Nicotine Test as Job Requirement

[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 fucked 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.