# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  Nicotine Test as Job Requirement

## kcchiefs6465

Recently when going through an interview process at a nearby temporary agency they asked if I was a smoker. When I told her I smoke cigarettes she said she needed a non-smoker. I told her it was not a problem as I do not need a smoke break and would refrain from smoking on work property. She told me that they did a nicotine test where they swab the inside of your cheek and it will react with nicotine. Seeing how tobacco is legal I was wondering some peoples' thoughts on the subject.. particularly on the employer's right to perform a nicotine test/not hire tobacco users.

----------


## Bruno

First they came for the pot smokers, and I did nothing because I did not smoke pot...

----------


## eduardo89

What state are you in? Many states have laws prohibiting discrimination of potential employees based on them smoking

----------


## kcchiefs6465

Ohio

----------


## specsaregood

> What state are you in? Many states have laws prohibiting discrimination of potential employees based on them smoking


Since when, which states?   At the federal level they are not protected.

I think the employer is well within his rights to pick and choose whomever they want to hire for whatever the reason.   

Also: If you need the money/work badly enough to go to a temp agency; perhaps you shouldn't be purchasing cigs?  The taxes go toward the big govt beast, slay him by starving him.

----------


## donnay

I wouldn't allow these people to swab my mouth...that sounds like more of a ploy to get your DNA and put it in a databank.  Fourth and Fifth amendments.

----------


## eduardo89

> Ohio


Seems your state allows the practice. 




> Thirty states and the District of Columbia have made it illegal for employers to make employment decisions based on off-duty smoking. Two states — California and Connecticut — prohibit discrimination on the basis of all legal behavior.
> 
> While the American Civil Liberties Union is opposed to nicotine-free hiring policies, Ohio’s “employment at will” laws prevent the organization from doing anything about it, said Mike Brickner, a spokesman for the ACLU in Ohio.
> http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/...ps-560365.html


There was a bill in 2010 that would have banned discrimination based on tobacco use, but it seems to have failed to make it out of committee
http://www.medcitynews.com/2010/03/o...-hire-smokers/

----------


## specsaregood

> I wouldn't allow these people to swab my mouth...that sounds like more of a ploy to get your DNA and put it in a databank.  Fourth and Fifth amendments.


You don't have to let them; but then again they don't have to employ you either.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Since when, which states?   At the federal level they are not protected.
> 
> I think the employer is well within his rights to pick and choose whomever they want to hire for whatever the reason.   
> 
> Also: If you need the money/work badly enough to go to a temp agency; *perhaps you shouldn't be purchasing cigs?  The taxes go toward the big govt beast, slay him by starving him*.


As if a loss of my five dollars a day would "slay" anything.

----------


## specsaregood

> As if a loss of my five dollars a day would "slay" anything


It all adds up.  is that 5 dollars you have to spend?  quitting smoking to get a job hardly sounds like a bad excuse to do so.

----------


## eduardo89

> Since when, which states?   At the federal level they are not protected.


Many states




> *CALIFORNIA*: CA LABOR CODE § 96(k) & 98.6
> 
> § 96. Assignment of claims and liens
> The Labor Commissioner and his or her deputies and representatives authorized by him or her in writing shall, upon the filing of a claim therefor by an employee, or an employee representative authorized in writing by an employee, with the Labor Commissioner, take assignments of:
> (k) Claims for loss of wages as the result of demotion, suspension, or discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises.





> *COLORADO*: CO REV. STAT. ANN § 24-34-402.5 *[CURRENT EMPLOYEES ONLY]*
> 
> 24-34-402.5. Unlawful prohibition of legal activities as a condition of employment
> (1) It shall be a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee's *engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours* unless such a restriction:
> (a) Relates to a bona fide occupational requirement or is reasonably and rationally related to the employment activities and responsibilities of a particular employee or a particular group of employees, rather than to all employees of the employer; or
> (b) Is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with any responsibilities to the employer or the appearance of such a conflict of interest.
> 
> (II) This paragraph (b) shall not apply to an employee of a business that has or had fifteen or fewer employees during each of twenty or more calendar work weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.





> *CONNECTICUT*: CT GEN. STAT. ANN. § 31-40s
> 
> Sec. 31-40s. Smoking or use of tobacco products outside of the workplace.
> 
> (a) No employer or agent of any employer shall require, as a condition of employment, that any employee or prospective employee refrain from smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of his employment, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment for *smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of his employment*, provided any nonprofit organization or corporation whose primary purpose is to discourage use of tobacco products by the general public shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.





> *DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA*: D.C. CODE ANN. § 7-1703.03
> 
> Prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of tobacco use [Formerly § 6-913.3]* (a) No person shall refuse to hire or employ any applicant for employment, or discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to compensation or any other term, condition, or privilege of employment, *on the basis of the use by the applicant or employee of tobacco or tobacco products.* Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting a person from establishing or enforcing workplace smoking restrictions that are required or permitted by this subchapter or other District or federal laws, or in establishing tobacco-use restrictions or prohibitions that constitute bona fide occupational qualifications.





> *ILLINOIS*: 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 55/5 [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]
> 
> § 820 ILCS 55/5. Discrimination for use of lawful products prohibited 
> Sec. 5. Discrimination for use of lawful products prohibited. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law and except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section, it shall be unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise disadvantage any individual, with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because the individual *uses lawful products off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.*
> (b) This Section does not apply to any employer that is a non-profit organization that, as one of its primary purposes or objectives, discourages the use of one or more lawful products by the general public. This Section does not apply to the use of those lawful products which impairs an employee's ability to perform the employee's assigned duties.
> (c) It is not a violation of this Section for an employer to offer, impose or have in effect a health, disability or life insurance policy that makes distinctions between employees for the type of coverage or the price of coverage based upon the employees' use of lawful products provided that:
> (1) differential premium rates charged employees reflect a differential cost to the employer; and
> (2) employers provide employees with a statement delineating the differential rates used by insurance carriers.





> *INDIANA*: IND. CODE §§ 22-5-4-1 et seq.
> 
> 22-5-4-1. Employment or discrimination based on employee's off duty use of tobacco prohibited.(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), an employer may not:
> (1) require, as a condition of employment, an employee or prospective employee to refrain from using; or
> 
> (2) discriminate against an employee with respect to:
> (A) the employee's compensation and benefits; or
> (B) terms and conditions of employment;
> based on the employee's use of;
> ...





> *KENTUCKY*: KY REV. STAT. ANN. § 344.040
> 
> 344.040. Discrimination by employers.
> It is an unlawful practice for an employer:
> 
> (1) To fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of the individual's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age forty (40) and over, because the person is a qualified individual with a disability, *or because the individual is a smoker or nonsmoker*, as long as the person complies with any workplace policy concerning smoking;
> (2) To limit, segregate, or classify employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive an individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect status as an employee, because of the individual's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or age forty (40) and over, because the person is a qualified individual with a disability, or because the individual is a smoker or nonsmoker, as long as the person complies with any workplace policy concerning smoking; or
> (3) To require as a condition of employment that any employee or applicant for employment abstain from smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of employment, as long as the person complies with any workplace policy concerning smoking.





> *LOUISIANA*: LA REV. STAT. ANN. § 23:966* [CURRENT EMPLOYEES ONLY]
> *
> § 23:966. Prohibition of smoking discrimination 
> A. As long as an individual, during the course of employment, complies with applicable law and any adopted workplace policy regulating smoking, it shall be unlawful for an employer:
> (1) To discriminate against the individual with respect to discharge, compensation, promotion, any personnel action or other condition, or privilege of employment because the individual is a smoker or nonsmoker.
> (2) To require, as a condition of employment, that the individual abstain from smoking or otherwise using tobacco products outside the course of employment.
> B. A smoker, as referred to herein, is limited to a person who smokes tobacco.
> C. Nothing in this Section shall preclude an employer from formulating and adopting a policy regulating an employee's workplace use of a tobacco product or from taking any action consistent therewith.
> D. Any employer who violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined up to two hundred fifty dollars for the first offense and up to five hundred dollars for any subsequent offense.





