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

  • Some of the links on this forum allow SMF, at no cost to you, to earn a small commission when you click through and make a purchase. Let me know if you have any questions about this.
SmokingMeatForums.com is reader supported and as an Amazon Associate, we may earn commissions from qualifying purchases.
The issue here is the right of individuals to lead the lives they choose.

I couldn't agree with you more. And that includes the employers right to hire whom they choose so long as they aren't violating any applicable law.

Lance
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jp61
I couldn't agree with you more. And that includes the employers right to hire whom they choose so long as they aren't violating any applicable law.

Lance

Lance: You are spot on. They don't have to hire you if you can't/won't comply with their rules. Non-compliance isn't a violation of any discrimination law.

I know first hand. I've been through it and was forced to find another position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp61
I was going to say that...hire only qualified employees. In this (future) case, "non-smoker" COULD BECOME a job requirement. Basically, if you smoke you're not qualified. People who are afraid of heights don't apply for a job to build sky scrapers. The future has arrived, they're discriminating as I type. If these types of practices continue and they probably will, might as well change the old red, white and blue to all red.

Take the fight for $15/hr minimum wage for instance. If I were a business owner and the Govt demanded I pay my employees $15/hr I would re-write all of my job descriptions and make it a requirement that anyone without a high school diploma/GED does not meet my minimum educational requirements. That's not discrimination if it's a qualification requirement. Different topic.

One of the internships I was went through had a minimum requirement of an Associate's degree. This is a legit job qualification. Don't have one? The individual doesn't qualify. Whether a person uses tobacco products or not has nothing to do with job qualification. Either way would be discrimination.

Employers are always trying to keep costs down so profit remains steady or grows. That only makes sense from a business point. If 1 employee smokes everyone's premium goes up. It would only make sense they would want non-smokers. They sure do, so that gives them every right to discriminate, right? We'll see how you feel about this topic when they decide to not hire people that drink in order to save money. Have you seen the latest studies on alcohol consumption and its effect on one's health? That one is probably next.

Smoking is a choice. A self-inflicted addiction. I know. I smoked for 18 years, but I quit (the first time I tried) back on March 1 , 1990, coming up on 28 years. Congratulations to you, that's good.
 
I couldn't agree with you more. And that includes the employers right to hire whom they choose so long as they aren't violating any applicable law. Some States have laws regarding this topic and some don't. Where they don't, I guess it's legal to discriminate against tobacco users. Who's next?

Lance
 
Anyone here ever hear of the "Boiling Frog"?
 
Well, I think my opinion on this topic is clear? (whatever it's worth), so thanks for your opinions and the conversation.

Even though this pony (topic) is very much alive and growing, I'm going to stop beating on it.

I hope I'm wrong on what I think this will lead to.
 
Last edited:
Read the whole thread. Nobody seems to disagree smoking is bad for you but is legal. Being obese, gay, religious or not , cross dressing, vegan or carnivore , is legal. Some legal choices can have health affects that cost employer more.
The people who said "an employer can or should be able to hire or not hire whom ever they want" as ablanket statment needs to think it thru. If they won't hire you for one of the other reasons above how will you feel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp61
I'm tempted to say the courts will eventually decide this smoking and weight issue, as they have in the past with other discrimination cases. Unfortunately, it may be decades before anything like that happens. By then, hiring companies will have moved on to a whole new level of discrimination. Most people believe the hair or urine sample given for the pre-employment drug test is only going to be screened for drugs. Company's that do DNA testing are now doing pre-employment drug tests. Standby for a whole new level of employment discrimination targeting genetic markers that indicate a new hire's predisposition to health and behavior issues that go far beyond smoking and weight.

We're dancing on the head of the political pin here, but it makes for interesting reading!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp61
Personally, I think your thought process is narrow because you have specific occupations in mind.

There are plenty of occupations/employers who place restrictions and limitations on their employees.

The Secret Service has a limited list of activities that Presidents are PERMITTED to do. Sky diving it NOT one of them. Bowling and golf are. MOST Presidents play golf whether or not they even like golf.

"On call" workers can't drink while off duty, like first response emergency personnel (police, firemen, doctors, nurses, EMTs, EOD personnel, etc. I've been there, done that. Many years ago I worked on Army rifle ranges for 5 years. When there was a weapon emergency I got called. I had 15-30 minutes to get there. When I was on-call I couldn't drink.

