Can't get a job if you are a smoker!!!

[WendyM]

Good to note.

On another note... about being a contractor with drug testing... I do know that when I worked for a company in Orlando, we built custom fixtures for different businesses and in order to get our installers onto certain amusement park grounds, the park wanted drug testing done on all of our independent contractors (installers) for liability purposes. So just being a contractor does not mean that in order to get a certain job, you won't be held to certain specifications. (They were not testing for nicotine, but for illegal drug use.)

The reason I asked is because I was told at a job interview that I'd not be hired because I was a smoker, and smokers took too many breaks. I said fine, dropped my card on the desk and said "If you have any overflow, I have my own studio" and walked out after exchanging nice words with the interviewer. I had a job as a bartender so I wasn't terribly heartbroken or going to starve to death.

They did call me on a regular basis, and I did lots of artwork for them, but from my studio and at a ridiculously inflated rate. They did try to hire me later that year, but the whole not giving me a job the first time around hit my feisty button.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

They did try to hire me later that year, but the whole not giving me a job the first time around hit my feisty button.

Would have mine too. Personally, I tend to look for jobs that don't require testing. I don't think it is anyone's rights to have my hair or my pee unless it is my doctor. What an invasion of privacy. As a smoker, I worked in a non-smoking environment and held off on smoke breaks until I got home. (I was knawing my arm off by the time I got home, but I did not take smoke breaks even though others did.)

All I know is that I am a hard-worker and what I do in my spare time is no-one's business unless it directly affects my job. If I were a doctor or a pilot and others lives were in my hands, I would completely understand.

There was one place I was looking to hire once and they even tested for alcohol. Once I found out they also looked favorably upon going to church every Sunday and following the word of God, I realized that might not necessarily be the best environment for me or them.

 

[Kate51]

That does not sound legal to me.

Hey, dumwaldo, any employer can make any rules they want to. Sorry, but dammit it is perfectly legal. IF YOU SMOKE, NO NEED TO APPLY.

 

[Tone]

Hey, dumwaldo, any employer can make any rules they want to. Sorry, but dammit it is perfectly legal. IF YOU SMOKE, NO NEED TO APPLY.

this is not the case, I work in CT and here is what I found
Connecticut Employment Law Blog : smoking outside workplace

 

[Kate51]

The state of Tennessee is going to start charging smoking employees a $600 "surcharge" effective Jan. 2010 - they say it is to cover increased insurance premiums.

They plan on offering "help" for smokers to quit.

I guess I don't have enough posts to post a real link, but here is the url to the article in The Tennessean:

"tennessean.com/article/20090428/NEWS0201/904280352/1009/NEWS02"

I grew up in Memphis and know the local politics are a total joke, but jaded as I am by that, this was suprising even to me...

This is no joke, one of my pet peeves, but this is the one part of "No Smoking" we need to understand. Makes me wonder when they're going to start testing for saturated fat eaters and chocolate milk drinkers. WELL?? We are all owned by the things we strived so hard for, seems, you know, company paid benefits, etc., etc. I am so glad I work at home. But even then had to install proper ventilation, dust control, etc., and I have no benefits, other than unlimited coffee breaks and vaping all day, and pay my own taxes.

 

[CharlesMaples]

this is not the case, I work in CT and here is what I found
Connecticut Employment Law Blog : smoking outside workplace

Depends on the state most have no such restriction

 

[CharlesMaples]

But even then had to install proper ventilation, dust control, etc.,

??? Dont understand what you mean by that

 

[Tone]

Depends on the state most have no such restriction

which I find to be very funny, CT is a VERY VERY liberal pu$$Y state the fact that they have this law and other do not is mind boggling

 

[Kate51]

this is not the case, I work in CT and here is what I found
Connecticut Employment Law Blog : smoking outside workplace

That's fine: I repeat: any company can hire on any conditions they see fit to impose. Smoking OUTSIDE workplace, I think, is up to you. (Unless you live in NO SMOKE housing, etc.....) Will the door be locked when you try to get in again. You could be fired for picking your nose, I'm thinking.

 

[TurtlsPace]

Cleveland Clinic does pre-employment nicotine screenings. I wonder what folks using the patch or the gum test at? Are those that test positive while using smoking cessation products that contain nicotine also written off? I worked CCF for 7 years before the whole ban went into effect here in Ohio. The hospital I work for now does not test for nicotine as part of it's pre-employment testing, thank got nest.

