Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Company tests for and will not hire smokers

1235

Replies

  • RachelElserRachelElser Posts: 1,030Member Member Posts: 1,030Member Member
    The place I work doesn't punish those who refuse their yearly physical, it just doesn't reward them. If I do my yearly physical and the three steps in the program, my weekly pay out goes down $20 and I get a $250 good life card. If someone chooses not to do it, their pay out doesn't change.

    Wait, I'm confused. If you accept and pass the physical your paycheck goes DOWN by $20 a week? But they make it up to you by giving you $250??? $20 a week x 52 weeks is $1,040 so if I'm reading this right that's not a good deal at all...

    Or do you mean that your insurance premium goes down by $20 a week? That would be fantastic! :)

    Sorry for not being clear, yes my insurance goes down by $20 a paycheck (so every two weeks, my mistake) so I pay out less then someone who has the same plan but doens't do the wellness checks.
  • aokoyeaokoye Posts: 2,981Member Member Posts: 2,981Member Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    How is this much different from testing for any drugs? As a hospital, I can understand the desire to not hire employees who smoke. There is evidence against second and third hand smoke being harmful. If this hospital deals with people who are already unhealthy, for example lung cancer, exposing them to someone who smells of smoke could potentially be harmful to that patient's health. That makes the smokers a liability to the hospital.


    How is this much different from testing for any drugs?

    Because right now at this moment...
    Nicotine is legal... and “drugs” ain’t. (Well some states have decriminalized pot)

    A pre employment drug screening looking for (illegal) controlled substances is reasonable.
    You aren’t supposed to use those period.

    A pre employment screening for (legal) substances used on your own time is not.


    Can they say smoking during work hours on property is against the rules? They sure can. That’s reasonable. Same as a zero tolerance policy concerning alcohol in the work place.

    But telling people what legal activities they can indulge in off property and off hours is pretty questionable.

    What’s next?
    Zero tolerance alcohol testing? - oh you like a glass of Merlot with dinner? You lush! No job for you!

    Bacon testing? - your sodium and nitrate levels are too high...you pig! no job for you!

    How about dangerous pastimes?

    Hey, we see you like to ride a bicycle, that’s risky you might be hit by a car, and actually USE that health insurance you pay for.
    No job for you!

    Oh, we see you enjoy surfing...
    well we don’t want any potential shark attack victims in our office - no job for you!

    In addition to your statement that "drugs ain't [legal]" save for various states that have decriminalized pot, you might also want to mention that there are various states where it's perfectly legal to test for nicotine. Yes that would poke holes in your post, but who said transparency was bad?


    Ummm, I never said some states permit employers to test for nicotine during a pre employment drug screen. Or that the practice was illegal.

    This fact Is moot.

    My point (which you seem to have missed) was
    That evidently what one does these days on their own time, off property, is becoming the business of the employers we work for. (And is being facilitated by our own legislatures)

    Does that not strike you as maybe just a little disconcerting?
    Maybe a little invasive?

    Is “your” time truly your own off the clock?
    It seems that for some folks... it’s not.

    I don’t like it. It scares me a little.
    It should scare everyone.

    Pity it does not.

    My point, which went right over your head, is that in some states it is perfectly legal to test for nicotine in the same way that it's legal to test for opioids.
    This doesn't scare me because, as I already said, there are plenty of jobs that won't hire people due to various very benign health issues. This includes some US governmental positions (actually a large swath of them). In some cases I think this is reasonable. It makes sense to have a high threshold for commercial pilots. In some cases it isn't.

    Whereas you seem to be scared because of what might happen with regards to a slippery slope, I already know what's going on. I am well aware that there are plenty of things related to medical issues and employees' personal choices that would get them fired, not hired (legally or not), or make them ineligible for employment. As I've said many a time outside of this website, the US government would probably really want someone with metalinguistic skills like mine to be a linguist in the military. It's too bad their own rules make that impossible (there are three things that would make me ineligible, only one of which is at all reasonable given the position).
  • T1DCarnivoreRunnerT1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 9,713Member Member Posts: 9,713Member Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    How is this much different from testing for any drugs? As a hospital, I can understand the desire to not hire employees who smoke. There is evidence against second and third hand smoke being harmful. If this hospital deals with people who are already unhealthy, for example lung cancer, exposing them to someone who smells of smoke could potentially be harmful to that patient's health. That makes the smokers a liability to the hospital.


    How is this much different from testing for any drugs?

    Because right now at this moment...
    Nicotine is legal... and “drugs” ain’t. (Well some states have decriminalized pot)

    A pre employment drug screening looking for (illegal) controlled substances is reasonable.
    You aren’t supposed to use those period.

    A pre employment screening for (legal) substances used on your own time is not.


    Can they say smoking during work hours on property is against the rules? They sure can. That’s reasonable. Same as a zero tolerance policy concerning alcohol in the work place.

    But telling people what legal activities they can indulge in off property and off hours is pretty questionable.

