Can't get a job if you are a smoker!!!
- Thread starter orlampagal
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- chase revolution
- Status
What is the ACLU doing about it?
American Civil Liberties Union Briefer Lifestyle Discrimination in the Workplace Your Right to Privacy Under Attack
The ACLU has found that state legislation is the best method for
protecting workers' private lives. Two states have already passed
comprehensive laws against lifestyle discrimination, and 21 other
states have laws that provide partial protection. Our goal is the
enactment, _in every state_, of statutes that protect all working
Americans from discrimination based on their off- duty activities.
*** Isn't this creating a "civil right" to drink and smoke?
Not at all. The ACLU does not oppose smoking bans in public
buildings, in the workplace or in locations where non-smokers may be
subjected to secondary smoke. We object only to bans on smoking,
drinking, diet and hobbies in a person's own home.
*** Isn't the ACLU just fronting for the tobacco lobby?
No. Lifestyle discrimination legislation is supported by a wide
variety of civil rights groups and labor organizations, as well as by
a majority of Americans. A 1992 National Consumers League poll
showed that 84 percent of Americans believe that an employer does not
have the right to refuse to hire an overweight person. Ninety-three
percent believe that an employer does not have the right to base
employment decisions on whether an employee smokes after work, and
ninety-six percent say it is inappropriate to base employment
decisions on whether a person drives a motorcycle.
-----
Public Opinion Poll on Employee Privacy
An Employer does not have the right to refuse to hire overweight
person. 84%
An Employer does not have the right to base an employment decision on
whether an employee smokes after work. 93%
An Employer does not have the right to base an employment decision on
whether a person drives a motorcycle. 96%
Source: National Consumers League 1992 Natl Opinion Poll On Workplace
Privacy
-----
Which companies practice lifestyle discrimination?
There is no comprehensive list of companies which practice lifestyle discrimination. A few examples of employers who discriminate include:
Cardinal Industries refuses to hire smokers stating it "only hires nonsmokers and gives every applicant a urine test and promises to fire those who say they have quit, but don't."
U-Haul International charges its smoking employees an extra $130 per year for health insurance.
Pointe Resorts, which operates 3 hotels in Phoenix, pays 40% more of the insurance costs of employees with a normal weight than of those who are overweight.
In 1990, the city government of Athens, Georgia initiated a health screening for prospective city workers. Applicants whose cholesterol level was in the worst 25% of national ranges were simply ineligible for any position.
Shouldn't employers be able to keep their costs down by hiring employees who won't generate high medical bills?
It is unfair and dangerous to allow employers to discriminate against certain employees because they believe their private lifestyle choices are unhealthy and lead to higher health insurance costs. To begin with, it is unclear that employers can achieve significant savings through lifestyle discrimination. Also, if it becomes acceptable to deny employment because of potentially higher health care costs, people who are capable of working will be effectively banned from any employment, preventing them from providing for themselves or their dependents. Finally, even if employers could achieve substantial savings, sacrificing the private lives of all working Americans is too high a price to pay.
Why shouldn't employers be able to restrict their employees' high-risk behavior?
Risks are associated with nearly every personal lifestyle choice we make < from smoking cigarettes, to sitting in the sun, to having children. Where do we draw the line as to what our employer can regulate? The real issue here is the individual right to lead our lives as we choose. It is important that we preserve the distinction between company time and the sanctity of our private lives.
Isn't it wrong to encourage people to smoke with protective legislation?
The government has the obligation to insure that people understand the health risks of smoking. Government and employers ought to help people who want to quit smoking. Ultimately, however, it is up to the individual to decide if they want to engage in risky behavior such as smoking or riding a motorcycle. What is wrong is using the power of the government or the paycheck to tell other people how to live.
No. The NWI does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace, or in other locations where non-smokers may be subjected to sidestream smoke. We object only to bans on smoking (or beer or junk food) in a person's own home.