> *MAINE*: ME REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 26, § 597
> 
> § 597. Conditions of employment
> An employer or an agent of an employer may not require, as a condition of employment, that any employee or prospective employee refrain from using tobacco products outside the course of that employment or otherwise discriminate against any person with respect to the person's compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment for *using tobacco products outside the course of employment* as long as the employee complies with any workplace policy concerning use of tobacco.





> *MINNESOTA*: MINN. STAT. § 181.938
> 
> 181.938 NONWORK ACTIVITIES; PROHIBITED EMPLOYER CONDUCT [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]
> Subdivision 1. Definition.
> For the purpose of this section, "employer" has the meaning given it in section 179.01, subdivision 3.
> Subd. 2. Prohibited practice.
> An employer may not refuse to hire a job applicant or discipline or discharge an employee because the applicant or employee engages in or has engaged in the *use or enjoyment of lawful consumable products*, if the use or enjoyment takes place off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours. For purposes of this section, "lawful consumable products" means products whose use or enjoyment is lawful and which are consumed during use or enjoyment, and includes food, alcoholic or nonalcoholic beverages, and *tobacco*.





> *MISSISSIPPI*: MISS. CODE ANN. § 71-7-33
> 
> § 71-7-33. *Requirement of abstention from use of tobacco products during nonworking hours as condition of employment prohibited* 
> It shall be unlawful for any public or private employer to require as a condition of employment that any employee or applicant for employment abstain from smoking or using tobacco products during nonworking hours, provided that the individual complies with applicable laws or policies regulating smoking on the premises of the employer during working hours.





> *MISSOURI*: MO. REV. STAT. § 290.145 [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]
> 
> § 290.145. Discrimination, refusal to hire or discharge employee for alcohol or tobacco use not during working hours, prohibited, exception -- not cause for legal actions 
> It shall be an improper employment practice for an employer to refuse to hire, or to discharge, any individual, or to otherwise disadvantage any individual, with respect to compensation, terms or conditions of employment because the individual uses lawful alcohol or *tobacco products off the premises of the employer during hours such individual is not working for the employer*, unless such use interferes with the duties and performance of the employee, the employee's coworkers, or the overall operation of the employer's business; except that, nothing in this section shall prohibit an employer from providing or contracting for health insurance benefits at a reduced premium rate or at a reduced deductible level for employees who do not smoke or use tobacco products. Religious organizations and church-operated institutions, and not-for-profit organizations whose principal business is health care promotion shall be exempt from the provisions of this section. The provisions of this section shall not be deemed to create a cause of action for injunctive relief, damages or other relief.





> *MONTANA*: MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 39-2-313 & 39-2-314 [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]
> 
> 39-2-313 Discrimination prohibited for use of lawful product during nonworking hours -- exceptions.
> (1) For purposes of this section, "lawful product" means a product that is legally consumed, used, or enjoyed and includes food, beverages, and *tobacco*.





> *NEVADA*: NEV. REV. STAT. § 613.333
> 
> 613.333. Unlawful employment practices: Discrimination for *lawful use of any product outside premises of employer* which does not adversely affect job performance or safety of other employees.
> 1. It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to:
> (a) Fail or refuse to hire a prospective employee; or





> *NEW HAMPSHIRE*: N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:37-a
> 
> 275:37-a Discrimination on Basis of Using Tobacco Products Prohibited.
> No employer shall require as a condition of employment that any employee or applicant for employment abstain from using tobacco products outside the course of employment, as long as the employee complies with any workplace policy, pursuant to RSA 155:51-53 and, when applicable, 1. RSA 155:64-77.





> *NEW JERSEY*: N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 34:6B-1 et seq.
> 
> § 34:6B-1. Smoking, use of tobacco products shall not affect employment 
> No employer shall refuse to hire or employ any person or shall discharge from employment or take any adverse action against any employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or other privileges of employment because that person does or does not smoke or use other tobacco products, unless the employer has a rational basis for doing so which is reasonably related to the employment, including the responsibilities of the employee or prospective employee.





> *NEW MEXICO*: N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 50-11-3 
> 
> § 50-11-3. Employers; unlawful practices 
> A. It is unlawful for an employer to:
> (1) refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise disadvantage any individual, with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because the individual is a smoker or nonsmoker, provided that the individual complies with applicable laws or policies regulating smoking on the premises of the employer during working hours; or
> (2) require as a condition of employment that any employee or applicant for employment abstain from smoking or using tobacco products during nonworking hours, provided the individual complies with applicable laws or policies regulating smoking on the premises of the employer during working hours.
> B.





> *NEW YORK*: N.Y. [LABOR] LAW § 201-d [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]
> 
> § 201-d. Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities
> 2. Unless otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful for any employer or employment agency to refuse to hire, employ or license, or to discharge from employment or otherwise discriminate against an individual in compensation, promotion or terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of:
> b. an individual's legal use of consumable products prior to the beginning or after the conclusion of the employee's work hours, and off of the employer's premises and without use of the employer's equipment or other property;





> *NORTH CAROLINA*: N.C. GEN. STAT. § 95-28.2 [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]
> 
> § 95-28.2. *Discrimination against persons for lawful use of lawful products during nonworking hours prohibited*
> (a) As used in this section, "employer" means the State and all political subdivisions of the State, public and quasi-public corporations, boards, bureaus, commissions, councils, and private employers with three or more regularly employed employees.
> (b) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire a prospective employee, or discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the prospective employee or the employee engages in or has engaged in the lawful use of lawful products if the activity occurs off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours and does not adversely affect the employee's job performance or the person's ability to properly fulfill the responsibilities of the position in question or the safety of other employees.





> *NORTH DAKOTA*: N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 14-02.4-01 et seq.
> 
> 14-02.4-01. State policy against discrimination.
> 
> It is the policy of this state to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, the presence of any mental or physical disability, status with regard to marriage or public assistance, or *participation in lawful activity off the employer's premises during nonworking hours* which is not in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer; to prevent and eliminate discrimination in employment relations, public accommodations, housing, state and local government services, and credit transactions; and to deter those who aid, abet, or induce discrimination or coerce others to discriminate.





> *OKLAHOMA*: OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 40, § 500
> 
> § 500. Nonsmoking as condition of employment
> It shall be unlawful for an employer to:
> 
> 1. Discharge any individual, or otherwise disadvantage any individual, with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because the individual is a nonsmoker or smokes or uses tobacco products during nonworking hours; or
> 2. Require as a condition of employment that any employee or applicant for employment abstain from smoking or using tobacco products during nonworking hours.





> *OREGON*: OR. REV. STAT. §§ 659A.315 & 659A.885
> 
> 659A.315. *Restricting use of tobacco in nonworking hours prohibited*; exceptions.
> (1) It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer to require, as a condition of employment, that any employee or prospective employee refrain from using lawful tobacco products during nonworking hours, except when the restriction relates to a bona fide occupational requirement.
> (2) Subsection (1) of this section _does not apply if an applicable collective bargaining agreement prohibits off-duty use of tobacco products_.





> *RHODE ISLAND*: R.I. GEN. LAWS § 23-20.10-14
> 
> § 23-20.10-14. Prohibited condition of employment -- *Smoking by employees outside course of employment* 
> (a) No employer or agent of any employer shall require, as a condition of employment, that any employee or prospective employee refrain from smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of his or her employment, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment for smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of his or her employment. Provided, however, that the following employers shall be exempt from the provisions of this section: Any employer that is a nonprofit organization which as one of its primary purposes or objectives discourages the use of tobacco products by the general public.





> *SOUTH CAROLINA*: S.C. CODE ANN. § 41-1-85
> 
> § 41-1-85. Personnel action based on use of tobacco products outside of workplace prohibited.