    What’s next?
    Zero tolerance alcohol testing? - oh you like a glass of Merlot with dinner? You lush! No job for you!

    Bacon testing? - your sodium and nitrate levels are too high...you pig! no job for you!

    How about dangerous pastimes?

    Hey, we see you like to ride a bicycle, that’s risky you might be hit by a car, and actually USE that health insurance you pay for.
    No job for you!

    Oh, we see you enjoy surfing...
    well we don’t want any potential shark attack victims in our office - no job for you!

    In addition to your statement that "drugs ain't [legal]" save for various states that have decriminalized pot, you might also want to mention that there are various states where it's perfectly legal to test for nicotine. Yes that would poke holes in your post, but who said transparency was bad?


    Ummm, I never said some states permit employers to test for nicotine during a pre employment drug screen. Or that the practice was illegal.

    This fact Is moot.

    My point (which you seem to have missed) was
    That evidently what one does these days on their own time, off property, is becoming the business of the employers we work for. (And is being facilitated by our own legislatures)

    Does that not strike you as maybe just a little disconcerting?
    Maybe a little invasive?

    Is “your” time truly your own off the clock?
    It seems that for some folks... it’s not.

    I don’t like it. It scares me a little.
    It should scare everyone.

    Pity it does not.

    My point, which went right over your head, is that in some states it is perfectly legal to test for nicotine in the same way that it's legal to test for opioids.
    This doesn't scare me because, as I already said, there are plenty of jobs that won't hire people due to various very benign health issues. This includes some US governmental positions (actually a large swath of them). In some cases I think this is reasonable. It makes sense to have a high threshold for commercial pilots. In some cases it isn't.

    Whereas you seem to be scared because of what might happen with regards to a slippery slope, I already know what's going on. I am well aware that there are plenty of things related to medical issues and employees' personal choices that would get them fired, not hired (legally or not), or make them ineligible for employment. As I've said many a time outside of this website, the US government would probably really want someone with metalinguistic skills like mine to be a linguist in the military. It's too bad their own rules make that impossible (there are three things that would make me ineligible, only one of which is at all reasonable given the position).

    It's similar for me. This was years ago, before MFP existed, but I did really well on the ASVAB in high school and was getting recruited by every branch (even the Coast Guard, Navy, and Marines, maybe because they didn't know that I can't swim). I have type 1 diabetes, which is not related to weight / lifestyle (as is type 2) and not something that I could have prevented in any way. Because of this, I can't join the military. I also can't be a commercial pilot, nor a federal agent (I actually did want to be an IRS agent working in the CID at one point, but couldn't pursue that career path). It used to be that I could not get a CDL and drive a truck, though now it is possible for type 1's to get a CDL as long as they meet a bunch of extra restrictions. There was a time when I would not have been able to get a normal driver's license, though fortunately that changed before it affected me. And all of these things are because of a medical condition that I did not choose to have, nor could have prevented. Smoking is a choice.
  • TheRoadDogTheRoadDog Posts: 11,863Member Member Posts: 11,863Member Member
    I used to work for a company that did the same thing. The guys I ride with would meet at my house every third Thursday of the month for "Cigar Night." Been doing this for 20 years. 11 years ago I left for a job with the company I now work for. Soon after my old company banned tobacco.

    We still all meet at my house every third Thursday of the month. Only the meeting reminder is for "Book Club."

    gauwp13m0vhs.png
  • ktekcktekc Posts: 865Member Member Posts: 865Member Member
    lbsansouci wrote: »
    Personally, I'd love to work for a company like that, or be a patient in that hospital. I went for an eye exam recently and the doctor had just come in from a smoke break. I literally had to hold my breath as he leaned into my face. The smell was nauseating. :#

    I hope you told him. I would have.
  • BoxerBrawlerBoxerBrawler Posts: 1,977Member Member Posts: 1,977Member Member
    My response to this entire thing is... do people really still smoke???? LOL! No one smokes anymore around where I live. All the cool kids vape now!
  • LyndaBSSLyndaBSS Posts: 5,816Member, Premium Member Posts: 5,816Member, Premium Member
    ktekc wrote: »
    lbsansouci wrote: »
    Personally, I'd love to work for a company like that, or be a patient in that hospital. I went for an eye exam recently and the doctor had just come in from a smoke break. I literally had to hold my breath as he leaned into my face. The smell was nauseating. :#

    I hope you told him. I would have.

    I told him after he was done putting things in my eyes. :D
  • Theoldguy1Theoldguy1 Posts: 472Member Member Posts: 472Member Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    How is this much different from testing for any drugs? As a hospital, I can understand the desire to not hire employees who smoke. There is evidence against second and third hand smoke being harmful. If this hospital deals with people who are already unhealthy, for example lung cancer, exposing them to someone who smells of smoke could potentially be harmful to that patient's health. That makes the smokers a liability to the hospital.


    How is this much different from testing for any drugs?

    Because right now at this moment...
    Nicotine is legal... and “drugs” ain’t. (Well some states have decriminalized pot)

    A pre employment drug screening looking for (illegal) controlled substances is reasonable.
    You aren’t supposed to use those period.

