# So you're looking for a job are you? Good luck if you're....



## jp61 (Feb 11, 2018)

This thought came to mind because I've seen smoking discussed in another thread and it reminded me of something that really ticks me off.

The topic for discussion from my perspective is, certain employers discriminating against smokers and how they're getting away with it.

Yes, I smoke and I like it otherwise I wouldn't be doing it. Not the smartest choice one can make but, this is still the land of the free isn't it? It's a legal and heavily taxed product sold on almost every corner. 

I may not like it but have no issue with any employer deciding to implement company policy stating no smoking on company premises. But, to not accept or consider applications from people because they smoke, that is wrong and discriminating in my opinion.

Can someone explain to me how this practice is legal? I have heard from others that it's all about the cost of health insurance to the employer. Where does it end? Are we going to wake up one day to find out we can't work anywhere because we eat BBQ food as an example?


----------



## Smokewhenidrink (Feb 11, 2018)

I smoked for 12 years and quit cold turkey 3 years ago, so I know how ya feel. Nowadays you get looked at as scum if you smoke. I think a smoker is less appealing to hire because statistically they take more breaks. You may only smoke on your lunch but its a gamble to them because many people in the past have spoiled it for you. Thats just how I see it.


----------



## SmokinGame (Feb 11, 2018)

I have never chosen to smoke, but I am definitely not in favor of discriminating against a smoker just because they do. I cant believe it is legal.


----------



## Ed Crain (Feb 11, 2018)

My company charges me more for health insurance because I chew which is legal so if I would switch to illegal drugs my insurance would go down ?


----------



## SherryT (Feb 11, 2018)

MANY years ago, I applied for a job at a local textile mill...had the job, but didn't know I'd be turned down if I smoked (I did smoke back then, but I quit almost 10 years ago).

Needless to say, I didn't get the job.


----------



## atomicsmoke (Feb 11, 2018)

I never smoked but i disagree with such practices (smoke free status requirement for a job). At my workplace smokers take a few extrabreaks but they don't take 30min lunch breaks (they take much less).

An employer can ban smoking on his premisses (i know some places) but as long as you are fine with walking/driving away, having a quick one and come back on time from your break, your addiction shouldn't be their business.

And if we open the can of worms of higher insurance cost what's next? Overweight people need not apply? People suffering from diabetes (lifestyle related or not), people with a camcer diagnostic?

I think it's an unhealthy habit but as long as you don't do it with me (or others) around i will stand with you.


----------



## HalfSmoked (Feb 11, 2018)

As to whither we like it or not times are changing. I'm a previous smoker and in old days could agree with you when it seems everyone smoked. But now to try and enter a store where the smoke hall is just outside the door is the pits and the smell of the clothing is awful. In my work field you could smoke on the job and I heard the complaints that I don't smoke I should be given an extra break to make up for the smokers time he uses smoking. Even though I replied to this thread I'm not sure it belongs here where we are smoking meat and not people.

Warren


----------



## johnmeyer (Feb 11, 2018)

Our country's attitude toward smoking is impossible to understand:

It is legal to _buy_, but against the law (local ordinances) to _use _almost anywhere including, in a few cases, inside your own home if that home shares walls with an adjacent unit.

There is at least one article every day in some news media outlet warning against the dangers of smoking but ... there is at least one article a day in some news media outlet extolling the virtues of "medical marijuana," which is usually smoked.

We've seen ads on TV for decades telling us not to smoke ... but virtually every dramatic TV show or movie shows the characters smoking. What's more, while the characters on those shows and movies who smoke are often the hero and are to be admired, the people in real life who smoke are treated like scum (I think that was the word already used above).

I am very confused.


----------



## HalfSmoked (Feb 11, 2018)

Yankee 2bbq thanks for the like.