> *SOUTH DAKOTA*: S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 60-4-11 *[CURRENT EMPLOYEE ONLY]* [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]
> 
> It is a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to terminate the employment of an employee due to that employee's engaging in any use of tobacco products off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours unless such a restriction:
> (1) Relates to a bona fide occupational requirement and is reasonably and rationally related to the employment activities and responsibilities of a particular employee or a particular group of employees, rather than to all employees of the employer; or
> (2) Is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with any responsibilities to the employer or the appearance of such a conflict of interest.
> Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the sole remedy for any person claiming to be aggrieved by a discriminatory or unfair employment practice as defined in this section shall be as follows: the person may bring a civil suit for damages in circuit court and may sue for all wages and benefits which have been due up to and including the date of the judgment had the discriminatory or unfair employment practice not occurred. However, nothing in this section may be construed to relieve such person from the obligation to mitigate damages. It is not a discriminatory or unfair employment practice pursuant to this section for an employer to offer, impose or have in effect a health or life insurance policy that makes distinctions between employees for the type of coverage or the cost of coverage based upon the employees' use of tobacco products. The provisions of this section shall not apply to full-time fire fighters.





> *TENNESSEE*:* TENN. CODE ANN. § 50-1-304 *[CURRENT EMPLOYEES]*
> 
> 50-1-304. Discharge for refusal to participate in or remain silent about illegal activities, or for legal use of agricultural product -- Damages -- Frivolous lawsuits.
> 
> (e) (1) No employee shall be discharged or terminated solely for participating or engaging in the use of an agricultural product not regulated by the alcoholic beverage commission that is not otherwise proscribed by law, if the employee participates or engages in the use in a manner that complies with all applicable employer policies regarding the use during times at which the employee is working.
> (2) No employee shall be discharged or terminated solely for participating or engaging in the use of the product not regulated by the alcoholic beverage commission that is not otherwise proscribed by law if the employee participates or engages in the activity during times when the employee is not working.





> *VIRGINIA: VA. CODE ANN. § 2.2-2902 [STATE EMPLOYEES ONLY]
> 
> § 2.2-2902. Use of tobacco products by state employees 
> 
> No employee of or applicant for employment with the Commonwealth shall be required, as a condition of employment, to smoke or use tobacco products on the job, or to abstain from smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of his employment, provided that this section shall not apply to those classes of employees to which 1. § 27-40.1 [FIRE FIGHTERS] or § 51.1-813 [POLICE OFFICERS] is applicable*





> *WEST VIRGINIA*: W. VA. CODE § 21-3-19 [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]
> 
> § 21-3-19. *Discrimination for use of tobacco products prohibited.
> *
> (a) It shall be unlawful for any employer, whether public or private, or the agent of such employer to refuse to hire any individual or to discharge any employee or otherwise to disadvantage or penalize any employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment solely because such individual* uses tobacco products off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.*
> (b) This section shall not apply with respect to an employer which is a nonprofit organization which, as one of its primary purposes or objectives, discourages the use of one or more tobacco products by the general public.
> (c) This section shall not prohibit an employer from offering, imposing or having in effect a health, disability or life insurance policy which makes distinctions between employees for type of coverage or price of coverage based upon the employee's use of tobacco products: Provided, That any differential premium rates charged to employees must reflect differential costs to the employer: Provided, however, That the employer must provide employees with a statement delineating the differential rates used by its insurance carriers.
> (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an employer from making available to smokers and other users of tobacco products, programs, free of charge or at reduced rates, which encourage the reduction or cessation of smoking or tobacco use.





> *WISCONSIN*: WIS. STAT. §§ 111.31 et seq. [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]
> 
> 111.321. Prohibited bases of discrimination.
> Subject to S. 111.33 to 111.36, no employer, labor organization, employment agency, licensing agency, or other person may engage in any act of employment discrimination as specified in s. 111.322 against any individual on the basis of age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, arrest record, conviction record, military service, or *use or nonuse of lawful products off the employers premises during nonworking hours.*
> 111.35. 
> 
> (4) Notwithstanding s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of use of a lawful product off the employers premises during nonworking hours to refuse to employ an applicant if the applicants use of a lawful product consists of smoking tobacco and the employment is as a fire fighter covered under s. 891.45 or 891.455





> *WYOMING*: WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 27-9-101 et seq. [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]
> 
> § 27-9-105. Discriminatory and unfair employment practices enumerated; limitations.(a) It is a discriminatory or unfair employment practice:
> 
> (iv) For an employer to require as a condition of employment that any employee or prospective employee use or refrain from using tobacco products outside the course of his employment, or otherwise to discriminate against any person in matters of compensation or the terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of use or nonuse of tobacco products outside the course of his employment unless it is a bona fide occupational qualification that a person not use tobacco products outside the workplace.

----------


## tod evans

Oh geeze another smoking-vs-nonsmoking debate...

It's your right to smoke.

It's his right to not hire you if he so chooses.

----------


## specsaregood

> Many states


Yeah, that sucks.  more loss of employers' rights.  i remember when I ran into this ban about 14years ago out in cali, i thought it sucked as I was not an employer but an employee and i smoked.  my views have changed now that the roles have reversed.

----------


## specsaregood

> Oh geeze another smoking-vs-nonsmoking debate...


I don't think anybody in this thread is making that debate argument, this is about employment issues.




> It's his right to not hire you if he so chooses.


Not in about 30 states according to the information Eduardo posted.

----------


## donnay

> You don't have to let them; but then again they don't have to employ you either.


Very true.  That's kind of where this is all heading anyways.  Until government is removed from dictating and placing regulations on businesses, most people will be beholden to them to survive.  It certainly is a catch-22.  I long for the day that people wake up to this and get rid of crony capitalistic ventures.

----------


## thoughtomator

Anyone wanting to physically test your body fluids/cells/whatever for a job that does not by definition require such a test has an understanding of the employer-employee relationship so much different than mine that I could never work for such an organization.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> *I don't think anybody in this thread is making that debate argument, this is about employment issues.*
> Not in about 30 states according to the information Eduardo posted.


It is also about my right to smoke. I had informed them that I did not need smoke breaks nor would I use tobacco on their property but in the sanctity of my own home I thought I was free to do as I please in. It sounds more like a health initiative much like the bans in many public parks.

----------


## specsaregood

> It is also about my right to smoke. I had informed them that I did not need smoke breaks nor would I use tobacco on their property but in the sanctity of my own home I thought I was free to do as I please. It sounds more like a health initiative much like the bans in many public parks.


It is more likely that it comes down to $$$ and insurance rates being cheaper if they employ no smokers.

----------


## eduardo89

> It is more likely that it comes down to $$$ and insurance rates being cheaper if they employ no smokers.


Yeah, it's usually that. That's why many states allow employers to charge you more for health insurance and they can also offer incentives to quit smoking.

----------


## fr33

Wow so even if you use e-cigs you can't be hired.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> It is more likely that it comes down to $$$ and insurance rates being cheaper if they employ no smokers.


This is true for many jobs. The job I was applying for however had no insurance benefits.

----------


## chudrockz

My employer doesn't prohibit smoking. However, we have a yearly re-up on health insurance. As part of that process, you can voluntarily take a health screening. Basically, they test for risk factors, and for each test that you "pass," you get credits to use against your health insurance deductible. One of the risk factors is smoking, so they do test for nicotine, and a negative test is passing.

It's interesting and maybe just a bit troubling, but as my wife and I quit smoking about six years ago, no longer an issue for us. Now weight, on the other hand... <g>

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## Working Poor

Find someone else to work for...

----------


## donnay

> It is more likely that it comes down to $$$ and insurance rates being cheaper if they employ no smokers.


Which is kind of ironic because most smokers I know are healthier than some of the non-smokers I know.  That's why healthcare should not be dictated by the federal government.  I do not think employers should have to pay for employees benefits.

----------


## mczerone

It is thier right to do so.

It is also our right to publicize this discriminatory behavior and put pressure on them to change thier policies.

I would like to see more effort being given to these non-political, non-legal-system efforts to promote freedom. It'd be an organization that sets out its own constitution and works to (peacefully and voluntarily) spread its ideas of individual soviergnty.

Or we can continue to pontificate about the nature of rights in online forums.

