[What they are saying, companies are violating the law in numerous states by having their hiring managers sniff out smokers and reject them. Most likely the boss and hiring manager, rejecting the smoker, is going to be typically fat and out of shape ... and so it goes. Though I think you will see some discrimination lawsuits before long, employers may smell smoke, but, lawyers smell ... MONEY! And this generous company that pay's the complete premiums in exchange for not smoking ... what a hoot ... where do you think they get that money from ... the labor of their employee's.]



"Smokers stamped out by many companies"

By KRIS MAHER
The Wall Street Journal

Kick the habit — or don't bother applying for the job.

That is the dictum at a growing number of companies that are adopting tough measures to eliminate smokers from their ranks in an effort to rein in health-care costs. Some are requiring job applicants to undergo nicotine testing or respond to questions about their smoking habits.

Others are forcing current employees who won't quit smoking to give up their jobs.

Such antismoking policies are problematic for companies with employees in states with smokers' rights laws. Twenty-nine states, including Illinois, have laws that prohibit employers from discriminating against smokers. As a result, Weyco will continue to employ one smoker in Illinois, even after its policy in Michigan goes into effect, Climes says.

Nevertheless, smokers increasingly face hiring hurdles even at companies that don't have formal antismoking policies. "There is discrimination at many companies — and maybe even most companies — against people who smoke," says Jay Whitehead, publisher of HRO Today, a magazine for human-resources executives.

Hiring managers who are instructed by their companies not to directly ask applicants about smoking (for fear of violating privacy rights) often discern smokers during interviews and reject them. Just because a question about smoking isn't asked directly "doesn't mean that hiring managers turn off their sense of smell," Whitehead says.

Investors Property Management Inc. in Seattle, began asking job applicants two years ago whether they smoked in an effort to eliminate candidates with the habit. Now, Dieter Benz, vice president of operations for the multifamily and commercial-property management company, says he is considering requiring applicants to undergo a blood test to prove they aren't smokers. "Even though all of our marketing materials indicate that we do not hire smokers, we still get people that are trying to slip in under the radar," he says.

Earlier this month, Benz fired a staffer after a burn hole in the upholstery of a company truck tipped him off that the individual was smoking, at least occasionally.

The company pays the complete cost of health-insurance premiums for its 14 employees. "In exchange for that you can't smoke," Benz says. The company makes one exception — for a bookkeeper who has been employed since before the strict hiring policy took effect.

Some companies that employ smokers simply are charging them more for health-care coverage. And lying about one's habit can result in loss of health-care coverage or termination, says Richard A. Chaifetz, chairman and chief executive of ComPsych Corp., a Chicago employee-assistance and wellness provider.

Navistar International Corp., a Warrenville, Ill., truck manufacturer, will charge employees who smoke $50 per month more for their health-care coverage beginning next July. Privacy-rights advocates and many smokers say companies are going too far in punishing employees for engaging in a legal activity. "It's crazy, because if you (smoke) in one context you're fine and in another you're not," says Dave Pickrell, founder of Smokers Fighting Discrimination, a nonprofit in Katy, Texas."

Wall Street Journal

This message has been edited. Last edited by: John L,

quote:

---

Originally posted by John L:
Most likely the boss and hiring manager, rejecting the smoker, is going to be typically fat and out of shape ... and so it goes.

---

I have a friend, can't remember her title, who does the hiring and firing for a Wal-Mart distribution plant. Overweight by quite a bit and likes to drink. I don't know if she's out of shape though. LOL

I think CNN was the first to make employees sign a pledge not to smoke - on or off company time back in the 80s and it went nowhere. They might now have better technology to sniff us out but will quickly find themselves on a pretty slippery slope when they imagine all the other "unhealthy" activities employees might engage in...

Let me see if I have this straight:

1) These companies claim that they are rejecting smoking candidates because of healthcare insurance costs.

2) Many people have dependents (wives, husbands, adult children still in school, etc.).

3) Dependents are usually covered by the primary's insurance coverage.

OK so far?

So here's my question: What do these companies plan to do when a dependent of a NON-smoking employee is a smoker? Will the companies now start rejecting applicants who have any DEPENDENTS who are smokers?

And another question: What if the prospective employee declines the insurance coverage for any reason? I mean...when I got married, I cancelled the health insurance I carried when I was single and became covered by my husband's (better) insurance. (Hubby is a non-smoker, but as you all know, I am a smoker.) So if I were to apply for a position with this company, I would not sign on for their insurance coverage. Why would I? I'm already covered!
Declining the company's offer of insurance coverage would effectively invalidate the reason they've given for rejecting my application for employment.

