Should large companies be allowed to ban nicotine users from hire?

www.npr.org...

When U-Haul recently announced it will no longer hire people who use nicotine in any form in the 21 states where such hiring policies are legal, the Phoenix-based moving company joined a cadre of companies with nicotine-free hiring policies.

There is nobody that hates smoke or cigarettes/vape more than I do. I still think this is wrong and a slippery slope.
I guarantee you this will so lead to........if you drink too much caffeine, too much alcohol, too much soda, eat too many fries, etc.

If companies worry about smoke breaks, then they should not allow them. It would then be up to the worker to decide.
As long as smoking is legal, why shouldn't a person be able to smoke, and have a job?
I find it funny that companies always use the same excuse - medical costs. I'd love to see Uhauls medical claims showing that smokers are actually costing more. I hear that excuse used all the time, and I really wonder. Do smokers cost so much more than obese people, or people that have a ton of kids etc?

a reply to: JAGStorm
Why would anyone want to work for that type of employer?
What I do on my time is none of their business.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: JAGStorm
Why would anyone want to work for that type of employer?
What I do on my time is none of their business.

Sooner or later it won't be just that employer, it might be most employers.
I've already seen it going down that hill in the last 30 years.
They are doing it notch by notch.

First they are starting with things we know are bad, cigarettes.
Pretty soon it will be other things.

Look at the cities that have added a soda tax. Mind you, it didn't work out well for some. One step forward...

a reply to: JAGStorm

I recently rented a U-Haul. And I smoked in it the whole drive.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I will be clear here, employers are under duress from insurance carriers and have run into this myself.

Group plans for above 34hr a week employees are required and expensive. This is purely a means to cause employers to pay above

The time to view how the insurance companies can run an ruin a business has long passed.

mg

The companies could use Michael Bloomburg logic and pay their employees less.
That way, the employees won't have extra money to spend on tobacco.

a reply to: JAGStorm

My first question would be what kind of insurance breaks are they getting on the company insurance policy for not hiring smokers:?

a reply to: missed_gear

Yep. I agree. This is the insurance companies, not so much the employer.

A smokers policy is higher than a non-smokers, and some out and out won't insure smokers beyond the most basic policy.

U-Haul has to take on those costs, so... bye smokers. I think it's ridiculous, but if insurance companies are allowed to ask more and more questions, and deny more and more claims with no larger oversight, it's the future.

a reply to: ColeYounger

Does not work this way. Under current laws enacted both Federal and State, aging the employer is liable.

mg

what's your solution.. the government tells employers who they can and can't hire?

the obvious answer is no to that

a reply to: JAGStorm

a reply to: Atsbhct

Put government in charge and they'd end up doing the same thing -- denying care and coverage for wrong behavior to cut costs.

Like it or not there is a finite amount of money available for care and since we absolve ourselves of the responsibility of paying for it ourselves and rely of others to do it for us, they dictate how it goes, and it doesn't matter what entity that is.

I guess I'll just rent from Budget from now on when needed. Thanks for the info.

Somebody that doesn't smoke and wants a job, doesn't want to smell the smoke on coworkers, doesn't want to wonder why they have to work while their coworkers go for free breaks.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I think everyone should just start saying no when asked if they use nicotine in those questionnaires for medical insurance. What are they gonna do, arrest us all for falsifying documents?

a reply to: ketsuko

Like it or not there is a finite amount of money available for care and since we absolve ourselves of the responsibility of paying for it ourselves and rely of others to do it for us, they dictate how it goes, and it doesn't matter what entity that is.

Easy peasy, charge smokers more. That is what many employers are doing now.
If they don't like it, they can quit. Not hiring them is the wrong move.

And yes to everyone, insurance is evil and needs a complete overhaul!

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: JAGStorm
Why would anyone want to work for that type of employer?
What I do on my time is none of their business.

Exactly my thoughts.

Though, the bit of caveat I see is they get to get better group insurance rates. But unless they're passing that on to their employees, which I doubt.... Still not a company I'd want to work for.

I'm embarrassed to say I still smoke. But those five minute breaks I get every couple of hours clear my mind and help me. More power to those who don't need it.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
I think everyone should just start saying no when asked if they use nicotine in those questionnaires for medical insurance. What are they gonna do, arrest us all for falsifying documents?

Can't lie, they will test you.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I call BS, since I lied and they didn't test me.

originally posted by: hombero
Somebody that doesn't smoke and wants a job, doesn't want to smell the smoke on coworkers, doesn't want to wonder why they have to work while their coworkers go for free breaks.

a reply to: shooterbrody

did I post that people should be able to smoke on the job?
no, I did not

btw what about those who dont drink coffee or smell the coffee on coworkers or wonder why they have to work while their co wokers drink coffee?
fair is fair, no?