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

a reply to: shooterbrody

I used to think that, but found out I was wrong. They can even use what you do on your free time in a court of law to discredit you or smear your reputation.

Think what you post here or anywhere else on the internet is just your business? People have lost their jobs based on something that they posted online. Because you think it is smart, cute, or funny, doesnt mean everyone will.

Some people are quick to go to your employer's website to disrupt the site and lose you your job.

a reply to: network dude

private companies can do whatever they want. It's a perk of being a private company. They may miss out on some fantastic workers due to their choices, but they are their choices to make. Don't worry, there are plenty of companies that aren't blacklisting smokers. Nobody is taking your cigarettes away..........

Tell that to the 18 - 20-year-olds that had their cigarettes taken away already. They can still fight those corporate wars though, so all is good.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

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.

No you’re not.

a reply to: network dude

And it doesn't even need to be true!

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
a reply to: network dude

private companies can do whatever they want. It's a perk of being a private company. They may miss out on some fantastic workers due to their choices, but they are their choices to make. Don't worry, there are plenty of companies that aren't blacklisting smokers. Nobody is taking your cigarettes away..........

Tell that to the 18 - 20-year-olds that had their cigarettes taken away already. They can still fight those corporate wars though, so all is good.

I'll be honest and say I hope at least some of them use that as an excuse to quit. I smoked for a lot of years and I don't know anyone who enjoyed quitting, but I also don't know anyone who smoked a long time and doesn't want to quit. Some resolved that it's just too damn hard, but they want to quit.

But just as I was free to be a slave to a pack of Marlboro's even at an age below the legal one at the time, these kids are resourceful and will likely find a way if they really want to.

I didn't take them, and I won't advocate for anyone to be forced against their will, but I will hope for their sake that they find a way to stop smoking, for their future and those who they love and those who love them. Smoke em if you got em.

originally posted by: missed_gear
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

This....big time.

I do business with several companies that have higher insurance rates for smokers.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
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?

This is what happens when we have a system that has the employer paying for and subsidizing health insurance. Smokers are not healthy and the business is paying more to cover them. It makes sense they wouldn't want to hire someone who is unhealthy.

The easy fix to this is to decouple health insurance from the employer and then let the employee pick their own plans and pay for it out of their pocket. Then they can smoke all they want...

The big issue is ascertaining at what point do personal choices become a burden on an employer?

Employers should have a right to discriminate within reason... for example, I am not hiring some idiot with face tattoos to talk to my customers. Does a gym have to hire an obese personal trainer? Would you go to a toothless dentist? Or maybe use a financial advisor who filed bankruptcy?

Smokers take smoke breaks. They cost the company money in time and higher health insurance costs. These are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed.

It is a trick situation... I'm not sure where the line is.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: tanstaafl
No, work phones. Although you wouldn't, I would say 99% of people given a work phone would, and of the 99% at least
75% used them as personal phones too.

Ah, ok then...

Well, I'm not saying I wouldn't take the phone, but I certainly wouldn't use it for my phone - which means I likely wouldn't use it unless it was a really, really good job, and I could justify leaving my personal phone at home while working.

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

As much as cig smoke is a turn-off to me as a former smoker, I'd still rather smell people who smell like an ashtray from the party last night than the people who smell like the booze from the party last night.

Some of those functional alcoholics REEK, dude. You can't hide that.


Edit: The fact remains that your boss has no right to tell you what you can do on your off time. At this rate, you'll be prevented from doing anything other than clocking in, clocking out, eating what they say, and going right to bed to wake up and do it again the next day.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Considering many fruits and vegetables contain nicotine, does that mean vegans will also be ineligible for hire?

They said ANY nicotine right?

originally posted by: JAGStorm

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.

Thats a FUBAR`d SNAFU that shouldnt be allowed to exist on this planet. In my humble opinion of course, I havent taken over yet.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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?

It's not the same, coffee doesn't leave residue on your clothes, hair and skin. I stopped smoking cigars after my heart attack in August and I can smell smokers across a room now. I feel bad about putting my co-workers through that as long as I did. When I worked in health care I did not get the non-smoker discount on my health insurance. I would now.

Many medical company (hospital, etc.) positions will not accept you if you have nicotine in your system. It is harmful and does in fact cause a loss of productivity over non-smokers. Don't like it? Don't apply for those jobs, but don't say it's unfair, they have to watch their costs as well.

Link

Not to mention the increase in heart disease, lung disease, cancers in general, dental issues, etc.

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

Free breaks ?
How long has it been since you worked ?

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!!

No brown shoes??? That's racis'!!!

(grin)

I hate black shoes, I wouldn't get hired at your place.

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: missed_gear
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

This....big time.

I do business with several companies that have higher insurance rates for smokers.

You betchya.
I got mine lowered a bunch when I stopped smoking and took up vaping .
Emory University Hospital submitted the paperwork that I no longer used tobacco .
Which was the rule of thumb.
Now , being overtly cannibalistic in their greed , the insurance companies are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

originally posted by: JAGStorm

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.

I would never work for an employer that did that. I'd take McDonald's first. Seriously. I'd have to downsize dramatically but I will not allow an employer to do that to me.

originally posted by: olaru12

not just smoking....everything.

Don't you think HR people research your social media sites to see what kind of person you are. Of course they do, your online presentation is important. They don't have to even give a reason....sorry, pal you just don't fit our company profile...gtfo!!

twitter to your hearts content....

Not all, the health system I worked for said they do not monitor our social media profiles. One, it would take too much time and two, the contracts stated unless someone reported you maligning the company, they didn't care what you did on your own time. But that in itself is a good reason not to have a public profile.

Got hired years ago by a company that wanted me to install an app on my phone for shift schedules. I looked into and saw what the app really did. It was a tracking app. I told them I'm not installing the app.

They insisted that I had to install the app.

I told them to give me a business phone with the app on it. They said it had to be my personal phone.

I told them if it was really just for scheduling they can just put my name in the slots I work, and I'll print the sheet off of the work computer.

Again they said no, it had to be installed on my personal phone.

I quit.

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
Got hired years ago by a company that wanted me to install an app on my phone for shift schedules. I looked into and saw what the app really did. It was a tracking app. I told them I'm not installing the app.

They insisted that I had to install the app.

I told them to give me a business phone with the app on it. They said it had to be my personal phone.

I told them if it was really just for scheduling they can just put my name in the slots I work, and I'll print the sheet off of the work computer.

Again they said no, it had to be installed on my personal phone.

I quit.

Should've told them you don't have a smartphone Or you could've gotten a burner phone and just left it at work. Either way, stupid policy.

My workplace doesn't allow nicotine of any sort of the premises, but it's not like they can fire me for smoking at home. I'd just say I don't smoke. Lie. Screw em. They actually almost fired me for walking one step off the premises and smoking a cigarette on the street during my lunch break...

a reply to: Edumakated

Employers should have a right to discriminate within reason... for example, I am not hiring some idiot with face tattoos to talk to my customers. Does a gym have to hire an obese personal trainer? Would you go to a toothless dentist? Or maybe use a financial advisor who filed bankruptcy?

Every single person I know that works for a bank has terrible personal finance. It doesn't mean they can't do their job. It just means they don't take their own advice.