Isn't lifestyle discrimination legislation just a tool of tobacco companies?
No. Lifestyle discrimination legislation is supported by a variety of civil rights and labor organizations and by the majority of Americans.
NWI Lifestyle Discrimination Legislative Brief
American Civil Liberties Union Briefer Lifestyle Discrimination in the Workplace Your Right to Privacy Under Attack
The ACLU has found that state legislation is the best method for
protecting workers' private lives. Two states have already passed
comprehensive laws against lifestyle discrimination, and 21 other
states have laws that provide partial protection. Our goal is the
enactment, _in every state_, of statutes that protect all working
Americans from discrimination based on their off- duty activities.
*** Isn't this creating a "civil right" to drink and smoke?
Not at all. The ACLU does not oppose smoking bans in public
buildings, in the workplace or in locations where non-smokers may be
subjected to secondary smoke. We object only to bans on smoking,
drinking, diet and hobbies in a person's own home.
*** Isn't the ACLU just fronting for the tobacco lobby?
No. Lifestyle discrimination legislation is supported by a wide
variety of civil rights groups and labor organizations, as well as by
a majority of Americans. A 1992 National Consumers League poll
showed that 84 percent of Americans believe that an employer does not
have the right to refuse to hire an overweight person. Ninety-three
percent believe that an employer does not have the right to base
employment decisions on whether an employee smokes after work, and
ninety-six percent say it is inappropriate to base employment
decisions on whether a person drives a motorcycle.
-----
Public Opinion Poll on Employee Privacy
An Employer does not have the right to refuse to hire overweight
person. 84%
An Employer does not have the right to base an employment decision on
whether an employee smokes after work. 93%
An Employer does not have the right to base an employment decision on
whether a person drives a motorcycle. 96%
Source: National Consumers League 1992 Natl Opinion Poll On Workplace
Privacy
-----
Which companies practice lifestyle discrimination?
There is no comprehensive list of companies which practice lifestyle discrimination. A few examples of employers who discriminate include:
Cardinal Industries refuses to hire smokers stating it "only hires nonsmokers and gives every applicant a urine test and promises to fire those who say they have quit, but don't."
U-Haul International charges its smoking employees an extra $130 per year for health insurance.
Pointe Resorts, which operates 3 hotels in Phoenix, pays 40% more of the insurance costs of employees with a normal weight than of those who are overweight.
In 1990, the city government of Athens, Georgia initiated a health screening for prospective city workers. Applicants whose cholesterol level was in the worst 25% of national ranges were simply ineligible for any position.
Shouldn't employers be able to keep their costs down by hiring employees who won't generate high medical bills?
It is unfair and dangerous to allow employers to discriminate against certain employees because they believe their private lifestyle choices are unhealthy and lead to higher health insurance costs. To begin with, it is unclear that employers can achieve significant savings through lifestyle discrimination. Also, if it becomes acceptable to deny employment because of potentially higher health care costs, people who are capable of working will be effectively banned from any employment, preventing them from providing for themselves or their dependents. Finally, even if employers could achieve substantial savings, sacrificing the private lives of all working Americans is too high a price to pay.
Why shouldn't employers be able to restrict their employees' high-risk behavior?
Risks are associated with nearly every personal lifestyle choice we make < from smoking cigarettes, to sitting in the sun, to having children. Where do we draw the line as to what our employer can regulate? The real issue here is the individual right to lead our lives as we choose. It is important that we preserve the distinction between company time and the sanctity of our private lives.
Isn't it wrong to encourage people to smoke with protective legislation?
The government has the obligation to insure that people understand the health risks of smoking. Government and employers ought to help people who want to quit smoking. Ultimately, however, it is up to the individual to decide if they want to engage in risky behavior such as smoking or riding a motorcycle. What is wrong is using the power of the government or the paycheck to tell other people how to live.