Warren


----------



## jp61 (Feb 11, 2018)

HalfSmoked said:


> As to whither we like it or not times are changing. I'm a previous smoker and in old days could agree with you when it seems everyone smoked. But now to try and enter a store where the smoke hall is just outside the door is the pits and the smell of the clothing is awful. In my work field you could smoke on the job and I heard the complaints that I don't smoke I should be given an extra break to make up for the smokers time he uses smoking. Even though I replied to this thread I'm not sure it belongs here where we are smoking meat and not people.
> 
> Warren


 

Times are changing, so it's okay to discriminate against people who consume legal tobacco products and are looking for employment to support themselves and their family is your opinion? Would you be okay with employers discriminating against people who consume alcoholic drinks or eat unhealthy foods, or... the list is long. 

No one here is smoking people that I know of and this is exactly where this thread belongs.


----------



## SherryT (Feb 11, 2018)

jp61 said:


> Times are changing, so it's okay to discriminate against people who consume legal tobacco products and are looking for employment to support themselves and their family is your opinion? Would you be okay with employers discriminating against people who consume alcoholic drinks or eat unhealthy foods, or... the list is long.
> 
> No one here is smoking people that I know of and this is exactly where this thread belongs.



I agree.

The argument could be expanded to include marijuana...why are cigarettes and alcohol, both (either on its own or its ingredients) are classified as "drugs", are perfectly legal for sale, but not marijuana? 

I tried marijuana in my youth and I was determined to "learn" to like alcoholic beverages like my friends and I couldn't stand either one of them, but until such time as cigs and tobacco are made illegal, I will FULLY support the legalization of marijuana. I don't believe in cherry-picking which drugs are legal and which ones aren't...that seems too much like state-sanctioned, mass-medication or something to me.

I'll stop now before you guys start thinking I'm a total nut bar...:eek:


----------



## chef jimmyj (Feb 11, 2018)

The Blowing Smoke Forum IS for anything you wish to talk about, no politics or religion, except smoking meat and other subjects covered by one of our forums. If the subject is smoked meat of any kind,there is a separate and appropriate Forum for that.
There has always been a few that dictate the behavior of all! Look at Prohibition. A few convinced the government that alcohol is the Root of all Evil. Since the 90's Tobacco is the Devil. There are more and more articles being published about how dangerous Nitrites and Smoked Meat is for you...Get ready boys! They get your name and address when you register the Serial Number of your smoker for warranty claims. They'll be coming for you next!...JJ


----------



## indaswamp (Feb 12, 2018)

I built my own smokehouse....No serial number...:D


----------



## SmokinAl (Feb 12, 2018)

No comment!
Al


----------



## LanceR (Feb 12, 2018)

As a longtime construction contractor and employer I never had a policy about not hiring smokers but did have pretty firm rules on tobacco use on the jobsite and in the trucks.

I see an employer choosing to not hire smokers as a reasonable choice.  There is no way to argue with the facts that, as a group, smokers are sick more often than non-smokers and that tobacco users in general have higher medical bills.  Both of which can cost the company money, one up front in labor costs and one out the back door in benefits costs.  Group insurance policies limited to non-smokers are appreciably less expensive than general group policies are.

So, like it or not the employer has every right to hire the folks they feel will be, as a group, more likely to be healthy and have a better attendance record.

Just because tobacco products are legal for you to purchase and consume doesn't mean an employer should have to bear increased costs to accommodate your personal choices.

And yes, I smoked a pack a day plus of Pall Malls or unfiltered Camels for years before quitting.....


Lance


----------



## HalfSmoked (Feb 12, 2018)

There is no stopping what we think is right for us or harm to others and what we do we seem to think is OK with everyone even though it's not.

Here is a different twist to what employers do and don't do - I once worked for a co. that in hiring office help if they had children of certain age that would require them to miss time because they were sick he didn't hire them.

Warren


----------



## HalfSmoked (Feb 12, 2018)

C Farmer thanks for the like.

Warren


----------



## GaryHibbert (Feb 12, 2018)

I've smoked most of my life. Still do.  I enjoy it.  Its my choice to do so.  If people don't like to be around smokers thats their choice.  I always inform people that our house is a smoking house and nothing will change if and when they visit.  The choice to visit is up to them.
That said, i firmly believe an employer shiuld have the right to hire OR not hire whomever he wishes.  Its his company and his money.  After all I have the right to to decide not to work for him.  Nobody forces me to work for him if I don't like the way he runs his company.  Nobody should be able to force him to hire me if he doesn't like the way I run my life.
That IMO is one of the basics if living in a free country.
Gary


----------



## hb99 (Feb 12, 2018)

It has to do with the price of health insurance.

