Tobacco Free Hiring policy?

[mangudai954]

 Just saw this question on an application specifying it only applied to Florida residents so i googled and saw the same question for a fire chef application in Florida it says..


"The Escambia County Board of County Commissioners has adopted a TobaccoFree Hiring policy effective 10/01/2008. A candidate selected foremployment will be tested for tobacco use. A positive test result orrefusal to be tested will prevent employment and bar the applicant forthe next twelve months."

Turns out its require for paramedic and firefighter positions here. How do ya'll feel about? Kinda took me off guard but its to decrease company insurance cost..

 

[db west]

Originally Posted by Mangudai954

 Just saw this question on an application specifying it only applied to Florida residents so i googled and saw the same question for a fire chef application in Florida it says..


"The Escambia County Board of County Commissioners has adopted a TobaccoFree Hiring policy effective 10/01/2008. A candidate selected foremployment will be tested for tobacco use. A positive test result orrefusal to be tested will prevent employment and bar the applicant forthe next twelve months."

Turns out its require for paramedic and firefighter positions here. How do ya'll feel about? Kinda took me off guard but its to decrease company insurance cost..

I think it's unfair, the attorneys I work for implemented a similar policy.

 

[jthagreat]

i dont smoke, but thats crazy.

 

[friendliest ghost]

Paramedics smoke more than anybody. You have to, in order to deal with the horrors you see. Good luck with that Florida.

 

[aceofjays]

Sounds like a good idea.

 

[dublbagn]

Originally Posted by aceofjays

Sounds like a good idea.

really....???  really....????  what else should they not be able to hire you for???  How about if you occasionally eat unhealthy food???  what if you participate in unsafe activities outside of work???

its just a step closer to an employer telling you what (legal activities) you can take part in because they dont want to pay more towards health care......I think its very unconstitutional.....

 

[sik wit it]

i just got hired as a firefighter in Orange County, (Orlando) FL.

had to sign numerous notarized papers that say i hadnt smoked any tobacco products within the last year before i applied for the position.

even got asked about it during a lie detector/polygraph test i had to take during the hiring process..

to me, it makes sense for a firefighter position... since a part of the job is rescue, while using SCBA air tanks....
cant afford to have guys with bad lungs goin into a burning building.

 

[tacc4]

Originally Posted by DublBagn

Originally Posted by aceofjays

Sounds like a good idea.

really....???  really....????  what else should they not be able to hire you for???  How about if you occasionally eat unhealthy food???  what if you participate in unsafe activities outside of work???

its just a step closer to an employer telling you what (legal activities) you can take part in because they dont want to pay more towards health care......I think its very unconstitutional.....

the life-saving jobs are obvious. cigarettes cause health problems and these jobs are physically demanding. not to mention the irony of a smoking doctor or a fireman walking around w/a fire in his mouth. as for the law firm, they're paying (spare me the indirect cost argument) for health care, its in their best interst to keep costs down. soooo... its a private company that you DON'T have to work for. PLEEEEEEAASE make your constitutional argument. i'm DYING to hear it.

 

[i like shoes too]

a smoker costs more to the employer than a non-smoker.

my company hasn't gone full anti tobacco yet, but smokers pay significantly more for health insurance. there are many incentives to quit, they'll even pay for patches, gum, etc.

 

[chiefwiggum]

GOOD! You smokers always tryna get breaks every 30 minutes for "a cigerette". Do some work you lazy bums.

 

[i like shoes too]

Originally Posted by DublBagn

Originally Posted by aceofjays

Sounds like a good idea.

really....???  really....????  what else should they not be able to hire you for???  How about if you occasionally eat unhealthy food???  what if you participate in unsafe activities outside of work???

its just a step closer to an employer telling you what (legal activities) you can take part in because they dont want to pay more towards health care......I think its very unconstitutional.....

they already can. i'm sure most respectable jobs have a character clause in their employee manuals. and most jobs are at will anyway, so you can be terminated anytime. nothing unconstitutional at all.

 

[ravagebx]

Originally Posted by ChiefWiggum

GOOD! You smokers always tryna get breaks every 30 minutes for "a cigerette". Do some work you lazy bums.

SWIDT?

 

[aceofjays]

Originally Posted by DublBagn

Originally Posted by aceofjays

Sounds like a good idea.

really....???  really....????  what else should they not be able to hire you for???  How about if you occasionally eat unhealthy food???  what if you participate in unsafe activities outside of work???

its just a step closer to an employer telling you what (legal activities) you can take part in because they dont want to pay more towards health care......I think its very unconstitutional.....

You can't use eating unhealthy or participating in unsafe activities as an argument, because they don't have an effect on anyone outside of the person doing them like smoking does.
If you don't employ smokers, you lessen your risk of losing an employee to a sickness due to smoking. Smart move IMO.