----------


## XTreat

Non smokers are cheaper to insure AND multiple double blind studies have shown that non-smokers are more productive than smokers. Yes you may only smoke at home but it still affects your immune system and ability to recover from illness that may affect  your time on the job.

At the end of the day you have the right to smoke, but the employer has the right to ASK you you do anything as a contract for employment, you have the right to refuse and he has the right to refuse to employ you.

----------


## Sam I am

> Recently when going through an interview process at a nearby temporary agency they asked if I was a smoker. When I told her I smoke cigarettes she said she needed a non-smoker. I told her it was not a problem as I do not need a smoke break and would refrain from smoking on work property. She told me that they did a nicotine test where they swab the inside of your cheek and it will react with nicotine. Seeing how tobacco is legal I was wondering some peoples' thoughts on the subject.. particularly on the employer's right to perform a nicotine test/not hire tobacco users.


I know this is a Cliche thing to say, but...

Do you really want a job where someone somewhere in Administration decides that they just don't want to hire people who smoke?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

Maybe, just maybe it is their (employers) loss:
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/24...ion-and-memory

----------


## driller80545

Next it will be a weight thing, and then a genetic tendency thing. Don't work for them.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

//

----------


## onlyrp

While I love to discriminate against smokers, I am surprised it's legal. Especially if it's on the hiring process. I understand for health care purposes, the provider has a right to know the details of your health and habits, but I never heard of jobs that prefer non-smokers.

----------


## otherone

> First they came for the pot smokers, and I did nothing because I did not smoke pot...


FIFY

----------


## onlyrp

> FIFY


LMAO

----------


## Danke

> While I love to discriminate against smokers, I am surprised it's legal. Especially if it's on the hiring process. I understand for health care purposes, the provider has a right to know the details of your health and habits, but I never heard of jobs that prefer non-smokers.


Once diagnosed, smoker soon die.  So they pay a lot of taxes while alive, then quickly die.  A plus plus.

----------


## idiom

Smoking reflects a lack of self-discipline and and a poor decision making process. Not valuable character traits in an employee.

----------


## onlyrp

> Smoking reflects a lack of self-discipline and and a poor decision making process. Not valuable character traits in an employee.


what reflects good self discipline?

----------


## Danke

> what reflects good self discipline?


Not reporting your posts?

----------


## thoughtomator

I wonder how long before they test for lazy genes?

----------


## idiom



----------


## Phil

> As if a loss of my five dollars a day would "slay" anything.


If you spend $5 per day on cigarettes that adds up to over $1800 for the year...

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> If you spend $5 per day on cigarettes that adds up to over $1800 for the year...


Thank you.. Now all I need is someone to tell me how much money I would waste in 10 years

----------


## specsaregood

> Thank you.. Now all I need is someone to tell me how much money I would waste in 10 years


If you spend $5 per day on cigarettes, that adds up to over $18,000 in 10 years.

----------


## fr33

> If you spend $5 per day on cigarettes, that adds up to over $18,000 in 10 years.


Leave me alone, mom.

----------


## Suzu

> It is also about my right to smoke. I had informed them that I did not need smoke breaks nor would I use tobacco on their property but in the sanctity of my own home I thought I was free to do as I please in. It sounds more like a health initiative much like the bans in many public parks.


You could have said that even though you don't smoke, you use snuff and therefore could not pass a nicotine test.

----------


## fr33

Yeah this bothers me even though I'm not job hunting. I've quit smoking using e-cigs so even though I couldn't pass a nicotine test, I don't smoke. But of course it's their right to discriminate.

----------


## osan

> Recently when going through an interview process at a nearby temporary agency they asked if I was a smoker. When I told her I smoke cigarettes she said she needed a non-smoker. I told her it was not a problem as I do not need a smoke break and would refrain from smoking on work property. She told me that they did a nicotine test where they swab the inside of your cheek and it will react with nicotine. Seeing how tobacco is legal I was wondering some peoples' thoughts on the subject.. particularly on the employer's right to perform a nicotine test/not hire tobacco users.


First, a question: what $#@!ed company was this?

As to the issue in question, I believe they are free to discriminate based on tobacco use or any other point they may choose.  I do draw the line, however, at the invasive act of testing.  They should be able to ask you if you smoke for whatever the reason.  Your word should be all they require in response with the understanding that if they find out that you in fact do smoke, they can show you the door.  Forgetting that companies are free to ask such questions of their prospective employees, they should certainly be free to do so when the answer directly effects the nature of the work.  Imagine a biochemical company that produces highly sensitive compound that must have no nicotine in it as a contaminant.  I would not blame them for wanting to ensure that an employee not breathing it into a batch of whatever.

Either we are free or we are something else.  Freedom means that some of us will do things the rest of us do not like.  Discrimination is my right for any reason I may choose.  I am not, however, entitled to demand you give me samples - certainly not without a detailed explanation as to why they are being demanded and how it directly relates to job function.  For example, I feel it is perfectly legitimate for a private airline to test pilots for drug use as such use may directly affect the pilot's ability to safely operate aircraft.  Some will cringe at this, but really there is no issue of violation in question here.  Were I CEO I would make damned sure to minimize risk to my customers, which in the case of a stoned pilot could be substantial.

----------


## AFPVet

If they want to be crazy like that, don't apply with them. That is pretty screwed up.... Some big companies are getting stupid crazy nowadays. We need more small businesses.

----------


## teacherone

> If you spend $5 per day on cigarettes, that adds up to over $18,000 in 10 years.


So glad the wife made me quit.

----------


## onlyrp

> If you spend $5 per day on cigarettes, that adds up to over $18,000 in 10 years.


So after 10 years of pleasure and bad breath, all I lose is barely a car? I'll take it! 
(don't forget the increased cost in dental hygeine and chewing gum)

----------


## onlyrp

> Which is kind of ironic because most smokers I know are healthier than some of the non-smokers I know.  That's why healthcare should not be dictated by the federal government.  I do not think employers should have to pay for employees benefits.


You notice you said "most" vs "some"? What are these "some non smokers"? Drinkers? Drug addicts? Genetically inherited heart diseases? Junk food junkies?

----------


## Wesker1982

They should not be forced to associate with anyone they don't want to. For any reason.

Voluntary association ftw.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> You don't have to let them; but then again they don't have to employ you either.


Isn't there a certain point where an employers hiring practices become too extreme?

----------


## virgil47

> Yeah, that sucks.  more loss of employers' rights.  i remember when I ran into this ban about 14years ago out in cali, i thought it sucked as I was not an employer but an employee and i smoked.  my views have changed now that the roles have reversed.


Do you still smoke? The rules do not necessarily apply to the employer now do they.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Isn't there a certain point where an employers hiring practices become too extreme?


The point at which they can't hire enough employees, or at which the public thinks the hiring practices are so awful that they boycott the product.

----------


## DerailingDaTrain

> The point at which they can't hire enough employees, or at which the public thinks the hiring practices are so awful that they boycott the product.


Thank you for your response.

----------


## specsaregood

> Do you still smoke? The rules do not necessarily apply to the employer now do they.


no. i would hope not since he should be the one making the rules.  




> Isn't there a certain point where an employers hiring practices become too extreme?


see melissa's answer

----------


## tttppp

> Recently when going through an interview process at a nearby temporary agency they asked if I was a smoker. When I told her I smoke cigarettes she said she needed a non-smoker. I told her it was not a problem as I do not need a smoke break and would refrain from smoking on work property. She told me that they did a nicotine test where they swab the inside of your cheek and it will react with nicotine. Seeing how tobacco is legal I was wondering some peoples' thoughts on the subject.. particularly on the employer's right to perform a nicotine test/not hire tobacco users.


I don't have a problem with this. Based on my experience, smokers tend to spend an excessive amount of time outside on breaks smoking. Its really not fair to everyone else. Non-smokers work non-stop except for their lunch break. For some reason, smokers feel like its their right to take smoke break after smoke break. I'm sure if there was a statistic, non-smokers produce more than smokers. 

I'm kind of glad to see a company cracking down on this and not giving smokers all the breaks.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Isn't there a certain point where an employers hiring practices become too extreme?


