employers telling people they arent allowed to vape

[stevegmu]

Oddly..like I said, You lucky dog. Ya still have yer youth, are polylingual, have a zillion hotties after you,
AND yer insurance is mostly paid for. Cheesus, man Let's trade places.

Hazy

Time for all the ladies is what I never have enough of...

 

[Rossum]

So if it's OK for businesses to refuse to hire (or even fire) people for no other reason than nicotine use, would it also be OK for a business to do the opposite? Refuse to hire anyone who doesn't use nic? Test all the employees regularly and fire anyone with too little cotinine in their system?

 

[AttyPops]

So if it's OK for businesses to refuse to hire (or even fire) people for no other reason than nicotine use, would it also be OK for a business to do the opposite? Refuse to hire anyone who doesn't use nic? Test all the employees regularly and fire anyone with too little cotinine in their system?

Boss: "Uhm....you're not vaping enough. We might have to let you go....."
Employee: "I'll do better! I had a cold..."

Not likely.

 

[Rossum]

I understand it's not likely. It's a thought experiment. If it's OK to discriminate on the basis of nic use, it should be OK for that discrimination to go in either direction, right?

 

[AttyPops]

Forced use of a substance, particularly one that isn't considered beneficial (and isn't imposed via court order) is ..... probably unconstitutional...a violation of personal rights.

Now, the insurance thing...that's rating.

That's how rating works. Much to our dismay. Same with auto insurance. Your history determines your rates (at least in the last X years). You have more accidents, they up your rates. Why? You're a "risk".

Nic use is considered a risk from a health perspective. I don't like it either. I don't like that they don't count the positives of nic use...those don't land you in the hospital.

So it's not "discrimination". It's "rating".

It gets worse. Just as people have predicted above. What about BMI? Cholesterol tests? Are you a good employee-machine-resource? In top working order? What about tall people? What about heavy people? Should we take hair samples and have them checked? When do we spread the risk and when don't we?

If we just "spread the risks" and don't "rate" people...when will people act responsibly? What would be their motivation....the collective "good"?

As to refusing to hire based on nic use....I think that's out of line. Nic is legal. Nic on the job is not mind-altering like alcohol or other drugs. Similarly, required nic use, is just as wrong.

 

[Rossum]

I understand the "rating" thing. I own a business. I have employees. Thanks to the ACA, my health insurance provider now insists we complete a tobacco use survey and charges me higher rates for those who use tobacco.

I wasn't talking about forced use of a substance. An employer who won't hire nic users isn't force anyone to quit using nic, right? Then an employer who won't hire people that don't use nic isn't forcing anyone to use nic either.

 

[caramel]

How about sugar level. Can insurance / employers discriminate over it?

 

[AttyPops]

What if they used it when hired, but quit later? You said you'd test for it............

 

[AttyPops]

How about sugar level. Can insurance / employers discriminate over it?

Agreed. Slippery slope indeed!

 

[Woofer]

So if it's OK for businesses to refuse to hire (or even fire) people for no other reason than nicotine use, would it also be OK for a business to do the opposite? Refuse to hire anyone who doesn't use nic? Test all the employees regularly and fire anyone with too little cotinine in their system?

I love this!!! You could definitely get some press with this one.. do it!

 

[Rossum]

If I owned a business in which the employees were fungible, I just might. However, my business isn't like that; it depends heavily on the unique skills and experience of almost every individual who works there, and out of 16 or so, there's only one (other than me) who's a habitual user of nicotine. So as much as I'd like to do this as a real experiment, the reality is, it's not practical for me to do so.

 

[Woofer]

If I owned a business in which the employees were fungible, I just might. However, my business isn't like that; it depends heavily on the unique skills and experience of almost every individual who works there, and out of 16 or so, there's only one (other than me) who's a habitual user of nicotine. So as much as I'd like to do this as a real experiment, the reality is, it's not practical for me to do so.

Love the hear that actually! I imagine it's a good place to work and you are a fair boss.

 

[Jman8]

this is really getting ridiculous. this morning i went into work and my boss points at my PV in my jacket pocket and said "we have to talk about that". he says i will not be allowed to vape on company property, that their is a no smoking policy and that vaping is in their eyes the same thing. i have worked this job for 5 months so far it has been OK until today. they changed the hand book to state that tobacco products and electronic cigarettes are to be used only in designated areas. the catch 22 is that they have no provided designate areas. he then runs his mouth and says i need "help" with my "nicotine addiction". i told him that vaping is a personal choice and that i do not have a problem with it. i also went on to tell him that i do not wish to be controlled and if you require i will walk across the street and vape. after about 20 minutes of segueing he said i can vape in my car. my feeling is this..... i show up to work ON TIME and DO MY JOB. leave me alone, its my personal choice and my life. I had a problem with smoking, it was killing me i found a much safer alternative and you do not like it??? its not their place to decide.

Responding to OP (again) just to make larger point that is probably worthy of it's own thread, but feel like posting it here for now.

Some people in these discussions claim there are 2 options (or less) when presented with this sort of situation. Here are the options as I see it:

1 - keep vaping at work, don't get caught. I see this as number one, and with vaping, unless you are being 'stupid' you probably won't get caught. They have laws against speeding. Speeding is dangerous. But people drive over the speed limit all the time. The general unwritten rule I observe happening is, don't get caught. If you do get caught, yes that is bad news. Rule #1 is don't get caught.

2 - fight the policy. You can do this emotionally and in a reactionary way that makes you come off immature, or heaven forbid, like you are addicted. Or you can do it very strategically. How this looks precisely varies from workplace to workplace, but is a viable option right behind #1 suggestion. With #1, if failure occurs, you stand to lose your job. With #2, if done strategically, you really don't have much to lose (especially if part of the strategy is having back up plan for alternate employment).

3 - find other employment (either for another company or self employment). This is included in 2nd suggestion, but as a stand alone item is kind of reactionary, immature and a cop out. But also easier than standing up and fighting draconian measures. Up to the individual which option makes more sense for them. If pretty sure you are going to leave, and very sure you are going to go with self employed, I highly suggest going with the first option until your departure date.

4 - Quit vaping. This is last resort. Depending on how it goes down, it could be childish / reactionary, or it could be wisdom / mature. Up to you to decide, but it's not like this option has zero consequences. I know, I've gone cold turkey for more than 10 years of my adult life. If you do become former vaper, please don't become ANTZ-like. Temptation is high, but easy to avoid if you are sane.