Gallup poll on hiring smokers and the obese

[rothenbj]

It looks like the minority is regulating the vast majority when it comes to smoker discrimination-

Americans Don't Want Biases in Hiring Smokers, the Overweight

That anti-smoker machine better start publishing some studies showing how not hiring smokers is benefiting companies and individuals. Time to fund some of those Cali schools, they're sure to be able to build an overwhelming body of evidence that is indisputable to fill the airwaves with.

 

[Vocalek]

The Nannies don't care what you or I want.

 

[house mouse]

A lot of the antis fall into that significantly overweight category. Maybe they'll start to wake up and realize that they'll be the next group persecuted. Are they really dumb enough not to get it?

 

[Vap0rJay]

The Nannies don't care what you or I want.

Very true, and do as I say not as I do as well. The Nanny doesn't have to follow the rules s/he imposes on you and I... Hypocrisy to the highest degree.

 

[emus]

A lot of the antis fall into that significantly overweight category. Maybe they'll start to wake up and realize that they'll be the next group persecuted. Are they really dumb enough not to get it?

Good point. Obesity is a leading preventable health risk like smoking. The obese cost employers and present a bad role model for the youth too.

 

[throatkick]

Are they really dumb enough not to get it?

Uhmmmm..... yes.

 

[Crumpet]

There is also a huge double standard in how the hiring policies are applied. Specifically, it has been stated that hospitals that refuse to hire smokers do not extend this to the physicians they hire. Hmmmmm. I'd like to see groups of nurses grow a pair and actually go on strike. Let the hospitals just try operating 1 day without nurses who we all know are the ones doing the bulk of the work ( and who are the first to get thrown under the bus if there is a physician error). Them and the CNAs, a large percentage of whom also smoke. Oh yeah, I'm sure a large portion of the blue collar level maintenance and housekeeping folks smoke as well. They should all do a walkout and let the protected doctors come in and give injections, scrub toilets, and clean bed pans.

 

[DC2]

Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.
--Abraham Lincoln

Sorry Abe, nice try, but it DID sound real good when you said it!!

 

[Demarko]

And in the service industry, you don't know if the person helping you is a smoker or not. When someone is obese and clearly can't do their job, it will get you (the customer, not you as any one person) upset.

 

[Bill Godshall]

rothenbj wrote:

It looks like the minority is regulating the vast majority when it comes to smoker discrimination

This issue is more complex, as an increasing number and percentage (but still a small minority of) employers in the US (not elected officials or government bureaucrats) are refusing to hire smokers, other tobacco/nicotine consumers and obese people and/or they are requiring those folks to pay higher copayments for healthcare insurance.

Please remember that employment contracts are freely negotiated (within legal limits) between prospective employers and prospective employees. And please remember that daily cigarette smoking and obesity are the leading causes of preventable disease, disability and death in the US, as well as leading causes of healthcare cost increases, absenteeism and productivity declines (which cost employers increasingly more money every year).

Small employers (which account for the vast majority of employers in the US) are especially prone to cost increases attributable to daily smoking and obesity.

The Gallup Poll question was also misleading, as it said:

Do you think companies should be allowed to refuse to hire people just because they are significantly overweight/they smoke?

I suspect the answers would be vastly different if the question instead had asked:

Do you support a law that would require every employer to hire people who are significantly overweight or who smoke?

While some people may believe that all employers should be forced by law to hire smokers and obese, I think that most people (if fully informed of the ramifications) would disagree (especially business owners, libertarians and Republicans).

I cannot envision a society where laws would require smoking cessation service providers or professional sports teams to hire pack/day cigarette smokers, or where laws would require weight loss programs, modelling agencies and dance troups to hire obese people.

As a civil libertarian and a public health advocate, I've long supported allowing prospective employers and employees to freely negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment contracts.

Unfortunately, the health and costs attributed to pack/day cigarette smoking have been inaccurately and unfairly applied to all tobacco/nicotine usage by some employers (who have been deceived by tobacco harm reduction opponents).

 

[Crumpet]

You know, this anti-hiring nicotine users BS is creepily similar to the corporate trend of haing mandatory artibitration clauses in hiring agreements. You can only say 'if you don't like the policy, go work somewhere else' up to a certain point. If I don't want to work for a company that makes mandatory arbitration as part of my employment agreement (meaning no matter what happens to me or how badly my rights are violated I am not permitted to seek redress through the courts and I must instead use an arbitration service provided by a company that my employer hired) then I can go work for another company. Except that company also has such a clause, as does the one next door and the one down the street from that. So in essence, I can only get a job if I'm willing to sign away my civil rights in exchange for a paycheck. Everyone owning their own business is not a viable alternative. We can't all be CEOs, and people who are of average intelligence and capability still deserve to be able to work and support themselves and their families (and to contribute via paying taxes). We don't operate on a bartering system in this country. You need a monetary income for the basic necessities.

Try the argument that if non-smokers don't like working around smoke, then they should go work in a place that doesn't allow smoking. Funny how freedom of choice isn't such a sacred thing when the tables are turned. Or, if you don't want to eat in smoking permitted restaurants, go eat at one of the thousands of non-smoking places......use your freedom of choice. But, nooooo.....some people should only be given a menu of perfectly healthy options to choose from. However, others (smokers, not even vapers) are told to take it or leave it when it comes to employment options. When more and more companies adopt these policies it means there are no more options for them unless they are willing to forgo a perfectly legal behavior (that the government profits from in the form of taxes) and let the person who pays them to work from 9-5 dicate how the live when they're off the clock.

So, you can either let the boss rule your whole life or you can go starve to death. See, you still have a choice! Just like people still have freedom of speech and assembly in communist China. You're free to assemble in the Square and say whatever you want. Sure, you might get gunned down, but it's not like you didn't have a choice.

I can honestly see not hiring smokers or obese people if you're hiring people to do work that requires being able to physically perform a certain task. How about giving folks a fitness test to see if they're capable? I'm physically not capable of being a Redskins quarterback, so I wouldn't get bent out of shape about not being offered the job. The thing about these smoking/obses areguments is that they're based on what problems you might have down the road, not what you're capable of doing now. It's as twisted as not hiring women of child bearing age because there's a good chance she'll get knocked up and have to take maternity leave. While sex is a protected class, the principle is the same. People with kids are more likely to miss work due to caring for a sick kid and the employer will surely pay through the nose for insurance coverage for a family of 5. How many parents would be okay at being told not to apply for jobs because they're too risky and too expensive to provide benefits for?

 

[rothenbj]

Crump, I was going to post the very same message this morning, but didn't have the energy to put it together. Thanks for saving me the effort.