My daughter and son-in-law "selected" the "Non-smoker" box on their insurance forms.  It reduces their monthly premiums about $100. each.  Along with that they have to take random drug testing to prove that hey aren't smoking.  If they get caught they get penalized.


----------



## jp61 (Feb 12, 2018)

The fact is that some employers will not hire people who consume any of the tobacco products on the market today. That by definition is discrimination in my book. They are using the power of the paycheck to tell their employees what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes. What a person does legally during non-working hours away from the workplace should not be the basis for discrimination.

Where do we draw the line as to what an employer can "regulate" and how? Virtually every lifestyle choice we make has some health related consequence. And there's also this thing called heredity. 

Should an employer be able to forbid someone from eating cheeseburgers, riding a motorcycle or sunbathing? All of these activities entail a health risk. Should they be permitted to deny employment do to potential risk of genetic disease? Maybe that's a bit too much, how bout just high blood pressure or high cholesterol level. 

The driving force behind this trend is the root of all evil, money. Employers may one day very well try to "regulate" every health related aspect of their employees' lives, including diet, drinking, hobbies, sleep habit, etc,. 

The issue here is the right of individuals to lead the lives they choose. Employers should not be permitted to regulate peoples lives 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in my humble opinion.


----------



## jp61 (Feb 12, 2018)

SmokinAl said:


> No comment!
> Al


Thanks for commenting on not commenting Al :D


----------



## jp61 (Feb 12, 2018)

When the day comes and chances are good it's coming with time. Where the majority of the work force will be robots, employers won't be having any of these work related issues. No more payroll, health insurance, 401K, bowel movements, breaks, lunch, sick days, vacation, etc,....

I guess all the unhealthy sinners, smokers and useless eaters will be eagerly conforming to "regulations" at their designated location like good little boys and girls anxiously waiting for the drone delivery of their monthly government issued cheese :eek:

LMAO


----------



## gmc2003 (Feb 12, 2018)

jp61, In Vt. it's not just the employer's - it's the state, cities and towns trying to regulate our lifestyles. 

Chris


----------



## HalfSmoked (Feb 12, 2018)

jp61 thanks for the likes. 

As a teenager I worked in a canning house (corn and peas)  (was not yesterday either) the first year there was 600 per shift by the end of three years I was there less then 300 a shift due to automation so yes it's coming. Then we can all eat drink smoke or what ever at home because there will be no jobs or bosses.

Warren


----------



## jp61 (Feb 12, 2018)

HalfSmoked said:


> jp61 thanks for the likes.
> 
> As a teenager I worked in a canning house (corn and peas)  (was not yesterday either) the first year there was 600 per shift by the end of three years I was there less then 300 a shift due to automation so yes it's coming. Then we can all eat drink smoke or what ever at home because there will be no jobs or bosses.
> 
> Warren



At the rate technology is advancing today that scenario isn't all that far-fetched. It's all about the bottom line, right?


----------



## HalfSmoked (Feb 12, 2018)

So sad but true.    Even in surgeries a robot can repair your heart.

Warren


----------



## johnmeyer (Feb 12, 2018)

jp61 said:


> The fact is that some employers will not hire people who consume any of the tobacco products on the market today. That by definition is discrimination in my book. They are using the power of the paycheck to tell their employees what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes. What a person does legally during non-working hours away from the workplace should not be the basis for discrimination.
> 
> Where do we draw the line as to what an employer can "regulate" and how? Virtually every lifestyle choice we make has some health related consequence. And there's also this thing called heredity.
> 
> ...


It is hard to argue with the points you make, although I am not sure that money is really the root of all evil, even though that is a popular old expression.

The only other point I would make is that the employer isn't really regulating your life because, as others have already pointed out, you don't have to work for that company and, if you are honest on your application, they simply won't hire you and therefore you won't have to bend to their will.