People who don't like their employer's insurance policy, restrictions or requirements don't have to buy into them. They're free to go buy their own.

A person's desire to work for them comes down to if they're willing to accept their conditions for the pay. If they don't like their employer's rules then they need to go get another job. Most business are NOT going to change their job requirement to accommodate employees. How would you react if you were the employer and your employees made their own demands? You probably won't be able to find an insurer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp61
Apple and oranges again. Come on....president?

You can't drink while on call because it interferes with your ability to do your job. Not because it affects the bottom line.

Being sober while on the job (on-call is pretty much unsupervised on-the-job) is common sense not a restriction.

Do you think the argument "my company, my rules" would work for an employer who does not hire handicapped people so he/she doesnt have to spend $ on accesibility features?

As for buying his/her own insurance ....the smoker loses the advantage of the group benefit that way. One option would be him/her paying the extra expense at group rates. But then ofcourse people with pre-existing conditions should pay from their pockets too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp61
I disagree. If it's in WRITING...it IS a restriction (and a requirement). And it does impact the employer's bottom line. If you try to do your job drunk and someone gets killed both YOU and the EMPLOYER will be sued...successfully.

Listen, I didn't comment here to get a "pen pal" so this is my last comment/reply to this thread. Just letting you know up front.

Have a good one. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp61 and chopsaw
I disagree. If it's in WRITING...it IS a restriction (and a requirement). And it does impact the employer's bottom line. If you try to do your job drunk and someone gets killed both YOU and the EMPLOYER will be sued...successfully.

Listen, I didn't comment here to get a "pen pal" so this is my last comment/reply to this thread. Just letting you know up front.

Have a good one. :D
Written in contract or not, a drunk employee is liability. Comparing requirement to show sober for work with requiring smoke free status is stretching the logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp61
I disagree. If it's in WRITING...it IS a restriction (and a requirement). And it does impact the employer's bottom line. If you try to do your job drunk and someone gets killed both YOU and the EMPLOYER will be sued...successfully.

I too think this is rearranging and stretching the point. You reference jobs that have descriptions of very special requests. On call , can't drink. I agree with you accept the employment rules or seek a different employer. The original post to me was about general jobs of 8 and the gate but they want to control your 16 hours away from them by allowing or not, which legal activities your permitted to engage. Per your references on call cant drink, what about your day off. Try to do your job drunk comment, no brainer I agree but for the most part being drunk at home not bothering anyone is the only true legal drunk I can think of. Others may be accepted or overlooked at times say local bar on football night. Drunk - at home and make a scene, public and make a scene, drive to work, at work, you may be charged with breaking a law of Public - Intoxicated, Drunkenness or DUI. All crimes while smoking isn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp61
Personally, I think your thought process is narrow because you have specific occupations in mind.

There are plenty of occupations/employers who place restrictions and limitations on their employees.

The Secret Service has a limited list of activities that Presidents are PERMITTED to do. Sky diving it NOT one of them. Bowling and golf are. MOST Presidents play golf whether or not they even like golf.

"On call" workers can't drink while off duty, like first response emergency personnel (police, firemen, doctors, nurses, EMTs, EOD personnel, etc. I've been there, done that. Many years ago I worked on Army rifle ranges for 5 years. When there was a weapon emergency I got called. I had 15-30 minutes to get there. When I was on-call I couldn't drink.

People who don't like their employer's insurance policy, restrictions or requirements don't have to buy into them. They're free to go buy their own.

A person's desire to work for them comes down to if they're willing to accept their conditions for the pay. If they don't like their employer's rules then they need to go get another job. Most business are NOT going to change their job requirement to accommodate employees. How would you react if you were the employer and your employees made their own demands? You probably won't be able to find an insurer.

Bold type is an example on why threads start getting out of control and end up locked.

This thread is not about any individual's ability or willingness to follow an employer's policies as an employee.
 
I disagree. If it's in WRITING...it IS a restriction (and a requirement). And it does impact the employer's bottom line. If you try to do your job drunk and someone gets killed both YOU and the EMPLOYER will be sued...successfully.

Listen, I didn't comment here to get a "pen pal" so this is my last comment/reply to this thread. Just letting you know up front.

Have a good one. :D

C'mon man, why are you getting all upset?
 
SmokingMeatForums.com is reader supported and as an Amazon Associate, we may earn commissions from qualifying purchases.
Great deal on LEM Grinders!

Latest posts

Clicky