You smoke? No Can Hire...

13»

Comments

  • And regarding a nanny state
    If the people cannot be responsible to themselves and their community maybe they do need to be told what to do
    AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE
  • zarocatzarocat Posts: 1,901
    The Toronto (Canada) fire services take a chest x-ray during the hiring process. But I guess in a profession such as fighting fires, you should have clean lungs.
    1996: Toronto
    1998: Barrie
    2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
    2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
    2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
    2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
    2006: Toronto X2
    2009: Toronto
    2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
    2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
    2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
    2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
    2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
    2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
    2022: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto
    2023: Chicago X2
    2024: New York X2
  • dasvidanadasvidana Grand Junction CO Posts: 1,349
    zarocat wrote:
    The Toronto (Canada) fire services take a chest x-ray during the hiring process. But I guess in a profession such as fighting fires, you should have clean lungs.
    or at least a baseline of what your lung health is in case it worsens over time on the job. I assume there is a certain amount of assumed risk to lung health in that kind of profession, no?
    It's nice to be nice to the nice.
  • zarocatzarocat Posts: 1,901
    dasvidana wrote:
    I assume there is a certain amount of assumed risk to lung health in that kind of profession, no?

    yes.

    Is it any different than living in a factory polluted city though? Because all in all, how many fires actually occur that are bigger than a house fire? I live in a factory polluted area and that pollution is noticeable. Plainly, in this context, it would seem to be a paradox not to be hired in any profession because of smoking.

    idk....
    1996: Toronto
    1998: Barrie
    2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
    2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
    2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
    2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
    2006: Toronto X2
    2009: Toronto
    2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
    2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
    2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
    2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
    2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
    2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
    2022: Ottawa, Hamilton, Toronto
    2023: Chicago X2
    2024: New York X2
  • chadwickchadwick up my ass Posts: 21,157
    petejm043 wrote:
    These smoking policies are made to discrimante not only against smokers but against the poor. The poor have a higher chance of being a smoker than those in the upper or middle class. Another tool that is being employed by companies to discrimante against the poor is their credit. Once credit standing should have no bearing on their abilty to do a job. Its just another way to keep people down.

    i believe this. firstly...college students generally don't have much money and they smoke like chimneys. i did a research paper on smoking and college students.

    poor people tend to do a lot of things wealthier folks do not; odd how poorer folks eat unhealthier foods, smoke more and yet have little to no money. poorer folks i guess would rather buy a package of oreo cookies than a bag of oranges; buy a package of cigarettes vs' antioxidant teas.

    i guess poor folks are treating themselves to shit foods and cigarettes due to not having much anything else? yay cake. let's celebrate.

    we know college stress brings on smoking even in first time smokers, even smokers who once quit start up again due to college level academics being rather difficult which in turn causes stress and that stress brings on smoking which soothes the nervous individual
    for poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7

    "Hear me, my chiefs!
    I am tired; my heart is
    sick and sad. From where
    the sun stands I will fight
    no more forever."

    Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    Rollings wrote:
    While applying for employment today, I came across this,

    "Starting with job offers dated February 1, 2012 and after, Geisinger Health System will no longer hire applicants who use tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars and chewing or smokeless tobacco. Applicants will be screened for nicotine as part of the pre-employment physical process. Nicotine will be part of the urine drug screen. Applicants who test positive for nicotine will not be offered employment. Applicants who test positive may re-apply for jobs with Geisinger in six months."
    bunch of f-in bullies
    I hate big brother in society :evil:

    Somebody always knows best but we are meant to make our own personal choices
    such is our life

    now for the businesses that will only hire smokers!

    And bars and restaurants that only allow smokers or those who don't mind
    smoke and value the interaction of all human beings,
    whether they smoke or not

    it works ... lets just segregate some more

    then all will be happy and equal
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    How about a little personal responsibility? People are entitled to make personal choices in life, but
    actions have repercussions in life. In this instance, those choices do effect others, so it is not solely about the individual, it's about the group as a whole. In this case, business have to take on added costs because of employees healthcare costs which due to smoking is increased. ie, it is in business's interest to get healthy employees for the best of everyone's interest at that company.
    pandora wrote:
    bunch of f-in bullies
    I hate big brother in society :evil:

    Somebody always knows best but we are meant to make our own personal choices
    such is our life

    now for the businesses that will only hire smokers!