 

[dublbagn]

Originally Posted by aceofjays

Originally Posted by DublBagn

Originally Posted by aceofjays

Sounds like a good idea.

really....???  really....????  what else should they not be able to hire you for???  How about if you occasionally eat unhealthy food???  what if you participate in unsafe activities outside of work???

its just a step closer to an employer telling you what (legal activities) you can take part in because they dont want to pay more towards health care......I think its very unconstitutional.....

You can't use eating unhealthy or participating in unsafe activities as an argument, because they don't have an effect on anyone outside of the person doing them like smoking does.
If you don't employ smokers, you lessen your risk of losing an employee to a sickness due to smoking. Smart move IMO.

I understand the cost basis......what if I dont smoke around anyone?  then it affects no one but me....much like eating poorly....they can be lumped into the same boat.

and sure not hiring smokers helps companies avoid smoking risks, but for me to smoke and 40 years down the line come down with cancer would actually be less expensive than the dude next to me who inhales big macs 2 or 3 at a time.....and I want to say it again, I understand the argument, I just  dont agree with it because it opens the door for not hiring due to any future health defect.  For all my lawyers in the house, where is HOVkid, what is stopping someone from hiring a certain section of society that is more inclined (or exposed) to certain ailments?  The "you are broke and have not had health care in 5 years, we dont want to pay for any possible health problems you might have so we wont hire you" argument....so lets have everyone who is going to be employed take a health screening for ANY job so that all companies can only hire people in the best physical shape so they can keep down their health costs.....

it might be within their rights, but it does not make it right...... sorry I had to take it to some very extreme examples but sometimes its the only way to make a point....

 

[whipwrecker]

I guess it is ok if your job would allow you to smoke while on duty. So for instance a cop, firefighter, or EMT, they can't supervise you always, so you can smoke in uniform, and they don't want that, so they have the right to refuse you.

For a regular job, I think it is unfair. You can do whatever you want on your time, they just should not allow cigarette breaks.

 

[domc03]

sounds good to me ... at least somebody is looking out for your health

 

[black chiney]

thats not whats up

 

[shatterkneesinc]

completely unconstitutional

i am getting really tired of this paternalistic govnt

who are they to govern my actions and restricts my rights

 

[gambit215]

Originally Posted by Sik Wit It

i just got hired as a firefighter in Orange County, (Orlando) FL.

even got asked about it during a lie detector/polygraph test i had to take during the hiring process..

I work for the state of Florida and in EVERY bathroom theres a reminder of Federal and State minimum wage and that that its ILLEGAL for your employer to screen you with a polygraph. unless its a federal job of course.........hope they didnt violate your rights... as far as this smoking ban is concerned......pure crap. its sets the precedent for your boss to control too many aspects of your life that are separate from your job...at this rate some job might post a no beef, no pork or even a no drinking policy outside of work...........too many stupid policies for the sake of saving a buck for someone else.

 

[Nouss]

Originally Posted by gambit215

 a no beef, no pork or even a no drinking policy outside of work...........too many stupid policies for the sake of saving a buck for someone else.

C/S.

 

[kmun44]

smoking gets less socially accepted like every day...get used to it

 

[mangudai954]

Originally Posted by KMun44

smoking gets less socially accepted like every day...get used to it

Proof? Besides, this has nothing to do with how its perceived they're just trying to save themselves some money.

 

[sik wit it]

Originally Posted by gambit215

Originally Posted by Sik Wit It

i just got hired as a firefighter in Orange County, (Orlando) FL.

even got asked about it during a lie detector/polygraph test i had to take during the hiring process..

I work for the state of Florida and in EVERY bathroom theres a reminder of Federal and State minimum wage and that that its ILLEGAL for your employer to screen you with a polygraph. unless its a federal job of course.........hope they didnt violate your rights... as far as this smoking ban is concerned......pure crap. its sets the precedent for your boss to control too many aspects of your life that are separate from your job...at this rate some job might post a no beef, no pork or even a no drinking policy outside of work...........too many stupid policies for the sake of saving a buck for someone else.

im almost positive, that now that im hired, i will never be subject to a polygraph test again...

it was part of the hiring process, but once i got the job offer, ive never heard of anyone having to do that again.

i dont have a problem with the smoking ban, its been proven to have severe effects on people much more frequently than any other legal substance.

if i were involved in any incident at my work, id be piss tested that day for drugs and alcohol.
i dont get it, for an office job though....bc, who gives a damn about your health if you just work in an office, but out in the public eye being a public service employee, you have to be responsible for being in better shape...and yes, alcohol is detrimental to your health, i know... but we are forced to pass a physical test every year also, so if you cant pass that, we get the boot.

