Oh you Smoke? Employers getting strict on hiring Smokers.

[enterthemadness]

wait for it...a Rant is coming soon.

In all, about four out of 10 employers reward or penalize employees based on tobacco use. But hiring bans, which are legal in 21 states, are gaining traction, with about 4% adopting the policy and an additional 2% planning to do so next year, according to a recent study by the National Business Group on Health and consulting firm Towers Watson (TW). Most firms simply ask job candidates if they smoke, but a few require candidates to take urine tests to be screened for nicotine, as part of a broader drug test.

Okay. So...I read comments in the article, link below.

finance.yahoo.com/news/warning--smoking-is-hazardous-to-your-employment-173111627.html

So it's for health reasons, or insurance reasons? Okay. But doesn't that open up a loop hole? What about people who drink booze? Um, caffeine addicts like me? I kid you not, at times, I literally have a coffee and a soda/coke, mainly a can of mtn dew in the same hour. -_- why would I do that? Cause I feel like this afterwards, that is why.

And then I crash like Dane Cook's career but that is another story for another time.

Someone said in the comments that this opens up your boss telling you what to do in your personal life. The thought of a employer telling me what to do in my life, I really do not like. Is your boss or company going to tell you now that 'Uh, don't watch this many hours of TV a day', or 'Oh, can you tone down your steam playing time online?' 'Oh, could you add the company onto your social media accounts, like, gee, all of them?'

And Tobacco is a legal drug in this country. You can smoke, chew, or dip it. So, are these companies saying 'NO' to even people who dip/chew? What about e-cigs?

Ending, now I feel like this...

 

[Doctor Evo]

A libertarian should have no problem with this.

 

[Drizzle]

Well, I don't smoke cigarettes, but I certainly don't see the point in shunning smokers. It's not like they're blowing smoke into non-smokers' faces or anything. Being a smoker should have nothing to do with one's work ethic. It reminds me of this South Park episode:

[YT]gUEjnoWpdao[/YT]

 

[enterthemadness]

A libertarian should have no problem with this.

I disagree. Us Libertarians need to stop this 'legalize drugs'' business if we are gonna stand by and let the companies in turn ask if you do any drugs, legal or otherwise. It defeats the purpose.

You can make weed legal, but if most businesses only hire people who don't do drugs or penalize people who do drugs, what is the point?

 

[Schlosser85]

I disapprove of all this smoker penalizing.

I don't smoke, never touched a cigarette in my life, zero desire for it, hate the smell of smoke, don't want cancer, etc., but whether an employee does or doesn't smoke outside of the workplace is none of the company's business.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I disagree. Us Libertarians need to stop this 'legalize drugs'' business if we are gonna stand by and let the companies in turn ask if you do any drugs, legal or otherwise. It defeats the purpose.

You can make weed legal, but if most businesses only hire people who don't do drugs or penalize people who do drugs, what is the point?

...what, in your mind, is the Libertarian philosophy?

 

[Doctor Evo]

I disapprove of all this smoker penalizing.

I don't smoke, never touched a cigarette in my life, zero desire for it, hate the smell of smoke, don't want cancer, etc., but whether an employee does or doesn't smoke outside of the workplace is none of the company's business.

Unless hiring smokers begins to damage their financial interests.

 

[Marvolo]

People need to remember that smoking is an addiction predicated and fostered in peer pressure. Before we start hanging the addicts out to dry and condemning our youth how about we try to help them or offer a more healthy alternative. Or how about we just let people smoke if they want to. People do all kinds of dangerous **** for various reasons.

 

[Doctor Evo]

People need to remember that smoking is an addiction predicated and fostered in peer pressure. Before we start hanging the addicts out to dry and condemning our youth how about we try to help them or offer a more healthy alternative. Or how about we just let people smoke if they want to. People do all kinds of dangerous **** for various reasons.

Yeah, like offering some sort of economic incentive to qui-

Oh.

 

[Marvolo]

Yeah, like offering some sort of economic incentive to qui-

Oh.

I quit smoking and I didn't get a damn thing. Tho quitting in and of itself was a reward.

Since anyone under 18 smoking is committing an illegal act I don't see how the government can offer them an incentive. As for adults what kind of incentive can they get? A tax cut would be nice, but there is no way to prove they have actually quit short of constant medical evaluations and I could see that being extorted to get a tax cut. The government just needs to stop treating everyone like lepers and criminals and help people. Stop with the consequences and the damning and just reach out a helpful hand.

 

[Doctor Evo]

I quit smoking and I didn't get a damn thing. Tho quitting in and of itself was a reward.

Since anyone under 18 smoking is committing an illegal act I don't see how the government can offer them an incentive. As for adults what kind of incentive can they get? A tax cut would be nice, but there is no way to prove they have actually quit short of constant medical evaluations and I could see that being extorted to get a tax cut. The government just needs to stop treating everyone like lepers and criminals and help people. Stop with the consequences and the damning and just reach out a helpful hand.

I think you may be confused. These are private institutions putting these hiring bans in place. The hiring ban is itself an economic incentive to quit smoking.

Hence my post.