No. The NWI does not oppose smoking bans in public buildings, in the workplace, or in other locations where non-smokers may be subjected to sidestream smoke. We object only to bans on smoking (or beer or junk food) in a person's own home.
Isn't lifestyle discrimination legislation just a tool of tobacco companies?
No. Lifestyle discrimination legislation is supported by a variety of civil rights and labor organizations and by the majority of Americans.
NWI Lifestyle Discrimination Legislative Brief
My 2 cents: Yes, that's discrimination. No ifs. No buts. Especially if this position is in public service. Plus nicotine is a legal drug and doesn't inhibit one's ability to function in the work place.
However, I think an employer has the right to say no smoking on company time. Same goes for alcohol. Sure it's legal. But that doesn't give you the right to consume it during work hours.
If this is a private company, then they can make the rules. I understand that they don't want to stink up the work environment for other employees. It's up to you if you want to agree to their terms. But in the end, it's still discrimination.
I say, look for work elsewhere. Why would anyone work for an employer that openly discriminates? Time for labor laws to be enforced...
However, I think an employer has the right to say no smoking on company time. Same goes for alcohol. Sure it's legal. But that doesn't give you the right to consume it during work hours.
If this is a private company, then they can make the rules. I understand that they don't want to stink up the work environment for other employees. It's up to you if you want to agree to their terms. But in the end, it's still discrimination.
I say, look for work elsewhere. Why would anyone work for an employer that openly discriminates? Time for labor laws to be enforced...
Good thing it doesn't stay in your system that long. Its like 20 days or something. {they test underage teens here when caught}
There were questions, which I never heard accurately answered, about whether cotinine traces might show up in the spouse of a heavy smoker. Eight hours in a smokefree workplace; 16 hours in a smoke-filled home or car ...
Is it really necessary to use nicotine to have this byproduct of nicotine metabolism show up?
Is it really necessary to use nicotine to have this byproduct of nicotine metabolism show up?
Good question. Since skin is gas permeable and nicotine can be absorbed through the skin-- why wouldn't the spouse or anyone else that lives with a smoker that partakes inside the house come up positive for cotinine?
So this has been bothering me all day.
And I was thinking...
I find it interesting that there is the argument that smoking is a choice, yet isn't smoking also considered an "addiction to nicotine" and addiction is a disease? If so, how is the "disease of smoking" a "choice"? Wouldn't that be considered something you can't help and therefor, discrimination?
Some even go as far as to declare that addiction is a neurological disorder Addiction as Disease
Is Addiction a Disease?
No matter how you slice it, if we are to follow the doctrine (propaganda) that has been put in place, there is definitely enough info out there that this IS discrimination, right to work state or not.
And I was thinking...
I find it interesting that there is the argument that smoking is a choice, yet isn't smoking also considered an "addiction to nicotine" and addiction is a disease? If so, how is the "disease of smoking" a "choice"? Wouldn't that be considered something you can't help and therefor, discrimination?
Some even go as far as to declare that addiction is a neurological disorder Addiction as Disease
Is Addiction a Disease?
No matter how you slice it, if we are to follow the doctrine (propaganda) that has been put in place, there is definitely enough info out there that this IS discrimination, right to work state or not.
Actually, it is a law passed earlier this year by TN lawmakers and signed by the govenor. I pretty sure they checked with state attorney first. This is only for employees of the state. I think the article also mentioned Indiana doing something similar.
As far as overweight, obese, ect., late last year a MS state representative tried to introduce a law banning obese people from restaurants. Needless to say, it didn't go very far - his excuse was that he was trying to call attention to the obesity problem in MS.
Of course, this just demonstrates two of MS claims to fame - Not only are we the fattest state in the nation, we are also the dumbest....
Actually, what it means is, that you should have quit LAST YEAR and you should no longer need NRT. By the way, it was the Orange County Clerk of Courts. Their webpage is www.orangeclerk.onetgov.net
Click on employment, I am sure that there is some sort of obscure document in there relating to the nicotine/tobacco use. If I remember correctly, it said "used tobacco within the past year" It didn't say "used nicotine" however, they test for nicotine. It makes no sense to me. If you want to hire non-smokers, why not allow people on NRT or e-smokers?
