Smoking Discrimination in the Workplace: On and Off the Clock

Status
Not open for further replies.

Brewlady

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member

Smoking Discrimination in the Workplace: On and Off the Clock


A co-worker who works in Human Resources emailed this link to me.

The second "Learning Objective" of this conference:

Nicotine Addiction as a Disability Under the Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act and State Disability Discrimination Laws
 

beckah54

Dog Lover!
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 27, 2009
2,284
1,883
Ohio
From what I've read in the News Forum lately, some large corporations are trying to find ways to get rid of employees (or avoid hiring them in the first place) that use nicotine in any form, regular cigarettes, snus, snuf, patches, gum and ecigarettes.

My guess would be they are also exploring how not hiring nicotine users would affect them in case they are sued. I don't believe nicotine addition qualifies us for any special treatment under either of the laws you quoted above but I could be wrong.

I know some companies are raising the cost of insurance for smokers/nicotine users compared to nonsmokers. A lot of society hates cigarette smokers and ecigarette users are lumped in with them.

Just my .02 cents worth.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,619
1
84,742
So-Cal
What I have found is that if you are a good employee (ie: show up on time, do your job, get alone with others, etc.) that there are only an extremely small amount of companies that will want to get rid of you. No matter what you do on your breaks or when you are off the clock. Good employees are Very hard to find.

The opposite is also true. If you show up late and are a piss poor worker, well, companies usually find a way to get rid of you. This goes for people who smoker, use e-cigarettes, chew, what ever.

But this is really nothing new. What is new is that in the age of the Internet, if Joe Blow gets fired that you can read about it from about a dozen different sources. And if he claims to have been fired because he was a smoker, and not for a performance based reason, it makes for good copy.

The same applies to job applicants.

I don’t know any non-smokers that would prefer hiring a smoker over a non-smoker. You can call it “discrimination” if you like. It’s just the way of the world. So if you walk into a job interview with a pack of smokes in your pocket and have the same qualifications as the applicant before you, your just not going to get the job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread