So you're looking for a job are you? Good luck if you're....

[jp61]

This thought came to mind because I've seen smoking discussed in another thread and it reminded me of something that really ticks me off.

The topic for discussion from my perspective is, certain employers discriminating against smokers and how they're getting away with it.

Yes, I smoke and I like it otherwise I wouldn't be doing it. Not the smartest choice one can make but, this is still the land of the free isn't it? It's a legal and heavily taxed product sold on almost every corner.

I may not like it but have no issue with any employer deciding to implement company policy stating no smoking on company premises. But, to not accept or consider applications from people because they smoke, that is wrong and discriminating in my opinion.

Can someone explain to me how this practice is legal? I have heard from others that it's all about the cost of health insurance to the employer. Where does it end? Are we going to wake up one day to find out we can't work anywhere because we eat BBQ food as an example?

 

[Smokewhenidrink]

I smoked for 12 years and quit cold turkey 3 years ago, so I know how ya feel. Nowadays you get looked at as scum if you smoke. I think a smoker is less appealing to hire because statistically they take more breaks. You may only smoke on your lunch but its a gamble to them because many people in the past have spoiled it for you. Thats just how I see it.

 

[SmokinGame]

I have never chosen to smoke, but I am definitely not in favor of discriminating against a smoker just because they do. I cant believe it is legal.

 

[Ed Crain]

My company charges me more for health insurance because I chew which is legal so if I would switch to illegal drugs my insurance would go down ?

 

[SherryT]

MANY years ago, I applied for a job at a local textile mill...had the job, but didn't know I'd be turned down if I smoked (I did smoke back then, but I quit almost 10 years ago).

Needless to say, I didn't get the job.

 

[atomicsmoke]

I never smoked but i disagree with such practices (smoke free status requirement for a job). At my workplace smokers take a few extrabreaks but they don't take 30min lunch breaks (they take much less).

An employer can ban smoking on his premisses (i know some places) but as long as you are fine with walking/driving away, having a quick one and come back on time from your break, your addiction shouldn't be their business.

And if we open the can of worms of higher insurance cost what's next? Overweight people need not apply? People suffering from diabetes (lifestyle related or not), people with a camcer diagnostic?

I think it's an unhealthy habit but as long as you don't do it with me (or others) around i will stand with you.

 

[HalfSmoked]

As to whither we like it or not times are changing. I'm a previous smoker and in old days could agree with you when it seems everyone smoked. But now to try and enter a store where the smoke hall is just outside the door is the pits and the smell of the clothing is awful. In my work field you could smoke on the job and I heard the complaints that I don't smoke I should be given an extra break to make up for the smokers time he uses smoking. Even though I replied to this thread I'm not sure it belongs here where we are smoking meat and not people.

Warren

 

[johnmeyer]

Our country's attitude toward smoking is impossible to understand:

It is legal to buy, but against the law (local ordinances) to use almost anywhere including, in a few cases, inside your own home if that home shares walls with an adjacent unit.

There is at least one article every day in some news media outlet warning against the dangers of smoking but ... there is at least one article a day in some news media outlet extolling the virtues of "medical marijuana," which is usually smoked.

We've seen ads on TV for decades telling us not to smoke ... but virtually every dramatic TV show or movie shows the characters smoking. What's more, while the characters on those shows and movies who smoke are often the hero and are to be admired, the people in real life who smoke are treated like scum (I think that was the word already used above).

I am very confused.

 

[HalfSmoked]

Yankee 2bbq thanks for the like.

Warren

 

[jp61]

As to whither we like it or not times are changing. I'm a previous smoker and in old days could agree with you when it seems everyone smoked. But now to try and enter a store where the smoke hall is just outside the door is the pits and the smell of the clothing is awful. In my work field you could smoke on the job and I heard the complaints that I don't smoke I should be given an extra break to make up for the smokers time he uses smoking. Even though I replied to this thread I'm not sure it belongs here where we are smoking meat and not people.

Warren

Times are changing, so it's okay to discriminate against people who consume legal tobacco products and are looking for employment to support themselves and their family is your opinion? Would you be okay with employers discriminating against people who consume alcoholic drinks or eat unhealthy foods, or... the list is long.

No one here is smoking people that I know of and this is exactly where this thread belongs.

 

[SherryT]

Times are changing, so it's okay to discriminate against people who consume legal tobacco products and are looking for employment to support themselves and their family is your opinion? Would you be okay with employers discriminating against people who consume alcoholic drinks or eat unhealthy foods, or... the list is long.