 

[Tone]

That's fine: I repeat: any company can hire on any conditions they see fit to impose. Smoking OUTSIDE workplace, I think, is up to you. (Unless you live in NO SMOKE housing, etc.....) Will the door be locked when you try to get in again. You could be fired for picking your nose, I'm thinking.

I dont follow??
They can NOT discriminate against smokers....so they can NOT "hire on any condition they see fit"

 

[Kate51]

??? Dont understand what you mean by that

I do a lot of work for the local Hospital/Clinic complex. They are a huge part of my income every year (I do upholstery, household/commercial)
So part of their requirements is that I have electronic air cleaners, commercial air exchangers, etc. This is for liablily for me and for them, besides I do have allergies that makes this necessary anyway. Dust and dust mites, some chemicals, etc. But it also prevents odors, and cross contamination to a point. How effective this all is ~ questionable at best.

 

[Kate51]

I dont follow??
They can NOT descrimate against smokers....so they can NOT "hire on any condition they see fit"

It is NOT discrimination. If you smoke, you cannot take the job. Smoking is YOUR choice. THEY have a choice who to hire.

 

[CharlesMaples]

I do a lot of work for the local Hospital/Clinic complex. They are a huge part of my income every year (I do upholstery, household/commercial)
So part of their requirements is that I have electronic air cleaners, commercial air exchangers, etc. This is for liablily for me and for them, besides I do have allergies that makes this necessary anyway. Dust and dust mites, some chemicals, etc. But it also prevents odors, and cross contamination to a point. How effective this all is ~ questionable at best.

now I understand

 

[Tone]

It is NOT discrimination. If you smoke, you cannot take the job. Smoking is YOUR choice. THEY have a choice who to hire.

NO!
they can not make it an employment requirement.

 

[CharlesMaples]

I dont follow??
They can NOT discriminate against smokers....so they can NOT "hire on any condition they see fit"

you do know they can always come up with a reason to not hire or to fire

 

[Kate51]

NO!
they can not make it an employment requirement.

Tell that to the girl from Tennessee.

 

[Tone]

Tell that to the girl from Tennessee.

I am speaking of CT and the fact that we can not paint this with a broad stroke, She would need to check the employment laws in her respective state, dont just assume that what they are doing is legal.
here is the CT Law
Sec. 31-40s. Smoking or use of tobacco products outside of the workplace. (a) No employer or agent of any employer shall require, as a condition of employment, that any employee or prospective employee refrain from smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of his employment, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment for smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of his employment, provided any nonprofit organization or corporation whose primary purpose is to discourage use of tobacco products by the general public shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.

 

[Txrider]

Or maybe it is similar to asking a prospective employee if they take anti-virals or anything having to do with cholesterol or blood pressure?

I dunno, I thought of going to the state, and I asked an employment attorney about it, and what was said above is true, they ask the question, and warn you that you can't lie because they test for it. If you answer that you are a smoker, they find lots of reasons why you are not the best candidate.

Actually you could easily lie, and if tested and found positive say you must have spilled too much of that insecticide on you while gardening in your organic garden.

Or just your BF/GF/Wife/Husband smoke and your getting it second hand...

You could try to go find a lawyer to take the case. The question alone is likely illegal.

 

[Tone]

Investigation Concerning Termination of Smokers And/Or Charging Smokers Higher Healthcare or Disability Premiums
In 30 states and the District of Columbia, makes it illegal for companies to impose smoking bans on their employees when they are off duty. In addition, the federal employee benefits law, ERISA, prevents employers from discriminating against and/or firing employees, here smokers, to interfere with the attainment of any right under a benefit plan, here the right to health benefits.

Recently, a number of companies, including Weyco and The Scotts Company, have instituted policies to terminate smokers, even if those persons do not smoke at work. The reason cited by companies such as Weyco and Scotts, for adoption of these policies is increased healthcare costs. Both liberal and conservative civil liberties groups have denounced these policies as an improper invasion of employee’s rights to conduct activities on their off hours.

There is also a trend toward charging smokers more for health insurance. A growing number of employers are requiring employees who use tobacco to pay higher premiums, hoping that will motivate more of them to stop smoking and lower healthcare costs. Among the list of firms reported to have such policies to charge smokers higher premiums include Cardinal Health, J.P. Morgan Chase, Meijer Inc., Gannett Co., American Financial Group Inc., PepsiCo Inc. and Northwest Airlines. Such policies may also violate the federal employee benefits law, ERISA.