I should also point out that I am glad that airlines try (not always successfully) to weed out pilots with substance abuse problems. Even if they snort coke or smoke weed at home, it is impossible for me to believe that they are as sharp on the job as would a non drug user. 

The medical profession also attempts to keep their doctors sober. For this, I also am grateful: do you want your doc to be operating on you while suffering from a hangover, even though technically sober at the time of the operation? My point is that activities that are done in the privacy of your home can still have a bad impact on other people while you are at work, both workmates and customers.

And, as someone who had to pay insurance for employees and for myself since 1985, that "evil money" is pretty hard to ignore when your insurance premiums start to skyrocket. Where is the money supposed to come from? If my employees' smoking cause the rates for everyone to go up (because it is a group plan), I must raise prices, become less competitive, and possibly have to lay people off because the company can't sell as much. I've run three companies, and it really does work like that.


----------



## chopsaw (Feb 12, 2018)

You could always start your own business and only hire smokers ,,,,


----------



## jp61 (Feb 12, 2018)

chopsaw said:


> You could always start your own business and only hire smokers ,,,,



That would be discriminating. 
I would hire people that qualify for the job.


----------



## jp61 (Feb 12, 2018)

johnmeyer said:


> It is hard to argue with the points you make, although I am not sure that money is really the root of all evil, even though that is a popular old expression. It's never enough. Greed is a disease and the root of many of society's problems. I am not against business or making a profit.
> 
> The only other point I would make is that the employer isn't really regulating your life because, as others have already pointed out, *you don't have to work for that company *and, if you are honest on your application, they simply won't hire you and therefore you won't have to bend to their will. This isn't about me, I've had a job all my adult life and have been with the latest for three decades. What happens if all employers decide to jump on the wagon? All the tobacco product(s) users go on welfare?
> 
> ...


----------



## chopsaw (Feb 12, 2018)

Good answer ,,, but that would be your right . You could start a small company of ,,, lets say 4 employees . They all smoke . They like each other , so why not all go smoke at the same time ? You're a good boss that smokes , so why not go with them ?  So 4 10 minute smoke breaks a day x 5  would be ,,, Help me here ,,, you're paying the bill how much is it ?


----------



## jp61 (Feb 12, 2018)

chopsaw said:


> Good answer ,,, but that would be your right . You could start a small company of ,,, lets say 4 employees . They all smoke . They like each other , so why not all go smoke at the same time ? You're a good boss that smokes , so why not go with them ?  So 4 10 minute smoke breaks a day x 5  would be ,,, Help me here ,,, you're paying the bill how much is it ?



Companies set policies...... NO SMOKING, 15 minute breaks, half hour lunch, attendance, etc., if one can't follow them they should get fired. Discrimination is a different animal.


----------



## chopsaw (Feb 12, 2018)

jp61 said:


> Companies set policies...... NO SMOKING, 15 minute breaks, half hour lunch, attendance, etc., if one can't follow them they should get fired. Discrimination is a different animal.


I totally agree . well said . Thanks .


----------



## GaryHibbert (Feb 12, 2018)

chopsaw said:


> Good answer ,,, but that would be your right . You could start a small company of ,,, lets say 4 employees . They all smoke . They like each other , so why not all go smoke at the same time ? You're a good boss that smokes , so why not go with them ?  So 4 10 minute smoke breaks a day x 5  would be ,,, Help me here ,,, you're paying the bill how much is it ?



4 smoke breaks a day??  Good grief Charlie Brown, I smoke 2 packs of 25 a day.
That's why I'm self employed, eat while I'm driving, and light up a smoke in my Freightliner whenever I feel like it.  Not bothering anybody and nobody's bothering me.
Gary


----------



## hb99 (Feb 13, 2018)

jp61 said:


> That would be discriminating.
> I would hire people that qualify for the job.



I was going to say that...hire only qualified employees.  In this (future) case, "non-smoker" COULD BECOME a job requirement.  Basically, if you smoke you're not qualified.  People who are afraid of heights don't apply for a job to build sky scrapers.   

Take the fight for $15/hr minimum wage for instance.  If I were a business owner and the Govt demanded I pay my employees $15/hr I would re-write all of my job descriptions and make it a requirement that anyone without a high school diploma/GED does not meet my minimum educational requirements.  That's not discrimination if it's a qualification requirement. 