    And bars and restaurants that only allow smokers or those who don't mind
    smoke and value the interaction of all human beings,
    whether they smoke or not

    it works ... lets just segregate some more

    then all will be happy and equal
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    FiveB247x wrote:
    How about a little personal responsibility? People are entitled to make personal choices in life, but
    actions have repercussions in life. In this instance, those choices do effect others, so it is not solely about the individual, it's about the group as a whole. In this case, business have to take on added costs because of employees healthcare costs which due to smoking is increased. ie, it is in business's interest to get healthy employees for the best of everyone's interest at that company.

    yes lets put the corporations before personal freedoms... :?

    and lets hire a less qualified non smoker over a more qualified smoker especially
    in a customer service position ;):lol:

    we all know about business best interests it usually is not that of the employee
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    No ...see here's why you are incorrect. Such a law or policy wouldn't force companies to enforce or use this type of testing, but instead would allow IF they wanted to do so, they could. Some companies currently give compensation or healthcare premium deductions for beneficial health habits by employees, so why can't the reverse be done? In the end of the day, your individual healthcare costs on your companies plan, directly effects the rest of the plan members at your job and finances at your job. Also, this is not a "personal freedoms" matter. No one is banning smoking and people and employees can smoke as they wish, but like anything in life, there's repercussions and accountability for actions. In our nation, people have this naive or gluttonous notion that because they have a specific right or freedom to do something, it comes with no responsibility or accountability. The poor health habits of our nation have significantly hurt our healthcare system and raised the costs for everyone, which also in turns lessons the access to healthcare for more people. The individual has strongly hurt the masses which why in this instance, this sort of policy should be applauded instead of denounced.
    pandora wrote:

    yes lets put the corporations before personal freedoms... :?

    and lets hire a less qualified non smoker over a more qualified smoker especially
    in a customer service position ;):lol:

    we all know about business best interests it usually is not that of the employee
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    FiveB247x wrote:
    No ...see here's why you are incorrect. Such a law or policy wouldn't force companies to enforce or use this type of testing, but instead would allow IF they wanted to do so, they could. Some companies currently give compensation or healthcare premium deductions for beneficial health habits by employees, so why can't the reverse be done? In the end of the day, your individual healthcare costs on your companies plan, directly effects the rest of the plan members at your job and finances at your job. Also, this is not a "personal freedoms" matter. No one is banning smoking and people and employees can smoke as they wish, but like anything in life, there's repercussions and accountability for actions. In our nation, people have this naive or gluttonous notion that because they have a specific right or freedom to do something, it comes with no responsibility or accountability. The poor health habits of our nation have significantly hurt our healthcare system and raised the costs for everyone, which also in turns lessons the access to healthcare for more people. The individual has strongly hurt the masses which why in this instance, this sort of policy should be applauded instead of denounced.
    Hope they don't start saying just one child per family :shock:
    better be a boy child too
    for the good of all ;)

    I wonder if that policy would be applauded by the same
  • BinFrogBinFrog MA Posts: 7,309
    Hire them but make them pay for 100% of their healthcare costs. Simple.
    Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
    Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
  • bgivens33bgivens33 Posts: 290
    pandora wrote:
    Hope they don't start saying just one child per family :shock:
    better be a boy child too
    for the good of all ;)

    I wonder if that policy would be applauded by the same

    I have zero problem with companies only hiring people with only one child. Just as you have every right to not patronize companies that only hire people with one child.
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    bgivens33 wrote:

    I have zero problem with companies only hiring people with only one child. Just as you have every right to not patronize companies that only hire people with one child.

    I guess you don't see the big picture in that
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Yeah it's called the "slippery slope" and people's prognosticating fears don't equate to reality. There is no, once they do x, then I think they'll do y... that's a made up scenario only used to deter things in life out of your own fears and not because it actually occurs or happens.

    How come everyone is so quick to defend the person's right to smoke and abuse their health, yet no one talks about the results of how those individual decisions effect the greater whole group? It's very irresponsible.

    Also, no one is talking about anything abnormal here.. no one's saying you can't smoke, have kids, etc... All this policy addresses is repercussions for people who do smoke which could be appropriate as it effects their employers costs. And no we're not talking bout the number of children or anything similar... we're talking about a health habit which is a personal choice but adversely effects the greater whole of employees.
    pandora wrote:

    I guess you don't see the big picture in that
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Yeah it's called the "slippery slope" and people's prognosticating fears don't equate to reality. There is no, once they do x, then I think they'll do y... that's a made up scenario only used to deter things in life out of your own fears and not because it actually occurs or happens.

