Riverside Co.(CA) bans hiring of sherrif deputies who smoke(Poll)

[mitchtv]

is this fair? or discriminatory?
http://www.kesq.com/Global/category.asp?C=28289&nav=9ptC

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. I'm a bit conflicted on this and here is why

On the one hand if an officer can complete the 20 critical criterion for the job physically that officers must meet then it should be fine, and therefore they are being discriminated against.

On the other hand, because of the hazards associated with their jobs, police and firefighters are allowed certain presumptions under the law that certain medical conditions are job related..and cancer is one of them. This increases costs, when in fact a cop that smokes for 20 or 30 years is far more likely to get lung cancer from smoking than from one night working with a haz mat team or busting a meth lab.

[Character Assassin]

4. What about smoking at a meth lab?

;-)

[chiburb]

6. And how is the smog in Riverside?

Not being cute cuz I really don't know. What I am asking though, is don't other environmental factors play a role in the costs associated with their employment? If not, they should be...

[ibegurpard]

7. That would effectively ban everyone in Southern California.

Which illustrates how ludicrous this policy is.

[chiburb]

8. Agreed. n/t

.

[mitchtv]

10. smog is bad in riverside, but out here in the desert

it is particulate matter(sand) that's the problem. lovely purple/orange sunsets, tho.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. Smog is a very big deal in Riverside /SBDO due to the fact

that all of LA smog blows that way in an onshore flow and hangs in that area.

The other thinsg that I DO find discriminatory is that alcohol creates many conditions which are also presumed compensatory for cops but no one ever passes alcohol laws only smoking laws.

I think they will get some serious shit from the unions for this.

[chiburb]

15. Thanks. As was posted below...

Where do you draw the line? Ask for family medical records to find history of cancer, hypertension, et al? Should they bar anyone who eats fast/junk food or has a body-mass index over 28?
Unbelievable...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

19. True. Fundamentally I agree and that is why i was a bit torn

I believe in the liberal principle that the worker is taken as he/she is found.

My only resentment on the issues stems from the fact that officers have protections that the rest of the work force does NOT have even though there are people working around more hazardous carcinogens without the legal protections when they become ill from them.

[theoceansnerves]

25. yeah

it's that inversion layer. it just traps all that crap in the atmosphere. i'm glad i don't live there anymore.

[wysimdnwyg]

2. Discriminatory

They can prohibit smoking in the buildings, in the cars, etc., but to refuse to hire someone because they smoke is wrong.

(And this comes from a former smoker who would prefer tobacco products be made illegal.)

[ibegurpard]

3. Damn! I have to type it over again!

They better ban anyone who engages in ANY behavior that can lead to illness, then. That would include drinking, eating too much fast food, et al...which would effectively ban just about everyone. I have no problem with workplace laws banning smoking to protect others from second-hand smoke but this is taking it WAY too far. They expect me to believe, as stated in the article, that ALL of their worker's comp costs are related to smoking-related illness?? I don't believe that for a second. This is nothing but nannyism dressed up as concern for taxpayer dollars.

[mitchtv]

9. yeah but, I'll bet it significantly lowers Healthcare Ins. premiums

and we all pay them.

[ibegurpard]

11. I would have no problem with them saying smokers have to pay

higher health-care premiums. That is not discriminatory. But to say they won't HIRE smokers? That's taking it waaay too far.

[TXlib]

5. Absolutely fair

The police department is having a hard enough time paying for its retirees without the added expense of those whose own behavior injured them.

[ibegurpard]

12. Let's not forget that smokers finance a great deal of state health-care

expense with cigarette taxes.

[BiggJawn]

16. A lot of cops I see suffer from the effects of Krispy-Kream more...

..than Phillip Morris.
I kid you not, remember the Indiana town marshall that Joe the Lori-Killer (Scarborough) was going off about last week? Guess what, the Coroner ruled death due to "hardening of the arteries" and other heart diseases exacerbated by getting into a struggle with a suspect, thus a homicide. Haven't heard if they're bringing murder charges against the 17-y-o punk yet. They had a picture of the departed marshall in the paper, just a head-shot, but I could see that the guy was NOT a picture of physical fitness. No neck, just rolls. Looked like a scarf around his throat. Bet he weighed 350-plus. And he was a year younger than me.