Yes.

100 years ago, among other things, employers would force you to go their company approved church or stop drinking.

Thus the formation of unions, and all the trouble they brought.

And the cycle repeats.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I don't have a problem with this. Based on my experience, smokers tend to spend an excessive amount of time outside on breaks smoking. Its really not fair to everyone else. Non-smokers work non-stop except for their lunch break. For some reason, smokers feel like its their right to take smoke break after smoke break. I'm sure if there was a statistic, non-smokers produce more than smokers. 
> 
> I'm kind of glad to see a company cracking down on this and not giving smokers all the breaks.


I'm kind of glad to see a company cracking down on homosexuals, who feel it's their right to engage in perverse activities that show poor judgment skills and engage in behavior that is medically risky and causes all of health care costs to rise.

/shrugs

40 years ago sucking the smoke from a smoldering shred of plant matter was considered normal and "OK".

Now, it's sick and twisted and anti social, but fellating another man is considered normal and "OK".

/shrugs again.

----------


## fr33

> Yes.
> 
> 100 years ago, among other things, employers would force you to go their company approved church or stop drinking.
> 
> Thus the formation of unions, and all the trouble they brought.
> 
> And the cycle repeats.


ahh yes. When the people actually speak their minds and practice their own principle without using government to enforce their will. Nobody needs to ask why the manufacturing jobs are going oversears. We need to ask why we sent them there and why new factories are at a disadvantage.

----------


## Danke

> I'm kind of glad to see a company cracking down on homosexuals, who feel it's their right to engage in perverse activities that show poor judgment skills and engage in behavior that is medically risky and causes all of health care costs to rise.
> 
> /shrugs
> 
> 40 years ago sucking the smoke from a smoldering shred of plant matter was considered normal and "OK".
> 
> Now, it's sick and twisted and anti social, but fellating another man is considered normal and "OK".
> 
> /shrugs again.


Pole smokers.  We could do without them, both...

----------


## specsaregood

> ahh yes. When the people actually speak their minds and practice their own principle without using government to enforce their will. Nobody needs to ask why the manufacturing jobs are going oversears. We need to ask why we sent them there and why new factories are at a disadvantage.


I hope you aren't implying it has to do with unions as that'd be a rather misguided uninformed opinion. The reason they went overseas is in large part due to monetary policy.  If you can make money out of thin air; why bother working?

----------


## RickyJ

> I wouldn't allow these people to swab my mouth...that sounds like more of a ploy to get your DNA and put it in a databank.  Fourth and Fifth amendments.


I have never smoked and would not allow them to swab my mouth to test for nicotine. There is no sense in working for an employer that has absolutely no trust in their employees.

----------


## tttppp

> I'm kind of glad to see a company cracking down on homosexuals, who feel it's their right to engage in perverse activities that show poor judgment skills and engage in behavior that is medically risky and causes all of health care costs to rise.
> 
> /shrugs
> 
> 40 years ago sucking the smoke from a smoldering shred of plant matter was considered normal and "OK".
> 
> Now, it's sick and twisted and anti social, but fellating another man is considered normal and "OK".
> 
> /shrugs again.


Do homosexuals routinely take breaks during work and go have gay sex outside? I think this is pretty rare. I haven't seen a case of homosexuality effect someone's work before.

----------


## onlyrp

> Yes.
> 
> 100 years ago, among other things, employers would force you to go their company approved church or stop drinking.
> 
> Thus the formation of unions, and all the trouble they brought.
> 
> And the cycle repeats.


Was it better or worse 100 years ago?

----------


## Lindsey

I'm self-employed atm, but when I was last interviewing, I had steadfast rules about the interview process:

1. No drug checks. 
2. No credit checks. 
3. No criminal background checks.
4. No other "big brother" type checks, (such as the current trend of asking for Facebook passwords.)

I had zero to hide; I just didn't feel working within the system was valuable enough for me to give up that level of privacy/self-respect.  

You can comply with their wish or not, but I would always advise that if something doesn't feel right during the hiring process, trust yourself. HR people are trained to make you feel comfortable while they judge you, to sell the company & position to you so they can negotiate to your lowest price and still make you feel good about it.  If a company doesn't make you feel good during the hiring process, they are likely not anymore capable of making you capable once you learn more about how they are conducting business.


(For disclosure purposes, I was largely influenced when I was searching for a job by the position that I was in at that time, I was planning on leaving a company not in small part to their big brother activities - video surveillance, email surveillance, etc...  It has become clearer and clearer over time that I was never meant to work for anyone else - it was never going to work.)

----------


## economics102

It SHOULD be legal for employers to discriminate against smokers, but alas it's not in most states.

Of course, that doesn't mean you as a potential employee should tolerate that -- you're well within your right to be offended and walk away.

----------


## otherone

> It SHOULD be legal for employers to discriminate against smokers, but alas it's not in most states.
> 
> Of course, that doesn't mean you as a potential employee should tolerate that -- you're well within your right to be offended and walk away.


So a non-smoker gets hired by a non-smoking company, is employed for 4 productive years, is convinced by a buddy to try one at a bar. a manager finds out, the employee is terminated.  Yes, employment is a "behavior rental agreement", but dammit...if they're gonna rent my behavior 24/7 then they're gonna PAY me for 24/7.

----------


## otherone

> I don't have a problem with this. Based on my experience, smokers tend to spend an excessive amount of time outside on breaks smoking.


This would be solved by having an ashtray at the desk.

----------


## newbitech

A temp agency.  You know these kinds of agencies seem to be all over the place.  They never seem to find jobs.  They seem to exist to profile people and find as much information on them as possible, prodding and poking in to private lives with the promise of a job.  There are a few of them out there that I trust because they have actually put me in front of a hiring manager.  

I think what is going on is list creation.  These companies are probably looking to sell you name to someone else, and probably not even for employment purposes.  I almost find it hard to believe that a company could seriously have a policy of not hiring someone based on non business impacting personal issues. 

Smokers don't just take random breaks when they feel like it.  There are all sorts of products that contain nicotine that have nothing to do with smoking.  Clearly the stigma around nicotine is the smoke, second hand smoke, and smell.  Testing for nicotine can also turn up people who just ate things like eggplant, red peppers, tomatoes, or potatoes.  

By the way, the swabs don't test for nicotine.  They test for the metabolite, cotinine.  The chemical has a half life of about 20 hours.  If you want to pass the test, you could just stay away from nicotine for about a week.  

Probably once you pass the test, as long as you don't smoke before the job or during breaks, and as long as you don't smoke in your house, they will probably never know about your nicotine usage.

----------


## tod evans

> I don't have a problem with this. Based on my experience, smokers tend to spend an excessive amount of time outside on breaks smoking. Its really not fair to everyone else. Non-smokers work non-stop except for their lunch break. For some reason, smokers feel like its their right to take smoke break after smoke break. I'm sure if there was a statistic, non-smokers produce more than smokers. 
> 
> I'm kind of glad to see a company cracking down on this and not giving smokers all the breaks.


Back when I started in the workforce a good percentage of people smoked.

Way back then our country also produced things.

I'm not trying to draw any correlation between productivity and smoking, instead I'm trying to point out that when people, employers and employees, focused more on being productive they got stuff built.

Now-a-days it seems as though there's a whole lotta time spent being concerned about what the other guy is or isn't doing and then blaming him for failure to produce.

Smoking has been a hot button social issue for a few decades now and dragging social issues into the workplace affects productivity. 

Big corporations have had social issues crammed down their throats for a long time and from here it looks as if those who haven't left our country for a more productive environment are floundering, work-force quotas, OSHA, political correctness, and countless other social issues are taking precedence over doing "the job".

Let companies hire those who make them money and fire those who don't, repeal legislation that forces companies to cater to social pressure and let them focus on their business.

If a company chooses to make smoking etiquette a stipulation of employment then fine but if one doesn't that should be fine too.