No one here is smoking people that I know of and this is exactly where this thread belongs.

I agree.

The argument could be expanded to include marijuana...why are cigarettes and alcohol, both (either on its own or its ingredients) are classified as "drugs", are perfectly legal for sale, but not marijuana?

I tried marijuana in my youth and I was determined to "learn" to like alcoholic beverages like my friends and I couldn't stand either one of them, but until such time as cigs and tobacco are made illegal, I will FULLY support the legalization of marijuana. I don't believe in cherry-picking which drugs are legal and which ones aren't...that seems too much like state-sanctioned, mass-medication or something to me.

I'll stop now before you guys start thinking I'm a total nut bar...:eek:

 

[chef jimmyj]

The Blowing Smoke Forum IS for anything you wish to talk about, no politics or religion, except smoking meat and other subjects covered by one of our forums. If the subject is smoked meat of any kind,there is a separate and appropriate Forum for that.
There has always been a few that dictate the behavior of all! Look at Prohibition. A few convinced the government that alcohol is the Root of all Evil. Since the 90's Tobacco is the Devil. There are more and more articles being published about how dangerous Nitrites and Smoked Meat is for you...Get ready boys! They get your name and address when you register the Serial Number of your smoker for warranty claims. They'll be coming for you next!...JJ

 

[indaswamp]

I built my own smokehouse....No serial number...:D

 

[SmokinAl]

No comment!
Al

 

[LanceR]

As a longtime construction contractor and employer I never had a policy about not hiring smokers but did have pretty firm rules on tobacco use on the jobsite and in the trucks.

I see an employer choosing to not hire smokers as a reasonable choice. There is no way to argue with the facts that, as a group, smokers are sick more often than non-smokers and that tobacco users in general have higher medical bills. Both of which can cost the company money, one up front in labor costs and one out the back door in benefits costs. Group insurance policies limited to non-smokers are appreciably less expensive than general group policies are.

So, like it or not the employer has every right to hire the folks they feel will be, as a group, more likely to be healthy and have a better attendance record.

Just because tobacco products are legal for you to purchase and consume doesn't mean an employer should have to bear increased costs to accommodate your personal choices.

And yes, I smoked a pack a day plus of Pall Malls or unfiltered Camels for years before quitting.....


Lance

 

[HalfSmoked]

There is no stopping what we think is right for us or harm to others and what we do we seem to think is OK with everyone even though it's not.

Here is a different twist to what employers do and don't do - I once worked for a co. that in hiring office help if they had children of certain age that would require them to miss time because they were sick he didn't hire them.

Warren

 

[HalfSmoked]

C Farmer thanks for the like.

Warren

 

[GaryHibbert]

I've smoked most of my life. Still do. I enjoy it. Its my choice to do so. If people don't like to be around smokers thats their choice. I always inform people that our house is a smoking house and nothing will change if and when they visit. The choice to visit is up to them.
That said, i firmly believe an employer shiuld have the right to hire OR not hire whomever he wishes. Its his company and his money. After all I have the right to to decide not to work for him. Nobody forces me to work for him if I don't like the way he runs his company. Nobody should be able to force him to hire me if he doesn't like the way I run my life.
That IMO is one of the basics if living in a free country.
Gary

 

[hb99]

It has to do with the price of health insurance.

My daughter and son-in-law "selected" the "Non-smoker" box on their insurance forms. It reduces their monthly premiums about $100. each. Along with that they have to take random drug testing to prove that hey aren't smoking. If they get caught they get penalized.

 

[jp61]

The fact is that some employers will not hire people who consume any of the tobacco products on the market today. That by definition is discrimination in my book. They are using the power of the paycheck to tell their employees what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes. What a person does legally during non-working hours away from the workplace should not be the basis for discrimination.

Where do we draw the line as to what an employer can "regulate" and how? Virtually every lifestyle choice we make has some health related consequence. And there's also this thing called heredity.

Should an employer be able to forbid someone from eating cheeseburgers, riding a motorcycle or sunbathing? All of these activities entail a health risk. Should they be permitted to deny employment do to potential risk of genetic disease? Maybe that's a bit too much, how bout just high blood pressure or high cholesterol level.

The driving force behind this trend is the root of all evil, money. Employers may one day very well try to "regulate" every health related aspect of their employees' lives, including diet, drinking, hobbies, sleep habit, etc,.

The issue here is the right of individuals to lead the lives they choose. Employers should not be permitted to regulate peoples lives 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in my humble opinion.