Comments on: Can employer refuse to hire smokers?

By: Debbie

Debbie — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:52:30 +0000

My previous employer also had the stipulation that you be a non-smoker to work there. I don’t smoke, so it was no big deal to me. After a few months on the job I found out that there are several long term smokers who work there and go outside to the parking garage to smoke. This fact was known by all employed there, even upper mgmt.

This employer also required that employees be registered to vote. Not that we had to vote or be a specific party, but that we were registered. Also, something that is not a big deal to me as I believe that voting is important.

However, I had serious doubts about my own ability to work there given the dubious policies enforced selectively by mgmt. It turns out that this was only a small indication of the issues there. I did last 8 months before voluntarily leaving to pursue a much better opportunity…

By: Marie

Marie — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:49:19 +0000

OK — where do you draw the line — is this company going to deal with folks who are anorexic — are they going to quiz the applicants on this score, will they terminate if the person loses too much weight, are they going to terminate if a person drinks, how about the employee who has 3 or more divorces — going to terminate them for the inability to maintain stable relationships. Slowly but surely personal freedoms are being infringed upon by employers. The only time personal freedoms should be addressed by an employer is if it negatively reflects on their job — a truck driver for instance could be terminated if he has DUI’s –

By: mike R

mike R — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:56:57 +0000

Good behavior. Bad behavior. It is so judgmental. It sets up winners and losers and those who are right and the others who are wrong. I had hoped to be beyond this after high school, however we have an entire country of adults who have not grown emotionally.

I have yet to meet anyone who does EVERYTHING right. And those who protest the loudest are usually the biggest offenders. When i counseled people with addiction problems many years ago, we once had a presentation where the people were asked to sit in the “priority of their addictions.” Alcoholics started arguing with drug addicts that they weren’t as bad. Over eaters were arguing with the alcoholics and drug addicts. The “normal” people started having emotional fits and yelling at everyone. The speaker finally took the podium and pointed out that if they were angry and upset that they had the biggest problem.

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:51:15 +0000

My freedom is precious. As long as my activities are legal and don’t interfere with work then I see no reason why my employer should step on my rights. Smoking makes me happy and I have a right to pursue happiness. Maybe folks should remember why this country was founded. I may sound like a nut but I like to live life the way that I want to live life. If anyone decides that they need to control people at the level being discussed here then I would say that they are the ones with issues and not me. I may change my tune at any point about smoking but that is my right, my life, my freedom. Remember that freedom is not an extremist view point. It is the right of every single American and must remain so. If we lose that basic philosophy then America will no longer be American.

By: Martha

Martha — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:57:52 +0000

I think this is going too far. I believe employers have the right to not allow smoking at work and to not allow smokers any more breaks than anyone else. I am a smoker who is currently trying to quit. I know smoking is bad, amoung other “legal” habits people have. I don’t think an employer has the right to dictate what employees do on their own time if it doesn’t effect their work. We need to focus on the employee’s work habits, not their personal habits. Our company has a “no-smoking policy”, but does not dictate what employees do on their own time. If this is allowed, where will it stop? We currently offer two health plans. One with a high deductible and an HSA attached. The cost difference is so drastic the company puts $150 per month into the HSA for each employee on that plan and that plan is still less costly to the company. The employees on the other plan have to pay the difference in cost between the two plans. If their bad personal habits have caused health problems they pay for it by more co-pays, etc.

By: CONLMAC

CONLMAC — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:17:43 +0000

I would tread lightly on this subject as I feel smokers may soon be covered under extensions of the ADA. It would be difficult, at best, to prove smoking is any more harmful than unchecked morbid obesity, high blood pressure, and diabetes. Would an employer consider limiting what a person can eat (low fat diet), drink, (no caffiene such ascoffee & sodas), and sweets? Everything offends someone and anything without moderation is bad for anyone. If the employer wanted to charge higher rates for smokers, so be it. However, those same increases should apply to those who fall into to other high-risk categories such as obesity, diabetes, and high blood pressure, just to name a few. No one wants to be the “bad” guy and call these issues out as the risk they are because the masses do not view them as “self-inflicted”. Medical history will tell us that in many cases these conditions are just as self-inflicted as smoking. One can choose to control their “accepted” medical issues by diet and excercise. How many people do YOU know which have these conditions actually make efforts, beyond taking prescription medication, to improve their health. They generally use their condition as a “crutch” to continue bad behavior. So, how do you say one is worse than the other?

By: Dave P.

Dave P. — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:34:35 +0000

Give the incentives to those who are being healthy. There are laws that restrict some of these, but it can be done.

By: Cindy

Cindy — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:18:12 +0000

what are you going to tell the employees who don’t have unhealthy habits? What is their incentive or reward? We’ve done this with somthing as simple as attendance and it’s backfired at times.

By: Pauline

Pauline — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:13:48 +0000

Are they going to go after obese employees next? Be very careful; our personal liberties are slowly being chipped away even if we are not at work!

By: Dave P.

Dave P. — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 21:14:38 +0000

I agree with some of the others that this starts down a road that may cause problems in the future. Where do we draw the line? I’m over weight, drink a little in the evenings, or have gene’s that give me a propensity for cancer…

Instead of policies against smoking, I am more inclined to create policies that are designed with incentives that discourage such behavior. It’s legally easier to defend from one state to the next. It’s more practical than to have to terminate some one who might otherwise be a good employee, and it’s easier to deal with ethically.