    How come everyone is so quick to defend the person's right to smoke and abuse their health, yet no one talks about the results of how those individual decisions effect the greater whole group? It's very irresponsible.

    Also, no one is talking about anything abnormal here.. no one's saying you can't smoke, have kids, etc... All this policy addresses is repercussions for people who do smoke which could be appropriate as it effects their employers costs. And no we're not talking bout the number of children or anything similar... we're talking about a health habit which is a personal choice but adversely effects the greater whole of employees.

    I like Binfrogs idea .. that way smokers are not discriminated against in a way that has nothing to do with their abilities to perform and the repercussion is medical bills not a lack of a paycheck
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I'm all for that as well.
    pandora wrote:
    I like Binfrogs idea .. that way smokers are not discriminated against in a way that has nothing to do with their abilities to perform and the repercussion is medical bills not a lack of a paycheck
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    :thumbup:
    FiveB247x wrote:
    I'm all for that as well.
  • pandora wrote:
    :thumbup:
    It may depend on what the job is. Some smokers have decreased endurance and may tire faster then someone who takes care of themselves. It is the same with obesity. When I hire people for farming, logging etc. I want someone who is fit and can keep up a steady pace.
  • Am I missing something here? Why should a business have to hire who "we" dictate should be hired? Shouldn't a business hire who it wants to hire? I can see if the government was implementing this policy why people would be upset, but this is a private business is it not? Many businesses have differing qualifications for who they will hire. This one is simply saying they will not hire you if you fail a nicotine test. It isn't mandating that people are not free to smoke if they so choose, it is stating that it doesn't want to hire smokers.

    I mean, if the business wants to hire less skilled people simply because they don't smoke then it will show over time in its productivity. Those businesses that hire whoever is the most skilled regardless of what they do in their personal life will most likely have a better chance of succeeding since it will show in their productivity. Not to mention the goodwill of the business that isn't oppressive in its hiring practices will be much greater than one that is oppressive and if you can market that goodwill effectively many people may be more willing to give you their business as opposed to giving it to the oppressive company.
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855

    It may depend on what the job is. Some smokers have decreased endurance and may tire faster then someone who takes care of themselves. It is the same with obesity. When I hire people for farming, logging etc. I want someone who is fit and can keep up a steady pace.
    Yes that might fall under job qualifications,
    if a person is less qualified physically for whatever reason and can not perform as well
    I would think a different candidate would be chosen.

    In our business matters not their physical strength or if they smoke or not,
    in fact many smokers seem much more relaxed to handle the stress in our industry.
  • It is a common misconception that smoking relaxes people. It is the smoking relaxation ruse. An illusion by uninformed smokers who wrongly credit their cigs with relaxation.
    Nicotine is a stimulant, not an relaxant/depressant. When one inhales smoke the heart beats faster, the blood vessels constrict, and the blood pressue rises. The smoking relaxation claim is another irrational excuse used by smokers who can not face up to quitting.
    The smoker lives in an reduced state of relaxation filled with anxiety to refill nicotine addiction. They live in a continuous state of irritation and worry. Continuous cravings , guilt, helplessness at inability to quit, and low self esteem.
    Did you ever see a smoker hurry for the smoking area before a crucial meeting ?
    Smoking has devastating health consequences . Think of employer anti smoking policies/hiring practices as a way to help people quit
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    It is a common misconception that smoking relaxes people. It is the smoking relaxation ruse. An illusion by uninformed smokers who wrongly credit their cigs with relaxation.
    Nicotine is a stimulant, not an relaxant/depressant. When one inhales smoke the heart beats faster, the blood vessels constrict, and the blood pressue rises. The smoking relaxation claim is another irrational excuse used by smokers who can not face up to quitting.
    The smoker lives in an reduced state of relaxation filled with anxiety to refill nicotine addiction. They live in a continuous state of irritation and worry. Continuous cravings , guilt, helplessness at inability to quit, and low self esteem.
    Did you ever see a smoker hurry for the smoking area before a crucial meeting ?
    Smoking has devastating health consequences . Think of employer anti smoking policies/hiring practices as a way to help people quit
    you might not get printing ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.