware that they have the legal ability to adopt a policy like the Cleveland Clinic's. But they do. There are no state or federal laws prohibiting consideration of smoking status in hiring decisions, nor is there any constitutional right to smoke, though the tobacco companies would have you believe otherwise. Laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace generally focus, as they should, on immutable characteristics such as gender, race and nationality. They do not cover cigarette smoking.

But although these policies are legal, are they morally or ethically problematic? Are we surrendering our basic freedoms? The argument that one's off-duty conduct is none of an employer's business would be much more convincing if the employer -- and the other employees -- weren't footing much of the bill. Most employers already prohibit and often test for use of narcotics and other addictive drugs. These policies are not implemented because the substances in question are illegal. Employers have no obligation (and probably no interest) in assisting law-enforcement efforts. Rather, employers have found that employees dealing with drug addiction or withdrawal are less productive and impose costs on the business as a whole. Nicotine addiction is no different.

What about the slippery-slope concern? Will employers start making hiring decisions on the basis of what you eat? Unlikely. Tobacco remains in a class by itself. It is the only legal, consumable product that kills about half of its regular users. You have to eat; you don't have to smoke. Some have argued that coffee may be the next target. Again, unlikely. Annual deaths from smoking: 440,000. Annual deaths from caffeine: 2.

It's important to remember that tobacco-free-work-force policies do not make smokers unemployable. They simply ask smokers to quit, which is something the vast majority of smokers already want to do. Quitting smoking can certainly be done -- Ohio now has more former smokers than current smokers -- but it is extremely difficult without help. That's why it is cruelly ironic that at the same time the Cleveland Clinic and other employers are screening potential employees for tobacco use, the state budget is diverting funding away from tobacco-cessation efforts.

Policies like the clinic's have the potential to save thousands of lives by encouraging employees to quit and by sending a strong signal to college students and young adults to stay away from tobacco. But as smoking prevalence becomes more concentrated in demographic groups that can't afford cessation assistance, it becomes more and more crucial to demand continued public investment in tobacco prevention and cessation.

Micah Berman is executive director of the Tobacco Public Policy Center at Capital University Law School.

mberman@law.capital.edu
Columbus Dispatch

Another limousine liberal that wants government to be your Daddy. It is not a "slippery slope" any more, it is a freaking bobsled chute ... and anyone who thinks it stops with smokers is fooling themselves. Look no further than bikers' helmet laws, seatbelt laws, trans-fat bans, schools checking your kid's lunch, government mandates about thermostat settings in your own home, and on, and on, and on. Then one day, people will look around and say "what happened to the land of the free?". What happened was they gave it away.

That's when I start my own business and say to hell with them.

All the things you mentioned are examples of the government trying to ensure the safety of its people. They are obligated to keep citizens from putting themselves and others in danger,

However, that's not even the case we're talking about. If an employer wants to keep people with certain behaviors out of their workplace, they are allowed to, as well they should be.

So the government has some kind of ulterior motive for enacting seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws?

Please show me where it says "as interpreted by the government" after the words " ... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ..." in our Declaration Of Independence.

Companies can do what they want in a free market. They are free to not hire me or to fire me for any reason they choose. And I am free not to work there. I was responding to the article Shep posted which, among other things, called for more government intervention / intrusion in our personal lives.

I can honestly say that I take less breaks than my non-smoking co workers. I also have taken exactly one half day as a sick day in the past year, and it was to see the doctor for poison ivy. Hardly related to smoking.

And as to smell, not to get anyone riled up or be gross, but have you ever smelled an obese person when they sweat? I have one woman at work who I can't go anywhere near. Even after she leaves her chair still stinks.

This is "the slippery slope" we often talk about and many poo-ppo it as fantasy. Well, after the wave of anti-smoking laws, we started on trans-fat bans and now in NY there is talk about banning dollar menus at the fast food chains because they encourage poor eating habits. It's not going to get better unless there is a drastic change in the way people think. This is all just methods to control behavior by regulation. As long as they target minority vices, they will keep getting away with it.

It isn't the government's job to protect me from myself. And, although I do wear a seat belt and would wear a motorcycle helmet by choice, I don't believe they should force me to. And, you don't have to wear a helmet in Ohio...so why do you have to wear your seat belt? It's sort of a contradiction, isn't it?

The government shouldn't be able to tell me where I can smoke, drink, eat, or gamble, either. Again, referencing Ohio -- you can play Keno all day in a bar, but god forbid we build a casino or two. Another contradiction.

I also loathe entrapment. Don't pull me over into a "safety inspection" just so you can peek in my windows, run my plate and driver's license number and tell me it's for my own good. I know if my lights or wipers aren't working properly, thank you very much. But by all means, if you see me driving down the road with one headlight, please pull me over and inform me I need to get it fixed -- otherwise, mind your own business. Red light cameras are also BS in my mind. Catch me pushing the light by patrolling the problem intersection, but don't take a picture of my plate and send me a ticket.

I'm not quite sure I would label it as an "ulterior motive", but I don't believe they should be in the business of defining personal choice.

Well, Technically maybe I was smoking it. I inadvertantly burnrd a stand of Sumak. I even had the crap in my mouth and throat which is was promted me to leave early to see a doctor.