One of the internships I was went through had a minimum requirement of an Associate's degree. 

Employers are always trying to keep costs down so profit remains steady or grows.  That only makes sense from a business point.  If 1 employee smokes everyone's premium goes up.  It would only make sense they would want non-smokers.  

Smoking is a choice.  A self-inflicted addiction.  I know. I smoked for 18 years, but I quit (the first time I tried) back on March 1 , 1990, coming up on 28 years.


----------



## atomicsmoke (Feb 13, 2018)

Any strip mall office lawyer would have a field day with a case like this...if it weren't about smoking. If it were about an obese person with full on diabetes....different story. Both lifestyle choices, one socially accepted.

If it comes down to the bottom line why not offer the smoker employee the option to pay the additional insurance costs out of his pocket?


----------



## hb99 (Feb 13, 2018)

atomicsmoke said:


> Any strip mall office lawyer would have a field day with a case like this...if it weren't about smoking. If it were about an obese person with full on diabetes....different story. Both lifestyle choices, one socially accepted.
> 
> If it comes down to the bottom line why not offer the smoker employee the option to pay the additional insurance costs out of his pocket?



Sorry, but diabetes is not a life-style choice.  My 150 lb son-in-law is a diabetic and he has to check his blood sugar before meals.

It's the insurance companies who are driving these demands of their insured.  They don't want to insure high risk people.  Same as they won't insure sky divers.


----------



## atomicsmoke (Feb 13, 2018)

hb99 said:


> Sorry, but diabetes is not a life-style choice.  My 150 lb son-in-law is a diabetic and he has to check his blood sugar before meals.
> 
> It's the insurance companies who are driving these demands of their insured.  They don't want to insure high risk people.  Same as they won't insure sky divers.



I am sorry if you felt that i meant disabetes itself is a lifestyle condition.

In my post, on purpose, i exemplified with an obese individual with diabetes. 

An obese person with other health conditions is a high risk person in the Ins Co eyes. 

The skydiver comparison is extreme and you know it.

Smokers can get insurance by paying more, skydivers can't (unless they go for special coverage).


----------



## atomicsmoke (Feb 13, 2018)

One more thing: most of us here eat very unhealthy if you go by the Gov Food guide or what Ins Co expect from us, the low risk insured.


----------



## hb99 (Feb 13, 2018)

atomicsmoke said:


> I am sorry if you felt that i meant disabetes itself is a lifestyle condition.
> 
> In my post, on purpose, i exemplified with an obese individual with diabetes.
> 
> ...




No problem...  :D   Some people can't grasp slight differences so I went extreme to make a point.

All's well.


----------



## hb99 (Feb 13, 2018)

atomicsmoke said:


> One more thing: most of us here eat very unhealthy if you go by the Gov Food guide or what Ins Co expect from us, the low risk insured.



LOL!  True, but I'll bet a dollar to a donut even the people who put that chart together don't follow it.


----------



## LanceR (Feb 13, 2018)

jp61 said:


> The issue here is the right of individuals to lead the lives they choose.



I couldn't agree with you more.  And that includes the employers right to hire whom they choose so long as they aren't violating any applicable law.

Lance


----------



## hb99 (Feb 13, 2018)

lancer said:


> I couldn't agree with you more.  And that includes the employers right to hire whom they choose so long as they aren't violating any applicable law.
> 
> Lance



Lance:  You are spot on.  They don't have to hire you if you can't/won't comply with their rules.  Non-compliance isn't a violation of any discrimination law.  

I know first hand.  I've been through it and was forced to find another position.


----------



## jp61 (Feb 13, 2018)

hb99 said:


> I was going to say that...hire only qualified employees.  *In this (future) case, "non-smoker" COULD BECOME a job requirement. * *Basically, if you smoke you're not qualified.*  People who are afraid of heights don't apply for a job to build sky scrapers.  The future has arrived, they're discriminating as I type. If these types of practices continue and they probably will, might as well change the old red, white and blue to all red.
> 
> Take the fight for $15/hr minimum wage for instance.  If I were a business owner and the Govt demanded I pay my employees $15/hr I would re-write all of my job descriptions and make it a requirement that anyone without a high school diploma/GED does not meet my minimum educational requirements.  That's not discrimination if it's a qualification requirement. Different topic.
> 
> ...


