Barring smokers from employment isn't right, researchers say

[The Straight Story]

Barring smokers from employment isn't right, researchers say
4:00 PM, January 21, 2009

Smoker1Smoking bans in public buildings, workplaces, even at some outdoor venues are now commonplace. And becoming more common is the practice of barring smokers from employment. But this approach is unfair and may have unintended consequences that do more harm than good, say researchers in an essay published today in the journal Tobacco Control.

Policies prohibiting the hiring of smokers have become much more popular in the past year, a co-author of the report, Dr. Michael Siegel, said today in an interview. One U.S. company, for example, has stopped hiring smokers, has made smoking outside the workplace a fireable offense and even has extended its smoking ban to employees' spouses. Siegel, a professor at Boston University School of Public Health, is a tobacco-control advocate. But he and co-author Brian Houle, of the University of Washington, fear the widespread adoption of such policies may make smokers nearly unemployable, cause them to lose their health insurance and affect their health and that of their families.

Moreover, they say, refusing to hire smokers is discriminatory and may lead to the adoption of other selective employment practices, such as not hiring people who are overweight or who have high cholesterol.

"People have thought about the positive benefits of these programs," says Siegel, such as the fact that they may reduce absenteeism and increase productivity. "But we don't think people have thought through the negative consequences. We're looking at this from a broader public-health perspective."

Tobacco-control advocates are divided over the merits of barring smokers from the workplace. Some fear that speaking out against the employment bans will get them branded as "traitors to the cause," Siegel said.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/01/barring-smokers.html

Guess Obama would not get hired at some places... :)

[McCamy Taylor]

1. It's illegal to disciriminate based upon a disability or medical condition.

If you can do your job despite your medical condition, they have to let you have the job. Smokers can generally do their job. If people know they are being denied the job because they smoke, they should be able to sue under federal law.

[reggie the dog]

11. I agree with you on a moral ground, unfortunately

the govt. in the USA thinks that even if pople can do thier job, they can be fired just for smoking marijuana, and now, tobacco. Do you see what the war on drugs has done to people's mentalities in the USA????

[unblock]

13. habitual smoking or addiction to nicotine is not a legally recognized disability/medical condition

at a minimum, no one is medically addicted to the cigarettes, they are addicted to nicotine and can use gum or the patch for that.

[spooky3]

16. Smoking is not considered a protected disability under federal law

Unless there is a state law outlawing discrimination against smokers (and there are some in some states), this is not illegal.

[nichomachus]

20. Cool -- if it is a disability, you can take up smoking and get special parking privileges

[spooky3]

28. ?? but it's NOT a protected disability

[sohndrsmith]

23. If you have a medical condition that is treated by medicine that

will cause a false positive for a drug screening, there are plenty of employers who refuse to pay for the more sensitive test that would provide a formally negative result. If you don't pass the in-house test, you are immediately disqualified. I've even seen this in job descriptions (well, I saw it once).

That sort of amazed me... wouldn't that be sort of discrimination in a way? Of course, my argument is based only in instances where there has been a formally diagnosed condition by a qualified doctor or specialist, not someone who takes medicine for any number of ailments because they assume they have a condition based on their own opinion.

I don't know, maybe this is an acceptable, legal process, since employers have an awful lot of leeway in how they do certain things. I mean, if one can be fired from an at-will job for any reason or no reason, I guess employers can disqualify people who take lawfully and appropriately prescribed medication. It just sort of stunned me when I saw it.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

42. Smokers are not a protected class...

nor should they be. They harm others with their habit, and they should not be protected.
Duckie

[nuxvomica]

44. Smokers are human beings, not a "class"

And human beings should be protected from idiotic employment policies.

[Occulus]

45. If an employer is going to fire me for doing something legal when OFF the clock,

then I should be entitled for back pay, as I am actually "on the clock" 24/7.

This means I should be able to sue for back pay, PLUS overtime if applicable, PLUS out-of-schedule premium is applicable, PLUS vacation time as I earn it per my employment contract.

Why? Because I consider such a rule to be putting me on the clock 24/7, living- yes, LIVING- under an employer's rules. If they expect to hold me to that, then I, and every other such employee at the company in question, deserve to be paid for that time.

[4 t 4]

2. It's all about the insurance company's and their

money. It is not illegal yet so how can they discriminate

[ThomCat]

7. You are right. It is ALL about insurance companies and their money.

:(

[libodem]

3. Unless it offers a new option

for a reason to receive disability benefits - otherwise it seems like a blatant form of discrimination. Maybe they should consider the same with alcoholism and recreational drug use. Not fit to work it's an illness and you get social security benefits for being unemployable. Fine. Effing picky bastards.

