Companies who hire non-smokers only
New trend where companies say "Non-smokers only need to apply"
They say it increases productivity by hiring non-smokers (less ciggie breaks).
Plus by having healthier employees, cuts down on their health premiums.
Dr. Oz supports this 100% and is on a mission to get more companies to hire non-smokers only.
What do you think.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||03/20/2013|
I agree -- smokers are unproductive employees. They take too much break time for their dirty habit. And they stink.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||03/18/2013|
I smoke, but I never do it during work hours.
It's like masturbation and picking your nose. I just don't do it in public or at work.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||03/18/2013|
R1 = fascist who spends her workday browsing the DL.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||03/18/2013|
If I hear some sanctimonious office frau talking on the phone to her kids, I will jerk the receiver out of her and hang it up.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||03/18/2013|
R2 companies with this policy say they test a prospective employee for nicotine residue.
It decreases the companies health costs to have non-smokers only.
That is the argument.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||03/18/2013|
R3 = bitter unemployed hipster hogging a table at a Starbuck's because her roommates' three cats are in heat.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||03/18/2013|
It should be none of their business that they smoke. It's perfectly legal. As someone is has never smoked, not even once, and detests cigarettes this is a big much. What's next? What about people who drink alcohol? People who bring stinky food into the break room? Fatties? The "we only hire..." are endless.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||03/18/2013|
R7 smoking causes cancer. This is to try to force people to quit smoking to better their lives. Both health wise and money wise.
Dr. Oz is all for it!
|by Anonymous||reply 8||03/18/2013|
What about people for whom Engrish be turd wangage wike awe seben?
|by Anonymous||reply 9||03/18/2013|
Drinking has been linked to cancer. And bad eating. So...are we only going to hire only non-smoking, non-drinking people who follow a strict diet of fruits and veggies?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||03/18/2013|
Since when is legal, private, consensual behavior your employers' business?
|by Anonymous||reply 11||03/18/2013|
Exactly, r10. All of this has become invasive and unconstitutional.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||03/18/2013|
r5, then they need to check their skin for Cheetos residue as well. It's a slippery slope, and a road I don't think we should go down.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||03/18/2013|
A recent U.K. study conducted at the University of Nottingham found that smokers are 33 per cent more likely to miss work, taking an average of 2.74 more sick days than their non-smoking co-workers. The study said this absenteeism costs U.K. businesses $2.15 billion in 2011.
"Smokers cost more money -- smokers miss more workdays, smokers have more health problems,” said Stewart Harris, a law professor at Appalachian State University.
Television health guru Dr. Mehmet Oz says he wants to see a culture where smoking is unpopular and is promoting the practice of companies not hiring smokers, saying it will save them money.
"We have to make it uncool to smoke and it is a huge economic drain and a quality drain on the workforce as well,” he said.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||03/18/2013|
I don't smoke and think this is beyond stupid.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||03/18/2013|
A statewide hospital system headquartered in Flint is taking a bold stance against smoking.
It impacts McLaren Health Care, one of the largest providers in Michigan.
Effective Feb. 1, 2013 the company will no longer be hiring people who use nicotine.
It applies to all of their campuses, including the one in Flint.
It's a corporate initiative that will not impact existing employees, just new hires.
Under the new policy, pre-employment screening will now include nicotine testing.
McLaren says the move is part of an effort to foster a healthy environment for patients, caregivers, and the community.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||03/18/2013|
I think they should have a new rule where they refuse to hire anyone
|by Anonymous||reply 17||03/18/2013|
I don't smoke, but I don't understand how this is even remotely legal, especially if you don't smoke at work or during working hours.
And I don't understand why they don't just make it illegal already, instead of all of this bull shit.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||03/18/2013|
Where does this end?
We only hire whites with a particular DNA structure because they are more productive, more obedient, and less questioning.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||03/18/2013|
a "bold step" - it's more corporate bullying, and the press is being kiss-ass to corporations as ever
they will start with this, then not hire anyone with a health condition (of any kind), or whatever they want
|by Anonymous||reply 20||03/18/2013|
R19, yes, probably in 300 years.
