Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Company tests for and will not hire smokers

2456

Replies

  • mbaker566mbaker566 Posts: 9,913Member Member Posts: 9,913Member Member
    I don't think i would want to work at a place like that. it feels like they are intruding too much on my life.
    former regular smoker-current social smoker.

    i used to work at places that rewarded you for having good results on annual exams. and taking a few random health classes. they would credit you money towards your deductible
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 3,360Member Member Posts: 3,360Member Member
    Grimmerick wrote: »
    Those of you who are worried about "slippery slopes" need to remember that most of the things mentioned are already being held against people, companies just don't have official hiring policies for them. For example, I have read studies that say it is much easier to get a job if you are good looking, tall, thin, etc. The company doesn't say "we don't hire fat ugly people" but they are much more likely to think the better looking people are better candidates, probably subconsciously.

    Companies can't have formal policies that state "we don't hire people over age X" but that doesn't mean that a 40 year old and a 60 year old are equally likely to get a job.

    The company's ban on hiring smokers is just being more open about not wanting smokers as employees. I'm sure plenty of people have not gotten job offers because they smelled of smoke during the interview.

    This is a very good point and I am sure this is true, but I think testing people for a legal substance because you can't outwardly tell if they are a smoker or not is where I would draw the line. If they can keep it their business it should stay their business, I have no problem with having them sign an agreement stating that if they are a smoker that they cannot smoke at work or smell like smoke at work, or they may be penalized and lose their job, this I could get behind, but there are too many unhealthy behaviors and problems out their that could come under fire next and this is one more step in the direction of limiting personal freedom in your off time. Drinking alcohol is unhealthy and causes a host of issues, and I believe now is considered to not have a safe lower limit, why shouldn't that be next.

    It could be, so it's not a slippery slope thing.

    I'm sure there are places where they won't hire you if you drink.

    The way employment law works is that you can refuse to hire someone for basically any reason or none, unless it's something forbidden by law (like considering race, sex, religion (in most cases), disability (if it doesn't affect the job), sexual orientation (in some states), so on).

    If I want to refuse to hire people because they are Ohio State fans, I can.

    The general idea is that if someone is the best candidate, using unreasonable criteria that have nothing to do with the job will hurt the employer and benefit their competitors, so generally people won't do it unless there's some overarching societal discrimination that requires the law to combat. I don't think this is the case for smokers, and certainly not for the overweight, who are the majority.

    With the smoker thing, probably they are screening out lots of non smokers who wouldn't like having to take drug tests, so their loss.
    edited January 17
  • sugaraddict4321sugaraddict4321 Posts: 12,204Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 12,204Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    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! :)
  • fishgutzyfishgutzy Posts: 2,824Member Member Posts: 2,824Member Member
    Any employer can screen for any criteria they deem necessary to reduce risk/cost.
    Easier to target smokers than the obese. The obese might have a better chance with an ADA law suit so long as the job doesn't have fitness requirements.
    An employer might also choose no to hire people who race motorcycles or participate in extreme sports on weekends due to increased risk of expensive bodily injury.
    Such screenings wil only get tougher as government health coverage mandates increase. Obama care in the US had this effect. Companies laid off employees over 50 at a substantially higher rate after Ocare.
Sign In or Register to comment.