You smoke? No Can Hire...

ONCE DEVIDED

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

zarocat

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.

dasvidana

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?

zarocat

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....

chadwick

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

pandora

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

FiveB247x

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

pandora

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.

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

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

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

FiveB247x

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

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

pandora

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.

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

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

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

BinFrog

Hire them but make them pay for 100% of their healthcare costs. Simple.

bgivens33

pandora wrote:

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.

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

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

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.

pandora

bgivens33 wrote:

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.

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

FiveB247x

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:

bgivens33 wrote:

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.

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

pandora

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

FiveB247x

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

pandora

:thumbup:

FiveB247x wrote:

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

green mountain man

pandora wrote:

:thumbup:

FiveB247x wrote:

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

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.

Sludge Factory

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.

pandora

green mountain man wrote:

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.