[onehandle]

4. Smoking should obviously be banned from all workplaces for obvious reasons...

...but not hiring smokers isn't kosher.

[NashVegas]

5. Congratulations - It's Not Pretty, Is It?

Funny what happens when you start a movement to marginalize a habit, and you end up marginalizing people, huh?

[Cleita]

6. It is discriminatory. My thinking is that you can forbid workers to smoke

in the workplace, for health and safety reasons, but you can't discriminate against them for being smokers if they comply with no smoking rules during work hours and on company property. The first time I saw that on a job description, I informed the personnel people that this was no different than discriminating against people for drinking alcohol on their off time like weekends. Some employers claim it's because of their health insurance but many of the employers that I saw doing this didn't provide health insurance, so IMHO it was an intrusive rule that had nothing to do with the job. Back when I was young, I knew a woman who got fired from her job because she was living with their boyfriend and not married. The company got away with it too. To me this is no different. I also have known of employers who won't hire fat people.

[aquart]

8. But it was okey-dokey when they wouldn't hire non-smokers.

My heart bleeds for the addicts. With just as much sympathy as they had for me.

[reggie the dog]

34. who would not hire non smokers???? Marlboro????

[reggie the dog]

9. marijuana???

"
Moreover, they say, refusing to hire smokers is discriminatory and may lead to the adoption of other selective employment practices, such as not hiring people who are overweight or who have high cholesterol." well they have been fuking with us weed smokers with piss tests since the 80's. How many of you listened or even gave a shit when it was just us potheads being singled out and fired for an arbitrary reason....????? Sorry, but there will be poetic justice when fat people cannot work at the same places smokers, and potheads cannot worK.......but it will be shitty for all of us

[The Straight Story]

12. I am against all such practices, you are hiring people to do a job - if they can do it

then none of your business what they do in off time, if they can't do it cause as to why does not matter get rid of them.

Pretty simple concept.

[reggie the dog]

30. the funny thing is most people I know and talk to even on the net

share the same opinion you and I do, now if our leaders would just change the law that requires drug testing for any jobplace with a government contract......Obama are you reading this???

[eyesroll]

10. That's illegal here in WI.

Use or nonuse of legal products, outside of working hours and off the company's premises and outside its vehicles, is a protected activity.

There are only a few exceptions--a fire department may refuse to hire smokers on that basis alone. The American Lung Association, same thing.

[unblock]

14. while that makes perfect sense, i don't think i've ever met a fireman who DIDN'T smoke!

[BattyDem]

15. Smoking is either legal or it's not.

Last I heard, it's still legal, so it should be illegal to discriminate against anyone who smokes.

On edit: What's next? Can employers refuse to hire you because of your "risky" sexual practices, your "dangerous" hobbies (rock climbing, sky diving, etc.), your bad diet ... where does it end? :shrug:

[nichomachus]

19. Well, in many states

I can be fired because of my sexual orientation

[BattyDem]

25. That's true ... and that's terrible.

:-(

I hope Obama does something about that. There's no reason why any person should be fired for something that has absolutely nothing to do with their job performance.

[reggie the dog]

32. stupid question

why are you not protected by the same law that protects other "minorities" from being fired just because they are a minority?

[reggie the dog]

31. drug testing opend Pandora's box

there is no end.

[SoCalDem]

17. Jobs should be about the doing of a task..and NOTHING more

Employers must be PROHIBITED from "providing" anything more than a paycheck for a task done.

Since employers have put themselves/been put in a position to "provide" health care for their employees, they have assumed the parental role, and in charge of personal "choices" of their children employees.

THIS one thing is likely to be the BEST part of a truly universal health care system.. Bosses MUST BE REMOVED from the chain entirely..

Their only raison d'être should be to provide the workplace and a paycheck for a job done..

A boss should not be "in charge" of what an employee does in their "off-work" time... what they eat, smoke, drink, drive, where they live, who they live with, how many kids they have, etc..

If they are now "giving" an employee life insurance/health insurance, they have inserted themselves into the personal lives, and that MUST stop.

Testing for hallucinogens/alcohol ON THE JOB is another thing altogether, since those things could impact the ON THE JOB safety of customers & coworkers, but if an employee uses those things in their "off-time" it's NOT the boss' business..

There are some jobs where body-type is just not a "fit" for the job, and those things HAVE to be considered.. a 3-ft wide flight attendent working in a 2-ft wide aisle, is not a "safe" fit, but most jobs "could" be done by most people..regardless of their size.

If a boss tells you he's "paying" $200 a week for YOUR healthcare, then with a national health care, YOU should be receiving that $200 in your paychek, and he should not care ONE bit what you do in your off-time..

