Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For about two decades, smokers have been pushed steadily out of the workplace, as lawmakers and employers have sought to minimize exposure to second-hand smoke.
Employers have confined smokers to designated areas, moved smoking areas outside buildings, and limited smoking breaks.
Sue them for discrimmination. They can ban smoking on their premises, but I fail to see how they can not hire someone based upon them being a smoker.
As for smoking being the #1 health issue that can be controlled I'm not biting. We know it isn't healthy. We know full well the health issues it causes, but I've not once seen data that factored in air quality; work place safety issues (such as volatile chemical exposure) and factored that in with a smoker who got lung cancer.
Enough!
Obesity is probably the #1 health issue that can be controlled. Obesity is an epidemic in this country and it's growing. The health related issues tied to obesity outweighs those of a smoker. Hypertension, diabetes, multiple cardiac problems, physical restraints due to weight, and there's more.
Just sue the socks off of these companies. Who the hell are they to stick their nose in someone's private life.
That's a slippery slope, if they can justify not hiring because you smoke they could justify not hiring for just about any reason. What's next? Hiring bans on the obese or other medical problems?
While I don't think they should physically test anyone for anything, I'm ok with telling people they can't smoke during work hours, no "smoke breaks", etc. If employees can't do that then I have no pity.
While I don't think they should physically test anyone for anything, I'm ok with telling people they can't smoke during work hours, no "smoke breaks", etc. If employees can't do that then I have no pity.
Agree, what the employer does during the work day is completely up to them but the article is suggesting they won't hire you at all if you smoke.
If a smoker isn't allowed to smoke on their break or their lunch, which is PERSONAL time, then should an employer allow the obese to wolf down donuts and whoppers on their breaks and lunch?
If employers are going to enforce healthy lifestyle choices during an employees personal time, that should include ALL UNHEALTHY lifestyle choices that could increase an employer's healthcare costs.
I agree that employers should not be able to regulate personal off duty activity. I do agree that a private employer can ban smoking in work owned locations and on company time. The same holds true for alcohol.
And after you are all comfortable with not hiring smokers, then the obese come next.
Exactly, the obese raise healthcare costs as much, if not more, than smokers do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