However whites will be a minority by then.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||03/18/2013|
Using petrol should have outlawed decades ago.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||03/18/2013|
Unconstitutional? Did I miss an amendment?
|by Anonymous||reply 24||03/18/2013|
R23 = stoner Libertarian who blames Obama for his obesity and chronic unemployment.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||03/18/2013|
Uhhh, R19, you do realize smoking is a choice unlike one's genetics. Fucking idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||03/18/2013|
[quote]Drinking has been linked to cancer. And bad eating. So...are we only going to hire only non-smoking, non-drinking people who follow a strict diet of fruits and veggies?
Drinking in moderation is beneficial. Abuse of alcohol is harmful. Do you think companies must hire alcoholics?
|by Anonymous||reply 27||03/18/2013|
"Do you think companies must hire alcoholics?"
|by Anonymous||reply 28||03/18/2013|
Won't someone stop and think about the company's bottom line? Why should THEY have to pay for smoker's insurance? Just let someone else pay for it.
Now guess who that's gonna be?
|by Anonymous||reply 29||03/18/2013|
R6 = middling wage slave with an Ebay addiction and a desk drawer full of Twinkies to make it through the work day.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||03/18/2013|
Have you passed big city hospitals lately? Within 50 feet of the entrances doctors and nurses are puffing away. If they had a non-smokers policy, more than half the staff would be gone.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||03/18/2013|
[quote] companies would exempt current employees. This would only affect new hires.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||03/18/2013|
Struck a nerve R30?
How's that WiFi at the Starbuck's?
Still waiting for a response from that treatment about a porn version of 'Friends' that you sent to the producer you fellated two years ago?
|by Anonymous||reply 34||03/18/2013|
I hate smoking; I'm the kind of obnoxious brat that does the hand fan in front of my face when I have to walk by a smoker lighting up outside of a restaurant I want to get into. And even I think this is invasive.
It takes time to quit smoking--the tapering off, going through therapy, etc. So are we really going to keep people unemployed through this whole process?
Are the Cuban cigar-smoking CEOs of the country suddenly going to be on the street? Of course not.
There are better ways to do this.
(And, yes, we need universal healthcare.)
|by Anonymous||reply 35||03/18/2013|
Let's not forget the days when corporate drones like IT staff and, oh yea, Marketing people were lured by ping-pong tables, coffee bars and, OMG, you could wear jeans to work!
Fuck them. And for all of you who are cube dwellers...your days are numbered.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||03/18/2013|
What kind of moronic shitheel thinks "Dr. Oz is all for it" is an intelligent argument for anything?
|by Anonymous||reply 37||03/18/2013|
I think it's wonderful. I wish every company did this. I hate the stink of cigarette smoke.
Next, perfume wearers.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||03/18/2013|
Non smoker here. If I was a smoker, I would make sure I was wearing freshly laundered clothes and wash my hair and use mouthwash before the interview.(like you do anyway) then answer the ....do you smoke? question with a simple no. They don't deserve honesty as they are being bullies and discriminatory.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||03/18/2013|
[quote] Have you passed big city hospitals lately? Within 50 feet of the entrances doctors and nurses are puffing away. If they had a non-smokers policy, more than half the staff would be gone.
If they had a non-smokers policy, 90% of their smokers would quit smoking.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||03/18/2013|
Actually over the long term smokers cost less than nonsmokers because if they are more likely to die younger which saves a lot of medical costs in contrast with healthier individuals that live longer and become a bigger drain on insurance.
Also smokes pay a high tax premium on their habit that is actually higher than what they cost.
A little morbid, but those are the facts.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||03/18/2013|
Well they are certainly being discriminatory, just like when they screen out the slakers, liars, criminals and incompetent. Only certain kinds of discrimination are illegal or immoral. I'm open to persuasion that smokers should be a class protected against discrimination, but I can't think of an argument myself.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||03/18/2013|
I would choose a smoker to employ over a child bearing age female who I would have to cover the work of whilst she squeezed out baby long pig after baby long pig.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||03/18/2013|
R43 so you don't mind when a co-worker goes for multiple smoke breaks during the day?
|by Anonymous||reply 44||03/18/2013|
These companies should also only hire thin people, because fat people will keep stepping out to take snack breaks or take long lunches or eat at their desk and drop crumbs all over the keyboards and put their greasy handprints all over the documents. And, worse yet, their unhealthy lifestyles will keep the insurance premiums high. I don't understand why fat people just don't quit eating fatty foods and get up and exercise.