 

[kien]

smokers are just a nuisance

there is no true benefit of smoking, and taking into consideration the possible detrimental effects and the increased costs of insurance premiums due to obvious lung disease/cancer

the costs outweigh the benefits. hence implementing the no smokers policy. if you dont like it, either quit smoking or *%%$ and find another job that allows you to smoke, don't blame the company when you don't have self-control to stop smoking


it just doesn't look good if you smoke. thats all it comes down to.

 

[tacc4]

Originally Posted by Mangudai954

Originally Posted by KMun44

smoking gets less socially accepted like every day...get used to it

Proof?

southern much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans_in_the_United_Statesalmost 3/4s of the U.S. population is prohibited from smoking in restaurants, workplaces and bars. this was not the case 50 years ago. [/proof]

shatterkneesinc wrote:

---

completely unconstitutional 

i am getting really tired of this paternalistic govnt

who are they to govern my actions and restricts my rights

why do people recklessly throw out the "unconstitutional" argument? lets keep the constitutional arguments to a minimum so that the Constitution actually retains some value beyond the assumption of its endorsement of some abstract laissez faire philosophy - which it doesn't. so, pretty please, with sugar on top, point me to the clause, method of interpretation or precedent that makes it unconstitutional to discriminate against smokers. Commerce clause? Please. Symbolic speech? Nope.
who are they to govern your actions and restrict your rights?

slow down there, cowboy. nobody said you couldn't smoke. NOBODY has the right to take any job they want, so they're not restricting your rights. you seen any morbidly obese firefighters? any mentally challenged EMTs? if a state is going to spend thousands of dollars training you, they have a reasonable expectation that their investment will be protected. w/that in mind, is your argument that taxpayers should pay for an endless stream of new-hires b/c employees who smoke keep keeling over? no thanks, i rather much like the government discriminating against smokers to save my tax dollars. if smokers are going to take 15 minute breaks for a cancer stick, can i take 15 minutes every 2 hours to go fap to my heart's content in the parking lot? There are so many ways in which smokers disadvantage their non-smoking coworkers, i don't know what to tell you.

DublBagn wrote:

---

aceofjays wrote:

---

DublBagn wrote:

---

aceofjays wrote:

---

Sounds like a good idea.

really....???  really....????  what else should they not be able to hire you for???  How about if you occasionally eat unhealthy food???  what if you participate in unsafe activities outside of work???

its just a step closer to an employer telling you what (legal activities) you can take part in because they dont want to pay more towards health care......I think its very unconstitutional.....



You can't use eating unhealthy or participating in unsafe activities as an argument, because they don't have an effect on anyone outside of the person doing them like smoking does.
If you don't employ smokers, you lessen your risk of losing an employee to a sickness due to smoking. Smart move IMO.

I understand the cost basis......what if I dont smoke around anyone?  then it affects no one but me....much like eating poorly....they can be lumped into the same boat.

and sure not hiring smokers helps companies avoid smoking risks, but for me to smoke and 40 years down the line come down with cancer would actually be less expensive than the dude next to me who inhales big macs 2 or 3 at a time.....and I want to say it again, I understand the argument, I just  dont agree with it because it opens the door for not hiring due to any future health defect.  For all my lawyers in the house, where is HOVkid, what is stopping someone from hiring a certain section of society that is more inclined (or exposed) to certain ailments?  The "you are broke and have not had health care in 5 years, we dont want to pay for any possible health problems you might have so we wont hire you" argument....so lets have everyone who is going to be employed take a health screening for ANY job so that all companies can only hire people in the best physical shape so they can keep down their health costs.....

it might be within their rights, but it does not make it right...... sorry I had to take it to some very extreme examples but sometimes its the only way to make a point....


slippery slope argument which, in and of itself, does not bother me at all. but much of constitutional law is based on carrying out these arguments in moderation. so let's consider a guy who was convicted of blowing up empty federal buildings during his non-work hours. should that affect his ability to work for Delta Airlines? he never blew up buildings w/anybody in them. and never did it while on the clock. on the surface you might say that the terrorist destroyed buildings but i could argue that the damage to the environment (pesticides, CO2 emissions from farm equipment as well as the actual cigarettes) has a similar, if not greater impact on the environment/economy. its an extreme analogy, i'll grant you, but its still relevant. bottom line is each state has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity and efficiency of its workforce and if smoking is deemed to be a threat to those objectives it will be easy to restrict employment to smokers.
when was the last time you had a male waiter @hooters? or went to the strip club and the bouncer said "oh, tina called in sick today so todd is going to take her place." bottom line, discrimination is usually legal and almost always logical. not saying you have to agree w/it, but