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

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

It's up to the person that pays the bills for the business and keeps the doors open. I have a small retail operation and my HR person hires and fires on the slightest whim. If you sneeze without covering your mouth could get you fired. And never wear brown shoes to work. Fair warning!!

originally posted by: JAGStorm

Small, individually owned (Mom-n-Pop) businesses should be free to do whatever they please, including refuse to serve any one or group, for any reason whatsoever.

Large Corps should be governed by the State regulations governing large corps.

This is actually a question that fits in nicely to a thread I'm working on discussing the need to completely revamp the entire concept of 'Limited Liability', specifically where it concerns large corps.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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.

I used to smoke.
I also worked for a company that eliminated "smoke breaks".
But they did not attempt to tell me I could not smoke while off the clock.
F that
What I do on my time away from work is none of their business

originally posted by: olaru12
It's up to the person that pays the bills for the business and keeps the doors open. I have a small retail operation and my HR person hires and fires on the slightest whim. If you sneeze without covering your mouth could get you fired. And never wear brown shoes to work. Fair warning!!

For small companies, that might be the case.

It is a lot more complicated with large companies, and there are a lot of laws which must be followed. (which is why I put in the title, large companies)

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: olaru12
It's up to the person that pays the bills for the business and keeps the doors open. I have a small retail operation and my HR person hires and fires on the slightest whim. If you sneeze without covering your mouth could get you fired. And never wear brown shoes to work. Fair warning!!

For small companies, that might be the case.

It is a lot more complicated with large companies, and there are a lot of laws which must be followed. (which is why I put in the title, large companies)

At what point are there so many laws that it gets ridiculous though, and you may as well throw up your hands and wonder who really runs it -- the business owner or the government?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: JAGStorm

This is actually a question that fits in nicely to a thread I'm working on discussing the need to completely revamp the entire concept of 'Limited Liability', specifically where it concerns large corps.

You should look into employer tracking.

Some companies are going so far as to monitor when an employee wakes up, and goes to sleep. Where they are going on free time..... interesting stuff indeed.

a reply to: JAGStorm
They should only limit their decisions on property they own. IE No smoking on the property including the parking lot. But if the employer allows the employed to leave the facility for a break, the employer should not be allowed to restrict their right to smoke unless they are on a paid break. This instance however can also be mitigated if the employer does not allow people to leave for paid breaks, but does allow them to leave for un-paid breaks . However if an employer leaves the facility for a service related to job function, such as delivery of parts, merchandise, food, documents, other good or mobile services such as grooming, auto/home-repair, medical, etc.. than the employer can also restrict the employee from smoking as a term of representing the brand during working/paid hours. There is also an exception for that however, such as if the employed is under an independent contractor rather than benefits covered employee and smoking is permitted by the property owner of the location of a service contract as a courtesy.

Can I make it more complicated??

I despise that their are people that force the rest of us to inhale their cigarette or vape smoke, however, this is wrong to bar people from being hired because of their habit. You could legitimately ban the use of these products on your company campus, but the fact that someone is a smoker shouldn’t significantly affect their job performance.

I realize that smokers take more sick days and cost the company more money for health care costs, but this is a slippery slope. Next we will be banning people for being overweight or some other habit we don’t like.

What if a company started banning registered Democrats or Republicans? I just don’t like this direction for the hiring process. People should be able to be who they want to be without fear of being singled out.

It is an affront to personal liberty.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: olaru12
It's up to the person that pays the bills for the business and keeps the doors open. I have a small retail operation and my HR person hires and fires on the slightest whim. If you sneeze without covering your mouth could get you fired. And never wear brown shoes to work. Fair warning!!

For small companies, that might be the case.

It is a lot more complicated with large companies, and there are a lot of laws which must be followed. (which is why I put in the title, large companies)

True and that's the advantage to being a member of a union. Large corps do what they want because most non union employees don't have the resources to take on a a corporation. And usually the government supports the big dogs over the lowly employee anyway... Capitalism, love it or leave it!!

a reply to: Metallicus

I realize that smokers take more sick days and cost the company more money for health care costs, but this is a slippery slope. Next we will be banning people for being overweight or some other habit we don’t like

Do they though? I've talked to some nurses. One told me that hypochondriacs use the most health care costs.

It is an affront to personal liberty.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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.

I used to smoke.
I also worked for a company that eliminated "smoke breaks".
But they did not attempt to tell me I could not smoke while off the clock.
F that
What I do on my time away from work is none of their business

Two words.

Novelty synthetic urine.

Just kidding everyone.

Sure, why not.

Those employees take excessive breaks and cost much more on health insurance.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I think any buisness owner should be able to hire who they want, not who they are told too. Then let the workers decide if the want to be employed for someone like that or not.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
"novelty" eh?
have you heard of an oil change?

a reply to: toysforadults

Government here in the usa has been doing it for years. Now they want to control who you sell too also. No matter your beliefs.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker
"novelty" eh?
have you heard of an oil change?

I don't really know what you two are talking about but if I'm guessing correctly, it sounds disgusting.

a reply to: Middleoftheroad

You can lie about it. But when the first doctor listens to your lungs he will no you are a smoker and it will go in your medical record. Eventually your ins will.go up 2-3x what it was

originally posted by: cognizant420
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

You can lie about it. But when the first doctor listens to your lungs he will no you are a smoker and it will go in your medical record. Eventually your ins will.go up 2-3x what it was

Not necessarily. I just heard on the news 50% of people with lung cancer never smokes.
They think it might be from radon exposure and other exposures.

I had a relative with black lung, never smoked a day in her life.

a reply to: JAGStorm
no more so than someone wanting to control others legal activities outside of work hours
that imo is more disgusting

originally posted by: toysforadults
what's your solution.. the government tells employers who they can and can't hire?

This is precisely what E-Verify does.

the obvious answer is no to that

This is precisely why I am totally against forced use of E-Verify.