When they start penalizing officers that either can't reach or fail to maintain a weight and level of fitness needed to wrestle meth-crazed punks without popping a gasket, then I'll get behind them going after smokers. and I'm an ex-smoker, too. I'm also FAT, and I see the down-side of that more clearly that I do 30 years of smoking.

[polpilot]

18. Fat people shouldn't be hired for public jobs...creates visual polution..

This country has gone to hell. Just returned from Canada where they still have cigarette vending machines in lobbies. They make being a pack of cigarettes easy and we bomb sheperds 8,500 miles away and deny jobs to smokers. Crazeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!

[BiggJawn]

22. And what are those smokes up to per pack now? $12? $15?

I went to Canada about 10 years ago...Boy, was I ever surprised when I ran out of smokes there...

And lemme guess, you're one of the hard-body guys from that annoying "I want your BOD!!!" commercial I see at the movies, right?

Didn't think so.

Here's something else to give you pleasant dreams:
6' 4", 304#, balding, wearing black lycra bike shorts sweating up a hill in front of the Goddess and everyone....

[JHB]

Unfair and discriminatory

Smokers already pay for their health costs through higher premiums and high tobacco-product taxes. And do you realyy want your employer to have a say in, for a parallel example, what you cook on your backyard barbecue because of how it may affect your health?

Employers can set (reasonable) standards for behavior for employees while they are "on the job", but any attempt to extend that power should be vigorously fought just on its face.

[beyurslf]

13. I am an avid anti smoker and I would say this is

blatant discrimation. What if someone quits before he is hired and then starts again? Is he fired? What if they lie and are hired only to be caught? Fired? How does one get caught? Will they smell their clothes? Breath? Watch them at home or out in public? Will there be a public phone in line to say you caught Deputy so and so smoking?

The only even remotely valid arguement is the one about health and insurance. Of course, those who are overweight would be barred. Those with cornary disease in a long family history could be barred. HIV? You better believe it. Cancer? Very expensive so lets get rid of those too... and since it is hereditary, can we get your family history also?

If this policy is good and cost effective for Riverside Police, why not other places? Soon, we could all fill out a medical chart and "bad habit" chart before even getting hired.

[Kathleen04]

17. I'm from Riverside..

I agree with others that say that this raises too many variables about other health risk factors. I think it would be more wise for the department to focus on being cost effective in areas that are tangible and directly related to the expenses of the department rather than policing the health of their employees. And, if this really is a serious problem for the department, it seems as though they could go about this in a more positive way, ie: a program to help employees stop smoking, encourage better health, etc.

[waylon]

20. way unfair

No different than banning coffee drinks in my opinion.

[ibegurpard]

21. Here's something else I started wondering about

People with multiple sexual partners are at increased risk of contracting STDs...most notably AIDS...very costly from a health-insurance perspective. Should an employer require some sort of vow of chastity in order to hire someone and how would that be enforced?

[creativelcro]

23. sounds good to me...

[Bombero1956]

24. I'm torn too

Our city will not hire anyone who smokes and must live within the city limits. Earlier this year we had a rookie firefighter who was terminated for smoking cigarettes. He was out on a service connected injury(a shoulder) and was pulled over by a state trooper for weaving in traffic, it turns out he was under the influence of Oxycontin which he had obtained illegally. During the stop he flicked his cigarette butt and struck the trooper on the boot, a fact the trooper noted on the arrest report. When the chief saw that, he had the commision fire him for smoking. So in the end he lost his job not for possession of illegal drugs but smoking a legal drug. We have a cancer presumption bill in the state of Massachusetts as well as the heart lung bill so you win some, you lose some.

[mrbill]

26. the deputies in my little county................

all chew their tobacco and and spit a lot.

could they work in riverside?

chewing, smoking???