Should companies be allowed to NOT hire Smokers?

Forums: Life At Work
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This was a topic on "It's Your Call" with Lynn Doyle on TV recently. I was flipping channels and came across this and stopped to listen.

The gist of the show was an employer was promoting the fact/explaining why his company refuses to hire smokers and if they find an employee who is currently a smoker, refusing to give up, they will either fire said employee or cancel their health benefits.

I was absolutely gob-smacked at the audacity of this company and dismayed to see that employers are so demanding these days that they feel it is their right to delve into the personal lives of their employees.

While smoking is the devil itself (in our smoke-free-wanting-culture right now), it made me wonder how much further employers plan to push the envelope to snoop into our private affairs and demand we behave or not behave to suit their interests or beliefs. What is next? Obese people will not get jobs, regardless of their skill-set or excellent attendance record?

I could understand the thinking behind the company wanting to lower their health-care costs and understand the other 'allegedly' healthier employees not being burdened with the unfair high costs relating to their smoking co-workers, but to advertise loudly that a company will be completely adverse and treat differently a section of workers because of what they do in their private lives made me tut-tut out loud.

There were lots of varying opinions and calls regarding this topic. I'd be interested to hear what my A2K compadres think of the subject.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 3 • Views: 4,131 • Replies: 24

No top replies

In general, no. Smoking/non-smoking should not be considered when hiring...UNLESS it is pertinent to the job, such as...

Dynamite manufacturing
Mormon Tabernacle Tour Guide
Lung Cancer Association Public Relations
Oil refinery

And should cigarette manufacturers be allowed the right not to hire someone if they DON'T smoke?

0 Replies

Alas it is true. Companies can pick and choose and they CAN refuse to hire smokers.

Apparently it is not one the types of discrimination regulated by the EEOC:
Age
Disability
Equal Pay
National Origin
Pregnancy
Race
Religion
Retaliation
Sex
Sexual Harassment

So, an employer refusing to hire a smoker is within their rights.

0 Replies

I think it depends on the State, Heeven. More than half of the states have passed laws that prohibit employers from discriminating against employees based on their use of tobacco or other lawful products during their off-hours.

0 Replies

It is a fact of life, Heeven, that employers regularly, if not necessarily consciously, discriminate against obese people in hiring. A few people have filed law suits, but it is extremely difficult to prove such a thing. The smokers thing is rather obvious, though. It will be interesting to know if this sort of thing lasts.

0 Replies

I think that insurance companies have the right to higher premiums to smokers because of the higher risk of complicated and expensive diseases. However, that would mean that insurance companies should also raise the premiums of people who are obese due to the higher risk of complicated and expensive diseases. And that would mean that insurance companies should also raise the premiums of people who engage in extreme sports due to the risk of permanent disability and therefore lifelong medical expenses. And that would mean....

In all honesty, to keep premiums down I do think that lifestyle should be considered for each individual. It would be a helluva lot more work for insurance companies but the cost of insurance would go down for "safe" people. And should you choose to put your life at danger, you should pay for it.

Now, the problem arises with some obesity and diabetes and thyroid disease and other genetic diseases. Should you be penalized because you got dealt a bad genetic hand? We folks cost the insurance companies a lot of money each year to keep up our health.

So in answer to the question, I think that companies should not be able to refuse employment to a smoker but the insurance companies should have tiers so that it doesn't cost the non-smokers to keep the smokers insured.

0 Replies

Insurance companies already do that, Bella. However, there is a built-in injustice. If a smoker purchases life insurance, they pay more because they have a greater risk of not living to the term of the policy. But if they were to a buy an annuity from the same insurance company, they would not get a discount despite that very actuarial evidence for a shorter life expectancy.

0 Replies

I am wondering the same thing Set (about it lasting). When the potential pool of employees starts to dwindle, not only with smokers not interviewing with certain non-smoking companies but also those people who, on principal, will avoid such companies because of their hiring practices, will this have some effect to change the minds of these companies?

Oh and I once interviewed for a job, got the job, the manager left, and I was handed a copy of my personnel file (by mistake) only to see he had written "overweight" on his interview notes. We have kept in touch and remained on friendly terms but he was mortified when I told him of the error that led to me reading his notes of that day. He apologized profusely, but you are right. There is discrimination of every form every day every where. I guess it's the fact that this company was so blatant and unrepentant about it that raised my hackles.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Insurance companies already do that, Bella. However, there is a built-in injustice. .