----------


## MelissaWV

> A temp agency.  You know these kinds of agencies seem to be all over the place.  They never seem to find jobs.  They seem to exist to profile people and find as much information on them as possible, prodding and poking in to private lives with the promise of a job.  There are a few of them out there that I trust because they have actually put me in front of a hiring manager.  
> 
> I think what is going on is list creation.  These companies are probably looking to sell you name to someone else, and probably not even for employment purposes.  I almost find it hard to believe that a company could seriously have a policy of not hiring someone based on non business impacting personal issues. 
> 
> Smokers don't just take random breaks when they feel like it.  There are all sorts of products that contain nicotine that have nothing to do with smoking.  Clearly the stigma around nicotine is the smoke, second hand smoke, and smell.  Testing for nicotine can also turn up people who just ate things like eggplant, red peppers, tomatoes, or potatoes.  
> 
> By the way, the swabs don't test for nicotine.  They test for the metabolite, cotinine.  The chemical has a half life of about 20 hours.  If you want to pass the test, you could just stay away from nicotine for about a week.  
> 
> Probably once you pass the test, as long as you don't smoke before the job or during breaks, and as long as you don't smoke in your house, they will probably never know about your nicotine usage.


Odd.  I've worked for a variety of temp agencies and they always find me a job.  If my assignment ends, I can have a new one within the week.  It is ongoing job security, resume padding, and an easy way to find work... but no benefits.  I paid my own insurance when I had it, which was easy because I was nearly always employed 

And yes, there are clients (employers) who have a lot of things they want in a temp.  The temp agency may not be able to find anyone that fits the bill, in which case both the temp agency and the client will be SOL.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## newbitech

> Odd.  I've worked for a variety of temp agencies and they always find me a job.  If my assignment ends, I can have a new one within the week.  It is ongoing job security, resume padding, and an easy way to find work... but no benefits.  I paid my own insurance when I had it, which was easy because I was nearly always employed 
> 
> And yes, there are clients (employers) who have a lot of things they want in a temp.  The temp agency may not be able to find anyone that fits the bill, in which case both the temp agency and the client will be SOL.


you are in the medical field correct?  could just be my perspective from a different field.

----------


## pcosmar

It's more social engineering,,
but two thoughts, first
It is the employers right to do so,, (though I question why)

But second, Why would you want to work for someone that had that little respect for you?

just what is the price of your personal dignity?

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

Hypothetically a business should be able to make a rectal examination a hiring requirement.

Point being, leave the state out of hiring practices.

----------


## tttppp

> This would be solved by having an ashtray at the desk.


When I was a manager, I made it a policy that every time someone went on a smoke break, they had to punch out. What do you know, most smokers stopped asking for a smoke break. The main reason smokers want to go on a smoke break is to take a break and do nothing. Shame on managers who let smokers take excessive smoke breaks while requiring non-smokers to work non stop.

----------


## tttppp

> Back when I started in the workforce a good percentage of people smoked.
> 
> Way back then our country also produced things.
> 
> I'm not trying to draw any correlation between productivity and smoking, instead I'm trying to point out that when people, employers and employees, focused more on being productive they got stuff built.
> 
> Now-a-days it seems as though there's a whole lotta time spent being concerned about what the other guy is or isn't doing and then blaming him for failure to produce.
> 
> Smoking has been a hot button social issue for a few decades now and dragging social issues into the workplace affects productivity. 
> ...


I mostly agree. I'm just glad to see a company treat its non-smokers fairly. On average non-smokers do more work. They should be rewarded, not punished.

----------


## pcosmar

> When I was a manager, I made it a policy that every time someone went on a smoke break, they had to punch out. What do you know, most smokers stopped asking for a smoke break. The main reason smokers want to go on a smoke break is to take a break and do nothing. Shame on managers who let smokers take excessive smoke breaks while requiring non-smokers to work non stop.


I always smoked while I was working,, Unless I was actually spraying paint.
(kind of an explosive atmosphere)

Think of it as working inside of a huge carburetor.

----------


## talkingpointes

> When I was a manager, I made it a policy that every time someone went on a smoke break, they had to punch out. What do you know, most smokers stopped asking for a smoke break. The main reason smokers want to go on a smoke break is to take a break and do nothing. Shame on managers who let smokers take excessive smoke breaks while requiring non-smokers to work non stop.


Biggest crock of $#@!. Smokers vs. non smokers, which is more productive? People are most productive when they are happy, and living in the land of land-whales when people are in good shape. I remember when the NBA used to run their negative bs about players that were smokers, most notably from my gen (90's) Vlade Divak. Didn't seem to stop them. I work construction with possibly the most lazy, overweight, entitlement deserving (so they think -- ex. They took err jobs!)generation ever and have to compete with illegals. Being young and a smoker doesn't discount the fact I can work leagues around ''grown men". I do flooring FYI - carper, tile (stone/ceramic/porcelain), vinyl. Not easy.

Edit: I smoke while working, including in most buildings.

----------


## squarepusher

how about a nicoteine patch?  I don't think that would leave any mouth residue, and would allow you to get a nicotteine fix.

----------


## tttppp

> Biggest crock of $#@!. Smokers vs. non smokers, which is more productive? People are most productive when they are happy, and living in the land of land-whales when people are in good shape. I remember when the NBA used to run their negative bs about players that were smokers, most notably from my gen (90's) Vlade Divak. Didn't seem to stop them. I work construction with possibly the most lazy, overweight, entitlement deserving (so they think -- ex. They took err jobs!)generation ever and have to compete with illegals. Being young and a smoker doesn't discount the fact I can work leagues around ''grown men". I do flooring FYI - carper, tile (stone/ceramic/porcelain), vinyl. Not easy.


The point I was trying to make is that in many jobs smokers get benefits at the expense of non-smokers. Smokers get to take routine smoke breaks while non-smokers have to work. Maybe the answer would be to keep smoke breaks for smokers, but also give non-smoker breaks too. Thats a possibility. However, that would not have worked for my company. There is no way we could manage giving every employee a break every hour. And requiring employees to punch out before smoke breaks did fix the problem for us. It was very rare people would ask for a smoke break when they knew they would be off the clock.

----------


## pcosmar

> The point I was trying to make is that in many jobs smokers get benefits at the expense of non-smokers. Smokers get to take routine smoke breaks while non-smokers have to work. Maybe the answer would be to keep smoke breaks for smokers, but also give non-smoker breaks too. Thats a possibility. However, that would not have worked for my company. There is no way we could manage giving every employee a break every hour. And requiring employees to punch out before smoke breaks did fix the problem for us. It was very rare people would ask for a smoke break when they knew they would be off the clock.


I don't remember getting any of that..
In fact, most places, and certainly the better quality placed I have worked had no such benefits. And regular "safety breaks" were common.

I smoked while I work and took few breaks.. But then I also worked on commission in some of those shops,, So my income was directly tied to my output.

I own my own small farm today because of it.

----------


## onlyrp

> how about a nicoteine patch?  I don't think that would leave any mouth residue, and would allow you to get a nicotteine fix.


From what I heard, not everybody is addicted to nicotine on its own, many are addicted to the oral fixation (act of sucking and holding in hand), that's why there's e-cigarettes. Which may or may not contain nicotine.

----------


## otherone

> The main reason smokers want to go on a smoke break is to take a break and do nothing.


lol.  Speak for yourself.

----------


## onlyrp

> lol.  Speak for yourself.


yeah, that's just ignorant, I dont smoke and I hate smokers, but smoking is hardly "doing nothing", sure, it's not productive, but its part of relaxation for those who do it.

----------


## otherone

> yeah, that's just ignorant, I dont smoke and I hate smokers, but smoking is hardly "doing nothing", sure, it's not productive, but its part of relaxation for those who do it.


As a former employer and employee,  I've known plenty of people that thought work was time to socialize and make personal calls, or do the bare minimum to get by. I've also know MANY smokers who worked their asses off.  .

----------


## tod evans

> I mostly agree. I'm just glad to see a company treat its non-smokers fairly. On average non-smokers do more work. They should be rewarded, not punished.


Back years ago the "playing field" was level........smokers and nonsmokers worked side by side and got stuff done.

