Nicotine Test as Job Requirement

[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.

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.

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.