Prohibition on the hiring of any new employees who smoke

Definitely a prohibition against hiring heroin addicts.

Ahhh...I am assuming that you mean "tobacco?"

But I hate to assume, because...well, you know why.

Am I correct?

yes cigarettes

Mind you, I have nothing against people who are hooked on drugs... I just don't like people who smell like a trashfire.

What about drinking coffee (this on irks me - I hate coffee)?
What about people with poor vision or
people who are obese, and
people who have other health issues?

Where did civil rights go?

Aha, I was right.

Well in that case -- who cares!

How about expletives, beards, kissing a fellow worker.

I can accept a no smoking regime at work but what I do at home is up to me.

IN this case - smoking at home is a no no!

Yes, and so it is. The home is the last vestige of one's retreat.

I think this is a bad route to take, until I think about health insurance and such. But, still, smoking doesn't effect your job performance like other drugs do. Yeah, you stink, but that's a personal problem.

I saw a job listing on monster.com today that listed they don't hire tobacco users.

It's got to be the insurance.

LittleK. Isn't everything?

Goodnight from Florida

yes, I guess most things are. Sigh.

I wonder if this would hold up to a legal test. I know that a lot of drug testing that was done for insurance purposes in the early 1990's isn't allowed anymore here in Canada.

I think this is something to keep an eye on out - it will have to be tested in court soon - yer well I hope so.

the office of the State Attorney here has that rule Husker, it's right on the application.

How do they know? What if you start smoking after you're hired, will you be fired?

My assumption, is because it's a gov't office and they know the laws (at least, some of them do...beleive me, some of those bozo's don't know the laws) I'm thinking they're no real law against that. But, if you can't NOT hire based on race or sex, how can you not hire based on bad habits?

I think employers may believe smokers are less productive, since they are usually outside smoking. They also tend to be less patient and quicker to anger, particularly when not smoking, which is a somewhat negative factor in relations with other employees and the public.

On the other hand, they tend to die sooner so that helps keep the retirement plan solvent.

Although, since they are more likely to need expensive medical care before they wheeze their last, the cost to the health insurance plan may offset those retirement plan savings.

This sure is a tough one. Too bad the founding fathers forgot to put some sort of protection in the Bill of Rights.

Husker's point about obesity is a good one, as it raises all the issues about performance, behavior and medical costs as does smoking. I am a smoker, and am fortunate enough to be able to smoke in my office. But i understand completely the prohibition on smoking in a work place, when that is the case. However, i think strong perfume or cologne should be banned as well. As for the legality, although it might be challenged in court, i doubt that it will. If it were, i doubt it would stand up to the challenge.