 

[Marvolo]

I think you may be confused. These are private institutions putting these hiring bans in place. The hiring ban is itself an economic incentive to quit smoking.

Hence my post.

These private institutions are discriminating against people who are not only suffering from an addiction which in no way impedes their ability to perform their job but also is a freedom. This to me is unlawful discrimination.

In a time when people need jobs desperately they should be making it easier to get a job. Not harder. This draconian BS isn't helping the situation.

 

[Doctor Evo]

These private institutions are discriminating against people who are not only suffering from an addiction which in no way impedes their ability to perform their job but also is a freedom. This to me is unlawful discrimination.

Two problems with this argument.

1) The addiction can be treated and the behavior ultimately changed/halted. This potential exists, unlike in cases involving gender, race or sexual orientation.

2) The invocation of "freedom" implies the action of choice. Why should companies be denied the same freedom, and on what grounds? This is a self-defeating argument.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

They do if for money reason, end of story, health is an excuse.

 

[Doctor Evo]

They do if for money reason, end of story, health is an excuse.

Nobody is pretending otherwise.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

Nobody is pretending otherwise.

I didn't say someone did

 

[Doctor Evo]

I didn't say someone did

You implied it by saying, "[H]ealth is an excuse."

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

It must be a subtlety of the English language that I missed ( yes this is a sarcasm ).

 

[enterthemadness]

...what, in your mind, is the Libertarian philosophy?

A Limited Government. One that doesn't give in to special interest money or Wall-Street.

Letting people do what they want with their body and money. Which means if drugs were to be legal.....a business can not discriminate or fire you for drug use, if you are shown to be a productive worker. If you let companies/states allow smoking bans, meaning a person can not be a smoker, and/or a Tobacco user, you open up a loophole. Or a can of worms. The correct thing to do would be to let the states (not the Fed Govt) ban the use of Tobacco and make it illegal, like other drugs. Us Libertarians want drugs to be legal..but then say Businesses can basically have hiring guidelines. That is a dangerous power for companies to have. The logically leap would be 'Now we won't hire people who drink, or use caffeine, etc'

It really defeats the purpose. If the Federal Govt makes weed legal, but lets states or businesses have hiring guidelines...why have legal weed? If a company or state can say 'We won't hire pot workers'. So, like it or not, you do need some Govt guidelines Federally, just really low. Example. I believe Federally that Gay Marriage and Weed should be legal. The states do not get to decide on that matter. Nor should they imho. States can have some power. If a heavily Democratic State doesn't like guns...okay...they can put restrictions. Gonna be honest...a light bulb moment...I am okay if States want to have gun control or ban guns, as long as the Federal Govt doesn't do it.

I never said I was 100% Libertarian. I've done tests at isidewith. I get in the 70's or 80's % range for Libertarian. I do have a Govt streak in me.

To sum things up. I'm 25, been a registered Libertarian for nearly a year...a year sometime next m..nope. Think it's a year sometime this month. I still have lots to learn.

EDIT: I have tattoos. It sucks companies, if I am hired, will make me wear a long sleeve shirt underneath my work clothes to cover up my visible tats. But that's fine by me, that is their right. If it's visible. People can get tattoos...just cover them up. And yes, I realize after reading this and editing it, I sound like a weird Big Govt/Libertarian hybrid. Oh well...

 

[Spuzz]

I used to smoke a lot. Then I threw my pack out the window while driving once on a whim. Never smoked again.

I realize I traded smoking for littering. Oh well.

 

[enterthemadness]

I used to smoke a lot. Then I threw my pack out the window while driving once on a whim. Never smoked again.

I realize I traded smoking for littering. Oh well.

It's okay, look on the bright side. you just gave free smokes to a inmate road crew. I went there and came back.

 

[Spuzz]

It's okay, look on the bright side. you just gave free smokes to a inmate road crew. I went there and came back.

Inmate road worker: "Hey, White Power Bill! Some jerk threw out a perfectly good pack of--"

*gets shanked by White Power Bill*

Inmate road worker: "Why White Power Bill....why?"

White Power Bill: "I did it for da smokes."

 

[Anita18]

A Limited Government. One that doesn't give in to special interest money or Wall-Street.

But...if the government bans companies from doing something, isn't that the government getting bigger?

In the light of increasing healthcare costs (and they ARE going up regardless of Obamacare or any other plan anyone comes up with), companies will do whatever they can to decrease healthcare costs. Being obese and being a smoker are detrimental to your health. This is proven. If you are obese long enough, or a smoker long enough, you WILL see effects on your health. Some people are lucky enough to die of something else before this happens but most people are not so lucky.

It's not personal. It's strictly business.

 

[CashforStash]

Graphic Design life in my bedroom. Work at home, smoke all day and all night.

My clients would never know I smoke unless they smelt it on me while we went out for coffee .

Now if all a sudden graphic designers don't make money, then I guess this is for the birds for me. Also Canadian life...

 

[enterthemadness]

Anita. i made the arguement already. Can of worms. Tobacco is a legal drug. If you want to discrimate, the correct thing to do is make Tobacco illegal in that state.