    A pre employment screening for (legal) substances used on your own time is not.


    Can they say smoking during work hours on property is against the rules? They sure can. That’s reasonable. Same as a zero tolerance policy concerning alcohol in the work place.

    But telling people what legal activities they can indulge in off property and off hours is pretty questionable.

    What’s next?
    Zero tolerance alcohol testing? - oh you like a glass of Merlot with dinner? You lush! No job for you!

    Bacon testing? - your sodium and nitrate levels are too high...you pig! no job for you!

    How about dangerous pastimes?

    Hey, we see you like to ride a bicycle, that’s risky you might be hit by a car, and actually USE that health insurance you pay for.
    No job for you!

    Oh, we see you enjoy surfing...
    well we don’t want any potential shark attack victims in our office - no job for you!

    In addition to your statement that "drugs ain't [legal]" save for various states that have decriminalized pot, you might also want to mention that there are various states where it's perfectly legal to test for nicotine. Yes that would poke holes in your post, but who said transparency was bad?


    Ummm, I never said some states permit employers to test for nicotine during a pre employment drug screen. Or that the practice was illegal.

    This fact Is moot.

    My point (which you seem to have missed) was
    That evidently what one does these days on their own time, off property, is becoming the business of the employers we work for. (And is being facilitated by our own legislatures)

    Does that not strike you as maybe just a little disconcerting?
    Maybe a little invasive?

    Is “your” time truly your own off the clock?
    It seems that for some folks... it’s not.

    I don’t like it. It scares me a little.
    It should scare everyone.

    Pity it does not.

    If a person has a right to smoke, I'm thinking a company that is paying for health insurance as part of the employee's compensation has the right to not hire someone that raises their costs due to a controllable situation.

    Direct cause and effect IMO. Bit of a slippery slope if the company isn't paying insurance.
  • vollkornbloedchenvollkornbloedchen Posts: 1,306Member Member Posts: 1,306Member Member
    Grimmerick wrote: »
    There are some smokers however that [...] do not go to work smelling like smoke.

    As an ex-smoker I can assure you that this is frankly impossible, except for those very few people that have an ozone-shower at the door of their appartment.

    Anyhow I can very well see why an employer wouldn't want to employ a person that either is either physically or mentally absent a significant time of the working day.
    If you don't want to support this, there is an easy way out: Don't apply at such a company.
    Be assured that a company will overthink such strategies if they are running out of qualified personnel because of overly restrictive employment-policies.

  • PrincessMel72PrincessMel72 Posts: 1,095Member Member Posts: 1,095Member Member
    My company does this as well. It has lowered our rates for health insurance DRAMATICALLY and it keeps our employees from taking 100 smoke breaks during the day. It also attracts healthier candidates (we're a tech company so recruit a lot of younger folks). We do a wellness fair annually and participate in weight loss challenges throughout the year. Overall, we saved our employees 23% on health insurance premiums. I think it's a great thing! Plus, if you're sensitive to tobacco, you don't have to worry about your coworkers coming in smelling of it.
  • MotorsheenMotorsheen Posts: 14,940Member Member Posts: 14,940Member Member
    TheRoadDog wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    TheRoadDog wrote: »
    I'll stop smoking cigars, when you take them from my cold, dead fingers.

    erw0vmidjnpv.png

    Ok...and? You'll still smell like cigar smoke and I can't imagine your lungs (among other organs) will thank you. Of course it's not as if riding motorcycles is especially safe either.

    I'll keep on not smoking. Better for my health, my bank account, and the health and wellbeing of those around me.

    Personal choice. I've never smoked a cigarette and you don't inhale cigars. At least I don't. Also, I don't smoke at work. Only when I am with the guys I ride with or when I am hiking. I'm aware some people don't like the smell of cigars. My wife does does though. I usually smell of cigars, bourbon and BBQ. Have a nice day.

    I usually smell like fear, regret and loathing. *shrug
  • zamirasonizamirasoni Posts: 88Member Member Posts: 88Member Member
    I guess there are really *kitten* places to work for out there. My job does not care and I appreciate that. My husband's job cares but it only does positive enforcement, like insurance discount for getting your blood work done. Just for taking the blood test, independent of the results. Good luck to everyone with a crummy job.
  • MotorsheenMotorsheen Posts: 14,940Member Member Posts: 14,940Member Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    TheRoadDog wrote: »
    I'll stop smoking cigars, when you take them from my cold, dead fingers.

    erw0vmidjnpv.png

    Ok...and? You'll still smell like cigar smoke and I can't imagine your lungs (among other organs) will thank you. Of course it's not as if riding motorcycles is especially safe either.

    I suppose life isn't safe..... No-one here gets out alive.

    Cigar Smoking seems like one of the more benign habits one could have & if it's part of a social scene & enjoyable, even better.

    As for motorcycles. Dangerous? Yeah, sure.. I guess, but 'so what?'..... life choices.




Sign In or Register to comment.