Do I sound like an ass? Well, why is it okay to discriminate against one group of people (smokers) and say shitty things about their lifestyle choices?
|by Anonymous||reply 45||03/18/2013|
Except for the fact, R45, that everyone needs to eat, while NO ONE NEEDS TO SMOKE.
|by Anonymous||reply 46||03/18/2013|
non smoker who disagrees for the reasons already mentioned.
But also, I think smoking is not viewed positively and companies don't like smokers outside the building for the same reason. Other hazardous personal habits are not on display for customers like smoking.
The smoke breaks issue needs to be addressed as any other time waster (personal calls)
by the time they take the elevator, smoke a cigarette, have a conversation and return, it's 20 min.
So perhaps -- like banning cigs in planes and restaurants -- employers can ban smoking while at work for work productiveness and to reflect a positive company image. But I don't see how you can regulate personal behavior off the clock (as long as it doesn't interfere with your job).
|by Anonymous||reply 47||03/18/2013|
listen to the workers fighting amongst themselves, it's working!
|by Anonymous||reply 48||03/18/2013|
It makes sense, but if companies do this, it's only a matter of time before they're screening out drinkers, people who have a lot of sex, obese people, etc. Applying for a job will be like applying for insurance - lots of personal medical information disclosed. Enjoy.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||03/18/2013|
What's the half-life of nicotine? How long does it stay in your blood stream? People will figure it out just like they did for pre-employment drug testing for weed.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||03/18/2013|
I wouldn't mind smoking as much if companies let smokers smoke on the roof instead of in front of their buildings. It's a gauntlet, the downtown where I live, because of all the smokers. I avoid it to the extent I am able.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||03/18/2013|
I just don't know how you say you're not going to hire "smokers."
There's a big difference between someone who powers down three packs a day and someone who has a cigar once a month. Or who smokes a pipe on Sunday afternoons.
It's like saying you're not going to hire "drinkers," and then making no distinction between people who power down a bottle of rotgut every night and those who have a glass of wine with dinner twice a week. Or a few sips of champagne at the holidays.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||03/18/2013|
R43 here in reply to R44, I have only ever worked with smokers who have had their nicotine fix in their lunch breaks or coffee breaks, which I also have myself. Yet I have covered six pregnancies in 8 years and numerous office visits of those I've covered the work for with their lumps of crying stinking snotty brats that they are under the false impression that everyone must give a fuck about.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||03/18/2013|
R53 did you know that there is a community (forgot which town) that passed a law where if a company had less than 4 employees, and one employee got pregnant. That pregnant person could be fired with cause.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||03/18/2013|
No pregos. No smokers. No fatties. They all need to go.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||03/18/2013|
Society has reason to prevent discrimination against pregnant women. Not so much overeaters and smokers.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||03/18/2013|
[quote] Society has reason to prevent discrimination against pregnant women.
Not really. If they're going to get knocked up then they need to stay home and take care of the little shits.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||03/18/2013|
Really. Women are half of the workforce and should not have to choose between reproduction and work. Besides, our crappy economic system has made it impossible for most working families to survive on only one salary.
|by Anonymous||reply 58||03/18/2013|
What kinds of legal behavior do private employers have a right to demand employees not engage in?
|by Anonymous||reply 59||03/18/2013|
If you can't afford it R58, then don't breed.
It's not rocket science.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||03/18/2013|
R58 It's simple. Don't breed. The world will manage without your crotchdroppings.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||03/18/2013|
I take short cigarette breaks. I also work my lunch break most days and work 1-2 hours over for free most days. I usually log on at home on one of my two days off for a few hours. I also have a better sickness record than most of my peers and managers.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||03/18/2013|
You lot are sad little fucks.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||03/18/2013|
What about people who only smoke recreationally like at bars? I know quite a few people like this. During the week no ciggies, but out on the weekends they will smoke.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||03/18/2013|
Don't think so, R22.
Nobody will want you back.
|by Anonymous||reply 65||03/18/2013|
Actually, the world will not manage without children.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||03/18/2013|
It will, however, manage without so many children, R66.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||03/18/2013|
I run a research company and will not hire smokers. I don't care about personal habits and the insurance costs are not relevant with a small company and the unlikely chance that smoking effects will turn up during the period of employment (I'm not keeping people for 40 years. Anyone can get sick of have health problems, smoker or not.