Now in todays world smokers are vilified for leaving the presence of nonsmokers at their request.

You state how you believe nonsmokers are more productive.......well a fair comparison would be to permit smokers to work uninterrupted hours too.

Remember, it was the nonsmokers who forced the smokers away from their jobs not the other way around.

----------


## specsaregood

> Back years ago the "playing field" was level........smokers and nonsmokers worked side by side and got stuff done.
> 
> Remember, it was the nonsmokers who forced the smokers away from their jobs not the other way around.


This is a fair point.   Back when I was doing tech support, nearly every person smoked.  And all had an ashtray in their cubicle.  And usually people were chainsmoking all day long.    Then they hired some mac expert with asthma, who couldn't be around smoke....and suddenly everybody else had to go outside away from the phone and their cubicle to smoke.

----------


## onlyrp

> As a former employer and employee,  I've known plenty of people that thought work was time to socialize and make personal calls, or do the bare minimum to get by. I've also know MANY smokers who worked their asses off.  .


I never think smokers are non-workers, I just hate them because I can.

----------


## otherone

> I never think smokers are non-workers, I just hate them because I can.


By that logic you hate everyone (because you can). I'm not saying that's a bad thing...

----------


## tod evans

> I never think smokers are non-workers, I just hate them because I can.


+ rep!

I'd give ya` 2 if they'd let me.........and I smoke!

----------


## tttppp

> lol.  Speak for yourself.


Maybe you had a different experience, but where I worked thats the way it was. Smokers were abusing the system by trying to get a smoke break whenever they could and took as long of a break as they could. They did this until I was in charge and stopped giving them special privileges. 

I did have one employee who was one of my best employees who smoked quite a bit. He never once asked me for a special smoke break. If he can go his whole shift without special smoke breaks, I don't see why other smokers can't do the same thing.

----------


## tttppp

> I don't remember getting any of that..
> In fact, most places, and certainly the better quality placed I have worked had no such benefits. And regular "safety breaks" were common.
> 
> I smoked while I work and took few breaks.. But then I also worked on commission in some of those shops,, So my income was directly tied to my output.
> 
> I own my own small farm today because of it.


The difference between where I worked and where you worked is that your work was based on commission. When employees realize they don't get paid for their smoke breaks, they usually don't want the breaks anymore.

----------


## tttppp

> Back years ago the "playing field" was level........smokers and nonsmokers worked side by side and got stuff done.
> 
> Now in todays world smokers are vilified for leaving the presence of nonsmokers at their request.
> 
> You state how you believe nonsmokers are more productive.......well a fair comparison would be to permit smokers to work uninterrupted hours too.
> 
> Remember, it was the nonsmokers who forced the smokers away from their jobs not the other way around.


Well there was no way for smokers at this job to be able to smoke on the job. There's no way they could smoke and handle somebodies food at the same time. Customers would not like that. Additionally, we couldn't have employees smoking while handling customers either. 

Even if you were at an office type of job, no non-smoker should be forced to breath in that crap. If you want to smoke, do it on your own time. I like to have sex, that doesn't mean I have to take a break every hour and go have a sex break.

----------


## specsaregood

> I like to have sex, that doesn't mean I have to take a break every hour and go have a sex break.


If I ever find myself in a union again, I now have a demand I'd like to see made of management.  Thanks for the idea.

----------


## tttppp

> If I ever find myself in a union again, I now have a demand I'd like to see made of management.  Thanks for the idea.


That would boost employee moral. I'd be excited to go to work if they introduced sex breaks.

----------


## specsaregood

> That would boost employee moral. I'd be excited to go to work if they introduced sex breaks.


I know!  You are an effing genius at labor relations!

----------


## KingNothing

> I wouldn't allow these people to swab my mouth...that sounds like more of a ploy to get your DNA and put it in a databank.  Fourth and Fifth amendments.



Seriously?  There are all kinds of ways to collect DNA, and all kinds of drug testing methods that employers use to screen potential employees.  If you were running a company, wouldn't you want to know as much as possible about the people you were hiring?

----------


## pcosmar

> I like to have sex, that doesn't mean I have to take a break every hour and go have a sex break.


Well, I guess it just depends on the job.

I have background checks that are keeping me unemployed,, (and I don't know why)

It is another intrusion in my private life.

I suppose it just depends on what your personal dignity is worth. $$$?

----------


## KingNothing

For what it's worth, a study recently came out that found smokers to be away from their work on average 5-6 weeks per year due to smoke breaks.  That's to say nothing about potential costs to the employer and health insurers due to the negative physical consequences of smoking.  


I really don't see anything wrong with a private entity setting the terms by which employees must abide.

----------


## otherone

> If you were running a company, wouldn't you want to know as much as possible about the people you were hiring?



*NO.
*
There can be a BAZILLION ways to disqualify a prospective employee.  Business is business. Personal is personal.  Employers need only know who can make them the most scratch.   Jesus.  This is America....

----------


## tod evans

> Well there was no way for smokers at this job to be able to smoke on the job. There's no way they could smoke and handle somebodies food at the same time. Customers would not like that. Additionally, we couldn't have employees smoking while handling customers either. 
> 
> Even if you were at an office type of job, no non-smoker should be forced to breath in that crap. If you want to smoke, do it on your own time. I like to have sex, that doesn't mean I have to take a break every hour and go have a sex break.


And here you are buying into social engineering lock stock and barrel.

It should be up to the employer to decide if they choose to permit smoking in their place of business not some socially conscious do-gooder.

Obesity is as harmful as secondhand smoke..........I find people who won't fit into my jeans offensive........Should I start lobbying to mandate size 30 waist britches for all employees?

Where social engineering goes wrong is when people try to legislate other peoples behavior "for their own good"....that and believing that an employee has the "right" to tell his boss how to run the business.

Claiming that smokers are less productive while insisting that they leave production to smoke is counter-intuitive.

I can understand the "no-smoking" rule in fast food service and so should the smoking employees, that rule was there before they hired on.....Where I have issue is the state telling restaurants that the owner can't permit smoking in his establishment.

Please be careful about what you deem acceptable just because it suits you.......Remember the ol'; "until they came for me" saying.

----------


## tod evans

> Seriously?  There are all kinds of ways to collect DNA, and all kinds of drug testing methods that employers use to screen potential employees.  If you were running a company, wouldn't you want to know as much as possible about the people you were hiring?


I only want to know they can perform the job and make me money.

----------


## tttppp

> And here you are buying into social engineering lock stock and barrel.
> 
> It should be up to the employer to decide if they choose to permit smoking in their place of business not some socially conscious do-gooder.
> 
> Obesity is as harmful as secondhand smoke..........I find people who won't fit into my jeans offensive........Should I start lobbying to mandate size 30 waist britches for all employees?
> 
> Where social engineering goes wrong is when people try to legislate other peoples behavior "for their own good"....that and believing that an employee has the "right" to tell his boss how to run the business.
> 
> Claiming that smokers are less productive while insisting that they leave production to smoke is counter-intuitive.
> ...


As an employer I would not allow employees to smoke while handling food or customers, regardless of what the law says.

----------


## tod evans

> For what it's worth, a study recently came out that found smokers to be away from their work on average 5-6 weeks per year due to smoke breaks.  That's to say nothing about potential costs to the employer and health insurers due to the negative physical consequences of smoking.  
> 
> 
> I really don't see anything wrong with a private entity setting the terms by which employees must abide.



Absolutely!

And shouldn't the owner of the company be permitted to let his employees smoke if he wants to?

Just like Hooters hires women with big boobs why can't the owner of a humidor permit smoking of his product in his establishment?

----------


## otherone

> That's to say nothing about potential costs to the employer and health insurers due to the negative physical consequences of smoking.  
> I really don't see anything wrong with a private entity setting the terms by which employees must abide.


Let's not hire if employees BMI is 30 or higher...or if they have bad teeth....family history?  Prone to high blood pressure?  NO THANKS!   You have a lead foot.....NO THANKS!   Let's check your house for possible carcinogens? Your car rated pretty low on Road and Tracks ratings....Black? Sickle-cell anemia?  Aids-prone? wink-wink...credit history?   Let's see those 6th grade science fair projects....cane sugar? HFCS?