----------



## jp61 (Feb 13, 2018)

lancer said:


> I couldn't agree with you more.  And that includes the employers right to hire whom they choose so long as they aren't violating any applicable law. Some States have laws regarding this topic and some don't. Where they don't, I guess it's legal to discriminate against tobacco users. Who's next?
> 
> Lance


----------



## jp61 (Feb 13, 2018)

Anyone here ever hear of the "Boiling Frog"?


----------



## chopsaw (Feb 13, 2018)

jp61 said:


> Anyone here ever hear of the "Boiling Frog"?


 frog in a pot of water then boil he wont jump out , boil water first then throw him in he jumps back out .


----------



## atomicsmoke (Feb 13, 2018)

chopsaw said:


> frog in a pot of water then boil he wont jump out , boil water first then throw him in he jumps back out .


Now i am hungry again.


----------



## jp61 (Feb 13, 2018)

Well, I think my opinion on this topic is clear? (whatever it's worth), so thanks for your opinions and the conversation.

Even though this pony (topic) is very much alive and growing, I'm going to stop beating on it.

I hope I'm wrong on what I think this will lead to.


----------



## hb99 (Feb 14, 2018)

Yes, I hear you...

I don't worry about those things (for myself) anymore because I retired at 55  (8 years come June).

I've also been a home brewer since 1994.


----------



## phathead69 (Feb 14, 2018)

Read the whole thread. Nobody seems to disagree smoking is bad for you but is legal. Being obese, gay, religious or not , cross dressing, vegan or carnivore , is legal. Some legal choices can have health affects that cost employer more. 
The people who said "an employer can or should be able to hire or not hire whom ever they want" as ablanket statment needs to think it thru. If they won't hire you for one of the other reasons above how will you feel.


----------



## noboundaries (Feb 14, 2018)

I'm tempted to say the courts will eventually decide this smoking and weight issue, as they have in the past with other discrimination cases. Unfortunately, it may be decades before anything like that happens.  By then, hiring companies will have moved on to a whole new level of discrimination.  Most people believe the hair or urine sample given for the pre-employment drug test is only going to be screened for drugs.  Company's that do DNA testing are now doing pre-employment drug tests. Standby for a whole new level of employment discrimination targeting genetic markers that indicate a new hire's predisposition to health and behavior issues that go far beyond smoking and weight.

We're dancing on the head of the political pin here, but it makes for interesting reading!


----------



## atomicsmoke (Feb 14, 2018)

noboundaries said:


> Company's that do DNA testing are now doing pre-employment drug tests.


One of the reasons the OP mentioned the boiling frog.


----------



## hb99 (Feb 14, 2018)

Personally, I think your thought process is narrow because you have specific occupations in mind.

There are plenty of occupations/employers who place restrictions and limitations on their employees.

The Secret Service has a limited list of activities that Presidents are PERMITTED to do.  Sky diving it NOT one of them.  Bowling and golf are.  MOST Presidents play golf whether or not they even like golf.

"On call" workers can't drink while off duty, like first response emergency personnel (police, firemen, doctors, nurses, EMTs, EOD personnel, etc.  I've been there, done that.  Many years ago I worked on Army rifle ranges for 5 years.  When there was a weapon emergency I got called.  I had 15-30 minutes to get there.  When I was on-call I couldn't drink. 

People who don't like their employer's insurance policy, restrictions or requirements don't have to buy into them.  They're free to go buy their own. 

A person's desire to work for them comes down to if they're willing to accept their conditions for the pay.  If they don't like their employer's rules then they need to go get another job.  Most business are NOT going to change their job requirement to accommodate employees.  How would you react if you were the employer and your employees made their own demands?  You probably won't be able to find an insurer.


----------



## atomicsmoke (Feb 14, 2018)

Apple and oranges again. Come on....president?