I don't hire smokers because they stink. My eyes water and we cough from the leavings on people's clothes and hair. The fact that they're unaware of how bad the effect is is beside the point. Smokers pollute the environment around them just by being there.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||03/18/2013|
[quote]It will, however, manage without so many children, [R66].
Who's going to pay for your social security?
|by Anonymous||reply 69||03/18/2013|
Gay people are f'd because smoking rates are much higher among gay people. I've never smoked. I have actively avoided smokers. Gay people should look at how this policy can keep gay people in low rung, dead-end jobs.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||03/18/2013|
Barack Obama wouldn't be hired then?
|by Anonymous||reply 72||03/18/2013|
Fascist fucks, worthless and only successful because the economy sucks and any nitwit can proclaim anything is off limits to anyone being hired.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||03/18/2013|
[quote]Actually, the world will not manage without children.
We will never find out because that will never be a problem.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||03/18/2013|
Okay, I'm lost. What do kids have to do with smoking?
|by Anonymous||reply 75||03/18/2013|
Its not just pregos and smokers. Don't forget the fatties.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||03/18/2013|
[quote]"These companies should also only hire thin people"
R45, do you honestly believe that fat people don't face discrimination when it comes to hiring?
|by Anonymous||reply 77||03/18/2013|
It's a pretty safe bet that non-smokers are more intelligent than smokers.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||03/18/2013|
My company (I'm retired now) changed to non smoking only hires in 1995. We also paid for smoking cessation programs for any employee who wanted to attend. I had 150 (more or less) employees in my office and it was 7 years before all the smoking employees had either stopped smoking, or moved on.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||03/18/2013|
Smoker here. I have NEVER had a sick day. Ever. Plenty of my non-smoking co-workers call in sick all the time, so I think it's kind of an odd way to measure health costs.
I don't mind not smoking during work, that's no problem, however this is a slippery slope, where the evil overlords will soon be demanding to see your health records as well as your credit scores to determine if you're a good hire.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||03/18/2013|
Aren't employers already accessing credit reports, R80?
|by Anonymous||reply 81||03/18/2013|
Does anyone resent covering for employees who have long-term illnesses? I worked in one place where one man was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Some time later he finally returned to work and then he was diagnosed with another cancer, this time in his appendix.
Two woman were diagnosed with breast cancer, one of whom had been treated before. She required more than one surgical procedure along with chemo. The other had a less invasive cancer, but she was a divorced mother who couldn't trust her children to her ex, so she had everything removed.
I don't remember anybody complaining about their time off.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||03/18/2013|
No, that has never bothered me, R82.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||03/18/2013|
It didn't bother me either, R83. People have health crises, pregnancies, nervous breakdowns, all kinds of reasons they're off work sometimes.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||03/18/2013|
CVS is now looking into having this policy as well.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||03/20/2013|
I guess AIDS tests are next. I mean, that condition would raise a company's healthcare cost exposure. Particularly those that are self-insured. Since AIDS is generally preventable, like smoking related illnesses, why hire someone who has OR MIGHT GET AIDS. You know who MOSTLY gets AIDS, right? So maybe companies should just stop hiring gay men period. Or inner city blacks. Just too much risk from a cost perspective. Right?
|by Anonymous||reply 87||03/20/2013|
Yeah--the emphasis on everyone minding eachother's business has gotta stop! I enjoy going on smoke breaks with co-workers to chat and I don't smoke!!! Live and let live!!! I fully support the rights of adults to conduct themselves as they see fit. Really, is life any better since all the sanctimonious overseeing has become commonplace?
|by Anonymous||reply 88||03/20/2013|
Why stop at smokers? Why not eliminate all the undesirables; obese, bald, non-bald, pregnant, white, black, brown, yellow, tan, short, tall, naughty, nice, four-eyed, bug-eyed, loose lipped, tiny-dicked, big-dicked, thin-dicked, green eyed, brown eyed, hazel eyed, pink eyed, bad credit, no credit, good credit, Democrat, Republican, male, female, transgendered, etc... etc... until the entire workforce is automated and the only ones getting paid are CEO's and Politicians.