----------


## tod evans

> As an employer I would not allow employees to smoke while handling food or customers, regardless of what the law says.



Okay..........But would you grant your competition the right to let his employees smoke?

See I'm all for you having the freedom to run your business.........please let me run mine too.

----------


## tttppp

> Okay..........But would you grant your competition the right to let his employees smoke?
> 
> See I'm all for you having the freedom to run your business.........please let me run mine too.


Sure you can do that. But most of your customers will eventually come to me after they cigarette butts in their food.

----------


## pcosmar

> Sure you can do that. But most of your customers will eventually come to me after they cigarette butts in their food.


Oh please,, Like that happens any more often than a band-aid or fingertip in the food.

----------


## tod evans

> Oh please,, Like that happens any more often than a band-aid or fingertip in the food.


Maybe.......just maybe.......an overbearing boss might cause his employees to sabotage the business?

----------


## tttppp

> Oh please,, Like that happens any more often than a band-aid or fingertip in the food.


So your customers would appreciate having employees smoke while handling their food?

----------


## otherone

> So your customers would appreciate having employees smoke while handling their food?



THIS.
It's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The MARKET should decide this nonsense....not folks with 'sensitivities'.

----------


## tttppp

> THIS.
> It's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. The MARKET should decide this nonsense.


I agree. Thats why I said I like the idea of a company recognizing that smokers on average produce less. It the companies right to discriminate.

----------


## otherone

> I agree. Thats why I said I like the idea of a company recognizing that smokers on average produce less. It the companies right to discriminate.


It's not discrimination when it's based on productivity.  When a smoker out-performs 4 non-smokers, then you fire the four non-smokers.  $$$$$ makes right.

----------


## tod evans

> So your customers would appreciate having employees smoke while handling their food?


In the town I live in the eating establishments in town don't permit smoking.........All around town new restaurants are springing up outside city limits that do permit smoking.

The ones in town are shutting their doors one-by-one....

----------


## pcosmar

> So your customers would appreciate having employees smoke while handling their food?


No. And as I said. Even though I smoked on the job didn't mean I did stupid stuff.
There is no problem with no smoking areas,, and that having designated smoking areas is a good idea for employers. However smoking off the job and on my own time is an issue.

----------


## MelissaWV

> you are in the medical field correct?  could just be my perspective from a different field.


Proofreader, data entry clerk, admin assistant, data order provisioning, cellphone store clerk, order fulfillment, accounts payable, collections...

Pretty much anything clerical for years

----------


## Brian Coulter

> Where social engineering goes wrong is when people try to legislate other peoples behavior "for their own good...


This is never the reason.  It's almost always the insurance lobby.  Seatbelts, air bags, helmet laws, smoking bans, anti-gun laws..etc.  If some insurance company actuary says changing a certain behavior will save them 0.000002% in claims paid the lobbyists go to work.  What's even more $#@!ed up is a most of the time we end up paying for all these new regulations in the form of higher prices on goods and services forced to comply.  

Trust me, there are very few laws or regulations passed for our "own good", even if some do happen to improve our quality of life, most likely that was not their intent.

----------


## tttppp

> In the town I live in the eating establishments in town don't permit smoking.........All around town new restaurants are springing up outside city limits that do permit smoking.
> 
> The ones in town are shutting their doors one-by-one....


I guess I would be about the only one going to the non-smoking restaurants. Do these smoking restaurants allow their employees to smoke while handling the food or customers?

----------


## tttppp

> No. And as I said. Even though I smoked on the job didn't mean I did stupid stuff.
> There is no problem with no smoking areas,, and that having designated smoking areas is a good idea for employers. However smoking off the job and on my own time is an issue.


Companies should have the right to choose whatever they want, however if I was running a company, smoking, drinking, or whatever should be done on employees own time, not on company time.

----------


## tttppp

> It's not discrimination when it's based on productivity.  When a smoker out-performs 4 non-smokers, then you fire the four non-smokers.  $$$$$ makes right.


Of course its based on productivity. As I stated before, one of my best employees was a smoker and I tried to get him promoted. But that was solely based on his performance. 

I don't think there is anything wrong with a company choosing only to hire non-smokers. If non-smokers are statistically better performing, the odds of getting a good employee are better with non-smokers.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This is never the reason.  It's almost always the insurance lobby.  Seatbelts, air bags, helmet laws, smoking bans, anti-gun laws..etc.  If some insurance company actuary says changing a certain behavior will save them 0.000002% in claims paid the lobbyists go to work.  What's even more $#@!ed up is a most of the time we end up paying for all these new regulations in the form of higher prices on goods and services forced to comply.  
> 
> Trust me, there are very few laws or regulations passed for our "own good", even if some do happen to improve our quality of life, most likely that was not their intent.


And there is the bottom line.

Truth.

/thread

----------


## Anti Federalist

You are living the nightmare this will become for everybody.

You will no longer be able to make a living or survive without complete, total and absolute compliance with any and all edicts and lifestyle demands that the government/corporate complex decides to place on you.

Step out of line just once, for any of what are now millions of reasons, and that's it, you're databased and blackballed forever.

I know people that have had a 40 year career end because some local town clerk finally got around to entering an arrest record from 1976 resulting from a barroom fight, into the "cloud".

Oh, and of course, you'll be subjected to 24/7 surveillance to *ensure* compliance, including within your home.




> Well, I guess it just depends on the job.
> 
> I have background checks that are keeping me unemployed,, (and I don't know why)
> 
> It is another intrusion in my private life.
> 
> I suppose it just depends on what your personal dignity is worth. $$$?

----------


## tod evans

> I guess I would be about the only one going to the non-smoking restaurants. Do these smoking restaurants allow their employees to smoke while handling the food or customers?


I've never seen an employee smoking while handling the food, and I've never seen an employee "handle a customer".

----------


## Cabal

Technically, employers have the right to require any sort of testing they want of their employees so long as it is all voluntary.

That being said, I don't think testing for nicotine (or even drugs for that matters) is all that productive. Not only does that reduce the asset pool which a temp agency might be able to employ (and thus broaden their clientele base, and make money off of); it also increases their losses to their bottom line.

----------


## specsaregood

> I've never seen an employee smoking while handling the food, and I've never seen an employee "handle a customer".


Having worked in the food service industry, I can say with certainty that there is a lot of stuff that employees have done while handling the food that you have never seen.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> You are living the nightmare this will become for everybody.
> 
> Oh, and of course, you'll be subjected to 24/7 surveillance to *ensure* compliance*, including within your home*.


That is more of what I was getting at. I understand that employers should have the right to ask specific, relevant questions that pertain to the job but this is an invasion of privacy to say the least. I also understand that it is my choice/right, not to work/be associated with said company.. I just see the signs too clearly.. first a minor encroachment.. many people stand idly by because it doesn't necessarily affect them.. at the moment. What happens when every job has the requirement of a nicotine test? Maybe next it will be a blood pressure test.. for insurance purposes. I wonder if everyone will be so complacent then.

----------


## driller80545

the anti smoking Nazis are still wallowing in their self righteousness.

----------


## tttppp

> I've never seen an employee smoking while handling the food, and I've never seen an employee "handle a customer".


My guess is that people wouldn't be rushing to these restaurants if employees were smoking while handling the food.

----------


## tttppp

> Having worked in the food service industry, I can say with certainty that there is a lot of stuff that employees have done while handling the food that you have never seen.


Do you have any stories you'd like to share?

----------


## pcosmar

> Do you have any stories you'd like to share?


The only time I can think you would get a cigarette butt in the food is if you piss off the wait staff.
But I have had places to smoke while I was cooking. Usually nearby,, But I don't flick my ashes in the food.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> *I wonder if everyone will be so complacent then.*


Sure they will.

Docile, compliant, complacency and dull witted apathy are hallmarks of the American populace in the brave new world of 2012.

----------


## otherone

> Sure they will.

----------