You can't drink while on call because it interferes with your ability to do your job. Not because it affects the bottom line.

Being sober while on the job (on-call is pretty much unsupervised on-the-job) is common sense not a restriction.

Do you think the argument "my company, my rules" would work for an employer who does not hire handicapped people so he/she doesnt have to spend $ on accesibility features?

As for buying his/her own insurance ....the smoker loses the advantage of the group benefit that way. One option would be him/her paying the extra expense at group rates. But then ofcourse people with pre-existing conditions should pay from their pockets too.


----------



## hb99 (Feb 14, 2018)

I disagree.  If it's in WRITING...it IS a restriction (and a requirement).  And it does impact the employer's bottom line.  If you try to do your job drunk and someone gets killed both YOU and the EMPLOYER will be sued...successfully.

Listen, I didn't comment here to get a "pen pal" so this is my last comment/reply to this thread.  Just letting you know up front.  

Have a good one. :D


----------



## atomicsmoke (Feb 14, 2018)

hb99 said:


> I disagree.  If it's in WRITING...it IS a restriction (and a requirement).  And it does impact the employer's bottom line.  If you try to do your job drunk and someone gets killed both YOU and the EMPLOYER will be sued...successfully.
> 
> Listen, I didn't comment here to get a "pen pal" so this is my last comment/reply to this thread.  Just letting you know up front.
> 
> Have a good one. :D


Written in contract or not, a drunk employee is liability. Comparing requirement to show sober for work with requiring smoke free status is stretching the logic.


----------



## phathead69 (Feb 14, 2018)

hb99 said:


> I disagree.  If it's in WRITING...it IS a restriction (and a requirement).  And it does impact the employer's bottom line.  If you try to do your job drunk and someone gets killed both YOU and the EMPLOYER will be sued...successfully.



I too think this is rearranging and stretching the point. You reference jobs that have descriptions of very special requests. On call , can't drink. I agree with you accept the employment rules or seek a different employer. The original post to me was about general jobs of 8 and the gate but they want to control your 16 hours away from them by allowing or not, which legal activities your permitted to engage. Per your references on call cant drink, what about your day off. Try to do your job drunk comment, no brainer I agree but for the most part being drunk at home not bothering anyone is the only true legal drunk I can think of. Others may be accepted or overlooked at times say local bar on football night. Drunk - at home and make a scene, public and make a scene, drive to work, at work, you may be charged with breaking a law of Public - Intoxicated, Drunkenness or DUI. All crimes while smoking isn't.


----------



## jp61 (Feb 14, 2018)

hb99 said:


> *Personally, I think your thought process is narrow* because you have specific occupations in mind.
> 
> There are plenty of occupations/employers who place restrictions and limitations on their employees.
> 
> ...



Bold type is an example on why threads start getting out of control and end up locked.

This thread is not about any individual's ability or willingness to follow an employer's policies as an employee.


----------



## jp61 (Feb 14, 2018)

hb99 said:


> I disagree.  If it's in WRITING...it IS a restriction (and a requirement).  And it does impact the employer's bottom line.  If you try to do your job drunk and someone gets killed both YOU and the EMPLOYER will be sued...successfully.
> 
> *Listen, I didn't comment here to get a "pen pal" so this is my last comment/reply to this thread.  Just letting you know up front.  *
> 
> *Have a good one. :D*



C'mon man, why are you getting all upset?


----------



## hb99 (Feb 15, 2018)

jp61 said:


> C'mon man, why are you getting all upset?



OK, I don't usually go back on my word, but I feel like I need to reply to let you know that I was not upset.  

All's good!  I'm fine.  I hope you are too.  I appreciate the back and forth, but I have a guitar amplifier that needs repairing.


----------



## jp61 (Feb 15, 2018)

hb99 said:


> OK, I don't usually go back on my word, but I feel like I need to reply to let you know that I was not upset.
> 
> All's good!  I'm fine.  I hope you are too.  I appreciate the back and forth, but I have a guitar amplifier that needs repairing.



Okay, sounds good.