It's all down hill from here.
|by Anonymous||reply 89||03/20/2013|
Not a smoker myself, but as a hiring manager, I want the best person for the position. Seems like cutting out smokers handicaps the company by limiting talent pool to only non-smokers. And what about weed, now legal and supported by a medical card here in WA state?
|by Anonymous||reply 90||03/20/2013|
Hey, as long as I can say no cocksuckers need apply that'd be great.
|by Anonymous||reply 91||03/20/2013|
Smokers tend to be Type A personalities, nervous and driven - some of the most productive people I've ever worked with.
The least productive? Oh, that's easy. Women who spend their days on the phone talking to their kids, to their moms, to their girlfriends and call in sick every time one of their adorable little brats has a runny nose.
As for employers having a say about who they pay health insurance premiums for: employers shouldn't be paying health insurance for their employees. There should be a public option that doesn't result in people getting fired and losing their health insurance or people having to stay in jobs they hate because they can't afford to lose the health insurance they already have.
As for who really cost money - all those non-smokers who are planning on living to be 100.. with Alzheimer's and the last 30 years of their lives spent in old-age homes that cost more than 5 star hotels.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||03/20/2013|
It really isn't non-smokers. They won't hire anyone who uses any type of nicotine product. So if you have quit smoking and are using the patch or nicotine gum you won't be hired.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||03/20/2013|
R80....you haven't had a sick day.
PS: they ALREADY are looking up credit scores, etc.
|by Anonymous||reply 94||03/20/2013|
I think Dr. Oz is a quack, just like Dr. Drew and Dr. Phil.
Now that most buildings are nonsmoking, there is going to be more of this. I don't think it is a good idea, because smoking is still legal and, other than age, is not regulated like alcohol, i.e., you can be arrested and jailed for doing too much of it. I think encouraging employee smokers to quit, including offering treatment is a good idea, though.
|by Anonymous||reply 95||03/20/2013|
Single payer health care bitches. This will be standard fare soon.
|by Anonymous||reply 96||03/20/2013|
"Television health guru Dr. Mehmet Oz says he wants to see a culture where smoking is unpopular and is promoting the practice of companies not hiring smokers, saying it will save them money."
This guy is such an ass. I think shaming people by making it unpopular is wrong. Why isn't he putting all this energy toward running tobacco companies out of business instead of punishing people these companies have managed to hook?
|by Anonymous||reply 97||03/20/2013|
R97. Then you know the blame lies with yourself for smoking.
|by Anonymous||reply 98||03/20/2013|
I think this is probably the first time a majority of Dlers and Sarah Palin have agreed on something.
She too feels outrage for companies not allowing individuals to be able to Choose whether to be a smoker or not.
Finally something in common with gays and Sarah Palin!
|by Anonymous||reply 99||03/20/2013|
They need to do a big push for personal vaporizers/e-cigs, it is far healthier than smoking, elimates the the public health issues involved and it is an incredibly effective to get smokers to stop smoking.
|by Anonymous||reply 100||03/20/2013|
The fatties cost money too. There are more overweight people than smokers. Oz needs to out these fools too. They are both dregs on society.
|by Anonymous||reply 101||03/20/2013|
Instead of a company thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions on smoking.
Who knew that DL and Sarah Palin would agree on an issue?
|by Anonymous||reply 102||03/20/2013|
She left out the fatties. Fail for her.
|by Anonymous||reply 103||03/20/2013|
Don't forget the cigarette butts. They leave those nasty ass butts all over the fucking ground, even with the cigarette butt canister right there in their faces.
|by Anonymous||reply 104||03/20/2013|
That really *is* what the smokers do at the bus stop across the street from me, R104. There's this one miserable fat girl in particular. She doesn't deserve to live.
|by Anonymous||reply 105||03/20/2013|
Is there a more smug, self-satisfied population in the world than the smokers of the DL?
|by Anonymous||reply 106||03/20/2013|
Yes the fatties. There are alot more of them than there are smokers. I don't see alot of smokers on this thread. They might be in the closet with their views though. I woudn't want to admit I smoke either is a terrible addiction to break.
|by Anonymous||reply 107||03/20/2013|
Is there a more smug, self-satisfied population in the world than the Nazi companies who tell you what to do off the clock?
|by Anonymous||reply 108||03/20/2013|
R108. Yes, it is widely known as government
|by Anonymous||reply 109||03/20/2013|
I can understand higher premiums for smokers, but there are no doubt brilliant talents who smoke who can make a company successful.
|by Anonymous||reply 110||03/20/2013|