I dunno, it had me floored when I couldn't get hired, despite my ability and experience.
OK I just looked on the Orange County Clerk of Courts website, there is no mention of the no-smoking no-nicotine requirement anywhere on the site. It was "within" the application, on the second to last or last page if I remember correctly. Doesn't matter at this point, they are no longer hiring for any positions.
Lisa
Lisa
Umm...and how do you keep the sample at body temp?
I can only think of one way to do that and it would hurt to walk.....
Is it legal or not? I'd go with not. It constitutes fraud.
I use to have to take the whiz quiz yearly when requalifiing for specific duty at work (& was subject to randoms, but never was called up for that). The room was swepped to ensure it was completely empty, and we had to remove everything we had - purses, coats, jackets, outter layers of clothing that may have hid containers and depending on what the person was wearing,they had to give consent to a pat down, just to make sure nothing was hidden.
Sounds like some companies take it more seriously than others.....
I saw this ban on the news last summer...If they discriminate smokers they need to discriminate against others that have health issues like eating twinkies, fried chicken or drinking alcohol.
Overweight people cause insurance premiums to go up too b/c of various problems being overweight causes, but do they discriminate from hiring them?
It is not fair to just pick on the smokers.
Overweight people cause insurance premiums to go up too b/c of various problems being overweight causes, but do they discriminate from hiring them?
It is not fair to just pick on the smokers.
I see an impact of the recent FLA case where the widow of a deceased smoker sued BT on the grounds of her husband's addiction to smoking. IMO the court case sets a precedent for smoking to be included on the ADA list. I don't know if that is a good thing, but it will be interesting to see where it goes.
No. But discrimination is wrong.
It will be interesting. Personally, (as you know) I fall into the smoking is a choice, just as drinking is a choice, smoking mj is a choice, eating fried chicken is a choice. I also feel there is nothing really wrong with being addicted to something. People are addicted to drugs, booze, shopping, foods, getting their nails done... all of which are not good for the "users" health. Who cares!?! There is one inevitable thing about life: You die! Enjoy the wind while you have it.
Here's something I don't get (which are numerous when it comes to this way of thinking lol)...
<rant>
The big excuse for these smoking bans for hiring is the cost of insurance due to the large amount of smoking related illnesses. I am diabetic with high cholesterol (neither are smoking related). No one else in my office smokes, yet many routinely get sick (when I don't) and most go to the doctor at least once per month (more than I do). Additionally, when I do go in to the doctor to get prescriptions refilled, the office is packed, and I would wager most of those people are non-smokers with non-smoking related illnesses.
The last stats I saw said only about 20% of the US population smoke, yet healthcare costs are through the roof, I just can't see how "smoking related illnesses" are the only reason. If smoking were abolished and all smokers (or anyone that thinks about smoking) were eliminated once and for all, would there no longer be a need for hospitals or doctors?
That's how they make it sound.
</rant>
CG
<rant>
The big excuse for these smoking bans for hiring is the cost of insurance due to the large amount of smoking related illnesses. I am diabetic with high cholesterol (neither are smoking related). No one else in my office smokes, yet many routinely get sick (when I don't) and most go to the doctor at least once per month (more than I do). Additionally, when I do go in to the doctor to get prescriptions refilled, the office is packed, and I would wager most of those people are non-smokers with non-smoking related illnesses.
The last stats I saw said only about 20% of the US population smoke, yet healthcare costs are through the roof, I just can't see how "smoking related illnesses" are the only reason. If smoking were abolished and all smokers (or anyone that thinks about smoking) were eliminated once and for all, would there no longer be a need for hospitals or doctors?
That's how they make it sound.
</rant>
CG
- Status
Similar threads