I'm totally with you in this Michelle. Penalizing "potentially dangerous behavior" has always been a problem to me. Get a cell phone ticket because it could make you more likely to have an accident, it's crap. Just like you said, one more reason to stop me for doing nothing wrong. There are so many laws like this on the books and the list grows every day. If I drive poorly, who gives a crap why, give me a ticket. The cops spend more time in speed traps or seatbelt checks than they do puuling over the morons who tailgate, pass on the right and weave through traffic.

Well then I guess it just depends on how far you feel they should go to protect the interests of the public. My idea of the government's responsibility drifts more toward safety and public interest than personal freedom. i don't have a problem with certain restrictions on personal freedom that prevent harm to oneself or others. I think a motorcycle helmet law is, if anything, more important than the seat belt requirement. It doesn't make sense to have one without the other; both should be required.

j/c

I figure smoking should be part of the criteria businesses use to determine which individuals they higher, as should BMI, family health history, previous employment, drive to succeed etc.

If i'm an employer offering X job, I can certainly find applicants who are smokers who are still the best choice for the job, and I could find applicants who are not smokers who don't qualify. But I could also see a situation where I have two applicants, and smoking becomes a key differentiator as to their attractiveness to my company.

However, when you ban all smoking employees, it clearly creates an inefficiency in your hiring process, which is accepted now, because smoking is an easy binary indicator. When the ability to predict employee productivity increases, due to better understanding and modeling of what makes employees attractive to companies, I assume these market inefficiencies will begin to disappear, and smoking will be taken as an indicator, but not an end all be all, of employee performance.

~Lyuokdea

A woman I onced worked with (non-smoker) took at least 3 days a month off... it was her kids bringing home stuff from school. Are they going to ban parents with small children next? Is it alcohol drinkers? Let's review Prohibition when our country first started... don't remember it going over so well. If we don't learn from our history we are doomed to repeat it.

I didn't mean this to be a political debate. As I said, I can somewhat understand their reasoning, but it's still unfair to discriminate aginst smokers only. I think it's just part of the government's way of forcing us to do what THEY believe is right; Taxes on alcohol and ciggarettes, tax breaks for getting married and having kids. Their little mold doesn't quite fit everybody anymore.

I've always said that *many* people don't care about an issue until it affects them personally, and I still stand by that belief. A new law here, a new law there, eventually everyone will be included...we'll see how it goes.

I do think a company that hires based on smoking (or anything else) should state clearly on their cover letter of the application that you need not apply unless you have been smoke free six months, or whatever. Same with all the other "health" issues we face today. That way they don't waste your time and you don't waste theirs.

There just seems to be this arrogance with people anymore. There are many things that bother me, but I have not once though it should be banned. Overuse of perfume/after shave, it's very irritating, especially when my sinus is raw from rhinocort. Poor hygene/badbreath, some people are so bad it turns my stomach. People who talk too much or come into my office and sit down but have nothing to really say.\

I wish I could remember the name of the story, but every time this comes up I think about it. All people in the story were forced to be equal. If you were smart, you had to wear headphones that caused distracting noises so you would be distracted. If you were physically fit, you had to wear weight to slow you down. There were wavy glasses for people with keen vision. So, by that, society was equal. The story ends in a ballet performance which was aweful due to the fact that the ballerinas were all encumbered with their restrictions. But a ballerina and another character burst free of their bonds, and having become stronger and better from the weight of their burdens it was like a euphoric explosion of strength and beauty.


I wait for that explosion every day.

I don't smoke, and I don't like it in my enviroment, but it's not up to me or anyone else what they can do in their own homes. I think it should be illegal not to hire someone cause they smoke. It's none of their buisness

Sudies show that smokers as a whole miss much more work and take more breaks. Individual posters saying they are never sick and take less breaks means nothing.

That being said, I have never read any of these studies so I don't know if they even exist. I'm pretty confident they do exist, but that doesn't mean they aren't slanted (like many of us who think some of these global warming ones are).

This thread has gone off track somewhere but let us reconsider the jist of the issue.
OnB is upaet because his potential employer refused his application until he was smoke free for several months.
If I was without a job I would be upset also with the turn down, but the company holds the cards here and also holds the ability to state their employee preferences.

The "JOB" belongs to the company not to any individual in a group of applicants.

A company which seeks to maximize profits is not necissarily a bad thing...it can help to provide expansion, guarantee benefits and provide a safer work place. These days a company had better choose it's associates well early on as the labor laws view employees with most of the rights but few of the responsibilities while the employer is often assigned the vast majority of responsibilities with few rights in a labor question.

I believe corporate rights are included right in there with individual rights. Employers are free to hire and not hire as they please. You're free to either conform to their standards or work for another employer.

Quote:

---

I know I should quit but I just don't want to and don't think I can right now.

---

By you not wanting to quit,you wouldn't be able to anyway.I tried quitting several times and until I told myself I don't want to smoke anymore,it was light one up a few days later.
Once you have it in your head you want to stop,you will.I tried patches,pills,you name it,nothing worked.
I have been smoke free since Feb 2nd because I said I'm done and threw away the last pack I had and glad I did.
I feel better,don't get up every morning coughing like a fool and just all around feel a lot better.Don't know how true it is but they say your lungs start to clear up within 6 months of quitting.
Never thought I could do it but glad I did.Smoked for 40 years.
Good luck to you when you do decide to stop.