Really?

My company has a flat health insurance rate. Regardless. They didn't even ask me if I had pre-existing conditions.

0 Replies

well Bella, I have a company with a significant number of folks over 40 . Insurance companies hang a premium on the age profile. Ive questioned the extra costs and was handed a "well , you are free to shop elsewhere' Small businesses and those with senior staffs get screwed.

0 Replies

Wow. That's insane. So, farmerman, you pay more because you are over 40?

0 Replies

Large group insurance does not necessarily operate on the same principles--and that is health insurance. Group insurance sold to small businesses frequently ask if a member is a smoker before calculating the premium on health insurance--and i would frankly be surprised to hear of any life insurance policy which were not bundled into employers group insurance which did not ask about smoking.

Primarily, though, i was referring to life insurance.

0 Replies

I've never dealt with a small company and I haven't signed myself for any additional life insurance aside from what I automatically get from my employer so I can't say anything intelligent on that.

0 Replies

I am surprised by the things which surprise you, Bella. You know it is entirely possible that your employer is picking up the tab for premium increases. Health insurances in small groups such as those to which FM refers typically increase the premium in the month following the birthday of the insured for each five years--i.e., 25, 30, 35, 40, etc. The last small business which i managed paid the entire premium for health insurance, which meant an increase each five years for each employee. They wanted to sell us bundled life insurance, and, incredibly, wanted to hang the smoking and age provisos on that, too. We told them no dice, and they eventually, reluctantly, agreed to a flat rate for the life insurance premium.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I am surprised by the things which surprise you, Bella. .

Why? I've only been in the work force for 5 years now. There is a lot of "new adult stuff" I am just starting to realize I need to deal with and understand.

What suprises you?

0 Replies

Company rights
I own a very small business that just my husband and work. Considering hiring a technician to help out. Shouldn't we have the right to protect our name by hiring someone with certain values and characteristics that we want associated with our small company? My husband would be spending all day in a truck with someone, shouldn't he have the right to choose someone who doesn;t smell bad, someone who won't smell up the truck that we paid for, someone who won't poison our lungs? I think I have a right to ask for that, don't I?

0 Replies

companies that forbid smoking on the premises (which they should be allowed to do, but they should ideally find a way to cater to smokers if possible,) shouldn't even know if their employees smoke or not. asking in a job interview is purely unethical, even if it's allowed.

not giving people insurance because they smoke is also unethical, but it saves a buck so that makes it ok. i've never smoked (tobacco...) in my life, but i wouldn't like to see a future where the main reason we piss in a cup for our bosses is to test for tobacco. that's f***ing ridiculous.

i also wouldn't like to see a country invaded just because they don't agree with our smoking bans, just because they have oil. ooh wait, we're still free to smoke in this country? fantastic.

mind you, i also like the option of not breathing in your secondhand. it's not an easy balance, but it's impossible to find one with too many laws in the way, and no ethics at all.

0 Replies

quoting...
not giving people insurance because they smoke is also unethical

Really? I'm sure there are many very small companies who suffer these questions- with the questions important whether or not they survive.

I'm an old smoker with a lot of empathy for those still at it, but... I don't think that if I had a small business I should be expected to fund an employee's future emphysema.

So, is there any way to divide all this?

0 Replies

refusing anyone health insurance is unethical, get it?

0 Replies

Most of my employees are under the age of 25. I think anyone who takes up smoking in this day and age must have poor judgement. I want employees who are smart enough to know that smoking is stupid. I also don't do maintenance work for smokers, nothing pisses me off more than cigarette butts thrown around a garden - eeewww!- and they all do it. Why do smokers think it's fine to fling that filth all over the place?

I know a number of people who won't hire smokers because they seem to need more sick days and are more likely to take breaks to go out and smoke. The brief time I worked in a personnel office I had a manager who told me to make a note if people smelled like they smoked, non-smokers were prefered. Smoking was considered a big negative even 25 years ago.

I like to think smoking will not exist in the USA in about 50 years (current smokers will be dead and young people will wise up), I assume by then the tobacco pushers will be making so much money in Asia and Africa that they won't even care.

0 Replies

Should companies be allowed to NOT hire Smokers?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know