It's probably the flux capacitor :)


----------



## bryonlr (Feb 15, 2018)

After smoking 2 packs a day for 45 years, I put them down 3 years ago and haven't smoked since.  I worked for the same company for 30 years, retiring in 2006.  Smoking on the job was totally fine for the first 25 years, then suddenly the  company said no more smoking in the factory.  The air inside the plant was like a fog due to the coolant mist and was so thick you could not wash the smell out of your clothes, but the company would not admit this might be an issue.  Since my retirement, I average 4 to 5 funerals honoring one of my former co-workers, 98% died from some sort of cancer.  While I agree that smoking is a very unhealthy habit, but in my situation, I think tobacco smoke is the least of the companies issue.


----------



## jp61 (Feb 15, 2018)

:eek: Future non-smoking employees


----------



## dls1 (Feb 16, 2018)

jp61 said:


> Can someone explain to me how this practice is legal? I have heard from others that it's all about the cost of health insurance to the employer. Where does it end? Are we going to wake up one day to find out we can't work anywhere because we eat BBQ food as an example?



Just read this thread through for the first time, and though it's gone in a few different directions, I'll attempt to stick with the OP's initial question "Can someone explain to me how this practice is legal?".

First, at the Federal level, existing anti-discrimination laws do not prohibit employers from discriminating based on whether or not the person is a smoker. At the State level, it's a different matter. There are twenty nine States plus the District of Columbia with laws that protect tobacco users from discrimination in the hiring process by employers. Generally speaking, the State laws fall into 3 different categories,

Tobacco-only laws: Eighteen states specifically prohibit discrimination against tobacco users. 

Lawful consumable products laws: Eight states protect employees from discrimination if they use lawful consumable products, which, of course, would include tobacco. 
Lawful outside activities laws: Four states say employers can't discriminate against employees who engage in lawful activities outside of work. 
For the States with anti-discrimination laws there are, to the best of my knowledge, no laws prohibiting an employer from charging a smoking employee (or their covered dependents) a higher share of the overall premium than for non-smokers. Also, there are no restrictions on what the smokers increased cost could be up to the total employer/employee shared cost. In other words, for example, if the employer's share of the total premium costs are 75% with 25% being passed on to a non-smoking employee, a smoking employee could, theoretically, end up paying 100% of the total costs.  

For those individuals seeking employment in the States without anti-discrimination laws, how any given employer handles the matter is simply a roll of the dice.


----------



## jp61 (Feb 16, 2018)

Thanks dls1

I read this same info looking further into this topic. My opinion hasn't changed.


----------



## smokeymose (Feb 17, 2018)

bryonlr said:


> After smoking 2 packs a day for 45 years, I put them down 3 years ago and haven't smoked since.  I worked for the same company for 30 years, retiring in 2006.  Smoking on the job was totally fine for the first 25 years, then suddenly the  company said no more smoking in the factory.  The air inside the plant was like a fog due to the coolant mist and was so thick you could not wash the smell out of your clothes, but the company would not admit this might be an issue.  Since my retirement, I average 4 to 5 funerals honoring one of my former co-workers, 98% died from some sort of cancer.  While I agree that smoking is a very unhealthy habit, but in my situation, I think tobacco smoke is the least of the companies issue.


The industry I work in uses forklifts extensively. All venues don't allow smoking (they don't have a choice, anyway, because of state or municipal law), but somehow 6 to 30 propane powered forklifts indoors is OK. There may be some PC involved, but I believe as well that most of it is insurance related....


----------



## hoity toit (Feb 17, 2018)

chef jimmyj said:


> The Blowing Smoke Forum IS for anything you wish to talk about, no politics or religion, except smoking meat and other subjects covered by one of our forums. If the subject is smoked meat of any kind,there is a separate and appropriate Forum for that.
> There has always been a few that dictate the behavior of all! Look at Prohibition. A few convinced the government that alcohol is the Root of all Evil. Since the 90's Tobacco is the Devil. There are more and more articles being published about how dangerous Nitrites and Smoked Meat is for you...Get ready boys! They get your name and address when you register the Serial Number of your smoker for warranty claims. They'll be coming for you next!...JJ



Funny Jimmy, sad but you are right.When does the stupidity and madness stop these days.

HT


----------

