Is this true?

[Stop_the_War]

Someone told me a company was firing employees who smoked, even if they smoked on their own time. They told me this company would do urine tests or something to check if the person was smoking.

[Colorado Blue]

1. I read this too! Will try to remember where.

[babylonsister]

2. Yes, there have been articles on it around here all week.

I'll try to find one for you.

[babylonsister]

3. Here's an article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1179950

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. Weyco health care company fires smokers

[ElsewheresDaughter]

5. Weyco health care company fires smokers

[underpants]

6. Insurance companies do a blood test to see if you have smoke in 1 year

I used to work for a company that basically sold insurance policies to executives (sweet a** golden parachutes) and this was the big determinant to whether the policy was issued and what the premium will be.

The test is VERY accurate and if you have smoked AT ALL within the last year it will show up.

[underseasurveyor]

8. What if you don't smoke but a person you live with does?

Or if you hang out in smoke filled bars for instance, inhaling second hand smoke an all:smoke: Will the test or could the test come back positive?

[underpants]

12. It could (I think) but not very likely

I will amend what I said above-you MIGHT be able to sneak one or two in a year past the test....MIGHT be able to.

[wadestock]

20. I've read that the body can effectively "eliminate" about 3 ....

cigarettes a day. So yeah, how would they come up with such an exact science that considers second hand smoke.

I think they're blowing smoke up everyone's ass. It's part of an ongoing culture change that ANYTHING that represents risk can't be tolerated by corporate America.

[Dr Ron]

7. Stories in Michigan along these lines

I've heard a few stories along these lines lately. In Michigan one college recently started a policy where they would not hire people who smoke. Current employees will be retained even if they smoke, but the school will be promoting smoking cessation programs. This school said they would not do any testing but if they found out someone lied on their application against smoking they might consider this grounds for dismissal.

During the course of the story, mention was made of somewhere else which has a smoking ban where they have done drug testing.

You can't totally blame these places. They do have a legitimate interest in whether employees smoke outside of the workplace because as this increases their insurance costs. It's a shame they can't recover all of these costs from the tobacco companies.

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. I kind of blame them. When I think of all the other acceptable pollutant

use in the country. Such as the use of an automobile. Or the fact that they're still allowed to drink alcohol in their down time. Alcohol has been known to cause severe damage to the liver which can be just as costly medical care wise. Next thing you know, they'll be able to fire you because you are too fat. I thought we had laws against that. I'm a non smoker by the way, who just happens to believe in smoker's rights.

[Dr Ron]

15. Sympathize but don't agree

I don't support such policies, but I do see where they are coming from. Alcohol is also a problem, but is not on the same scale as tobacco in terms of affecting the health care costs of such companies. As long as health care costs are a major financial cost, it is understandable that companies will attempt measures to reduce these costs.

Hopefully most will stick with measures such as paying for smoking cessation programs for willing employees, which is a much more common response than the attempts at not employing smokers.

[ScreamingMeemie]

16. Alcohol killed my father in law...not tobacco use. Destroyed his liver

and yet no emphysema...no cancer. It's more physical makeup than anything. If these employers stopped drinking themselves and rode a bike to work (with a helmet, of course) then maybe I would understand their decision. Otherwise, it's discriminatory. The man they interviewed must have been around 5'9" and close to three hundred pounds...which certainly is a health insurance risk.

[Dr Ron]

19. Tobacco still affeects far more

While alchohol is devastating in many people, it still does not have the effect upon society (and on insurance rates to businesses) as tobacco.

Whether or not they drink moderately or ride thier bike to work will not affect the insurance rates they are offered anywhere to the degree that the number of smokers covered will affect their rates.

[ScreamingMeemie]

22. Sorry, I disagree.

And I already stated my reasons. Actually, this discussion, and further personal thought on the subject, has changed my mind to where I totally blame them.

[Occulus]

10. I CAN completely blame these policies.

That company the OP was talking about? It's now considering firing obese workers.

Employers should not have the right to tell their employees what they may and may not do on their own time without paying those employees their wages plus overtime 24/7/365. I see this as a pay issue- you want me to refrain from legal activities while off your property, you better fucking pay me for my time. Otherwise, I'm gone, and I'm making damn sure I leave an astounding amount of wreckage in my wake.

[ScreamingMeemie]

13. Good job. You said it much better than I.

:hi:

[underseasurveyor]

11. There's a Pella Window manufacturing plant

in Sioux Center (i think it is) Iowa that will not hire smokers. I don't know if they'll actually fire an employee should they learn they smoke off company time but I do know they won't hire smokers.

Smoking is bad, smelly, and expensive and no one including me should ever smoke/use tobacco and yadda yadda blah blah, but it is legal to purchase and consume tobacco in the US.
Least it use to was:shrug:

[dweller]

14. now i'm curious about the habits of

the CEO's and upper management of these companies and insurance agencies... I wonder what they are doing in their off-times that they are saying that we should not being doing.

just curiouser and curiouser myself...

dp

[ultraist]

17. If you owned a business, who would you hire?

A person in optimum health that was highly productive and not likely to call in sick or a heavy smoker or drinker?

Consider that your for profit business in a free enterprise market, foots the costs of training, workmans comp, unemployment insurance, business license fees, taxes, property taxes, etc.

Do you "sympathize" and give these employees money out of your pocket or do you make a smart business decision?

Remember, this business is your livelihood. This business puts food on your table and clothes your children.

Your choice, your children's college fund or compensation for an employee who smokes/drinks heavily. It's your bottom line, how would you invest your money?

[Blue_In_AK]

18. I saw the guy on TV

This is kind of mind-boggling to me.

[Nikia]

21. This is a logical extensive of drug testing

Yes, tobacco is legal and illegal drugs are illegal. The premise is the same though. Employers have the right to dictate what an employee does on their own time and the right to conduct an investigation (drug test). I don't think that we should be suprised. Of course if there weren't so many unemployed people, companies couldn't get away with this.