[gollygee]

18. There are just too many things people do that are potentially unhealthy

And employers shouldn't have that much power over their employees' private lives. What about people who are overweight or underweight, who go to tanning parlors, etc?

The obvious answer is a governmental health care system, not linked to employment. It's too hard on employees AND employers the way it is currently set up. The only people who benefit from the system we have now are the executives and stockholders of pharmaceutical companies.

[nichomachus]

21. All the more reason to divorce health care from employment

Single payer universal health care -- nothing else will work. Period.

[The Straight Story]

22. Amen to that (nt)

[DrCory]

26. Then it's the state's call, eh?

Not sure I'm comfortable with that either.

[reggie the dog]

33. when it is the states call it works out ok

Health care is a right in France. We can be as unhealty as we want and we still get coverage. You can be hooked on heroin and crack and you still get all the free health care you need. They do not make laws based on the cost to the health service because the citizens would probably go on strike.....

[DrCory]

37. As long as state-administered health care is declared...

An unalienable right, I'm cool with that. Just concerned with all the "social engineers" running about these days.

[meow2u3]

24. No employer has the right to dictate what legal activity an employee can engage in..

...on the employee's own time. This includes smoking, eating unhealthful food, and drinking alcohol (in moderation), as long as the job is effectively done. It's not just a discrimination issue, it's a privacy issue. Off-duty employees have a right to privacy and no employer has a right to play tyrant and impose his, her, or its personal lifestyle standards on those they hire.

[eridani]

27. Banning smokers from employment is fawking idiotic

Going outside to do their thing fixes the problems non-smokers have with them, and that is all that is necessary.

[TheKentuckian]

29. Good job nanny staters!!!

Way to give fascism yet another foothold. Your "concern" is leading to giving the corporations direct control of our bodies.

[Le Taz Hot]

35. I'm so going to get flamed for this

and I'm not condoning the extreme actions of the person in the article. Having said that, and having been a smoker for 35 years (I've been smoke-free for 5), I have to say, I am MUCH more productive now than I ever was as a smoker. If I had the freedom, I'd have to go out about once an hour or so to smoke. If given the standard break-every-two-hours schedule, I'd spend the last 45 minutes going out of my mind craving nicotine.

I have to be honest that after quitting, and when in a position to hire someone, if they come in smelling like cigarette smoke I am unlikely to hire them. Not only can't I and other non-smokers stand the smell but I know, from experience, that most likely their productivity will not be that of the non-smokers.

[DrCory]

39. "Productivity" for the company or state...

Does not take precedence over other elements of our lives. Or, at least, it shouldn't in a free society.

[Vinca]

36. I have to admit. If I was hiring a person to work directly with the public,

I'd lean toward the nonsmoker. Sorry to break this to you smokers, but sometimes you reek and it makes a huge difference. I know of a condo that recently sold tens of thousands of dollars below market value because it had to be gutted to get the smoke smell out.

[radfringe]

38. company near where I lived tried that

first problem they ran into was they lost about 1/2 their workforce, 2nd problem was finding people to hire who didn't smoke

they eased up a bit, and said you could continue to work there or be hired if you participated in some sort of program to quit smoking... it didn't work very well, but the company persisted and more people were fired because of smoking

then the workers started fighting back... the excuse the company gave for the non-smoking policy was "concern over health". The workers demanded the snack machines be filled only with healthy foods, no coffee or caffinated drinks. Getting a good night's sleep and adequate rest is a health concern too, so workers refused overtime.

next came a flurry of concerns over health and safety conditions at the company. Safety glasses, ear protection, hard hats, and protective clothing were demanded....

then someone got ahold of OSHA regulations... reported the company for various violations

eventually, the company backed off on the 100% no-smoking rule, no it's just no smoking on company property

[conspirator]

40. Smoking DESTROYS other people's health and disturbs their concentration so QUIT smoking

or go to rehab.

[Seeking Serenity]

41. Or you could just have us all taken out back and shot.

Then you wouldn't be bothered anymore. Wouldn't that be a wonderful world?

[Belial]

43. If your company hires smokers.. you could lose your JOB!

[L0oniX]

46. A companies health and fire insurance costs may be reduced from the ban.

I know smoking causes fires in the work place because I was put out of a job because of a fire caused by a smoker. If I owned a company I would seek to do whatever may reduce my costs, and insurance is a biggie. If the insurance company offered a reduced cost for not hiring smokers, I would not hire smokers. It's enough of a risk to hire people who have bad credit and bad driving records. Being forced to hire smokers and people who are obese is imposing a higher risk of lost work hours at the least.