Wouldn't it?

Sometimes I wonder if any of these rocket scientists have thought all this out.

Regards,
Jenny

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jennifer Wiegand:
Sometimes I wonder if any of these rocket scientists have thought all this out.

Regards,
Jenny

---

I think they hear things, think that sounds good, and then implement them.

I don't think there's any thinking beyond that.

If they REALLY want to save money they'll only hire single people who not only have zero children, but are infertile with no plans to adopt.

There's NO way a smoker costs more to insure than someone with a family.

Jenny, the logic of this is, it never ends. The problem, employee "group" health plans are inherently socialistic, you can see from this, what would happen if the government took over health care with socialized medicine. You think smokers have it tough now, the antis would have a field day.

The solution, don't offer employee health care insurance. Year's ago, "no company" offered health insurance. Simply, pay employee's all the money they earn, including current company health care spending, and let them, get their own insurance.

Smokers are just targeted, because, well, they can get away with it. If a company refused to hire blacks today for instance, even if was legal ... they would be boycotted by many consumers, and lot's of other companies would not even do business with them. The media would jump all over them. When a company does something like this, they are sending smokers a message ... we are not afraid of a backlash.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: John L,

quote:

---

Smokers are just targeted, because, well, they can get away with it. If a company refused to hire blacks today for instance, even if was legal ... they would be boycotted by many consumers, and lot's of other companies would not even do business with them.

---

We smokers have become the politically correct scapegoat-obviously it doesn't make sense to fire at least 25% of the workforce because of their lifestyle choice. If smokers really were non-productive and got sick all the time, employers would have not hired or done away with us long ago. We can thank people like John Banzhaf and Stanton Glantz and their fascistic de-normalization campaigns for this. If they really wanted to start nitpicking about health care costs - then yes, my guess would be that an arguement could be made for not hiring certain groups like blacks and gays who are more susceptible to diabetes,high blood pressure and HIV but this is completely illegal - as it should be. So too should it be not to hire anyone based on their lifestyle choice, so long as it doesn't interfere with their effectiveness as an employee.

The latest example of this is in Montgomery County (Pennsylvania), where the County Commission is considering hiring only nonsmokers in an effort to reduce its health care costs for its employees.

Well - there are a number of other effective ways Montgomery County could save money from health care expenses:

* it could refuse to hire obese persons, who we know have far greater morbidity and therefore require much higher health care expenditures;

* it could refuse to hire people whose cholesterol levels are greater than 200, which is a well-documented risk factor for heart disease, the nation's leading cause of morbidity;

* it could refuse to hire people who eat more than 6 grams of salt a day; this is a major cause of high blood pressure and is associated with heart disease and strokes.

I have been attempting to instill a sense of alarm among my fellow tobacco control practitioners at this emerging trend, although not with much success it appears.

Here is my discussion and commentary
on the Montgomery County policy and my warning
to anti-smoking advocates that by supporting or failing to speak out against policies such as this, they are contributing towards the creation of a second class of citizens: those for whom employment is not available because of private, lawful, voluntary behavior decisions which they have made.

I personally don't care if private companies refuse to hire smokers for any reason they could possibly think up. Similarly, there is absolutely no justifiable reason why bar or restaurant owners who wish to cater to smokers shouldn't be able to only hire smokers thus negating the public health "need" for any all-inclusive bans.

I've voiced that position ever since Ginny, I mean Georgina, that loveable, affectionate anti-tobacco witch from Bancouver (who deserves an entire website to expose her persistent lies and shenanigans), threw the situation with Comingco in our faces about them firing someone for violating their no-smoking anywhere on company property policy after a security video showed a "flash" in the individual's car as he was exiting the company owned parking lot. I still feel there were probably other reasons why the company wanted to fire the individual and they just used that as an excuse to not only get rid of the person, but also to show their other employees that their no-smoking policy had teeth.

The same with Lowes. I've written them, telling them I don't agree with their policy forbidding all employees to smoke anywhere on their property, but I certainly don't question their right to make such a policy. They own the properties in question, not me. However, as a result of their policy, I've told them that I refuse to shop in their stores as long as this policy is in existence and they treat their employees who just happen to use tobacco products in such a demeaning manner. Home Depot can just get my business, and we're all happy.

I'm more concerned over self-righteous bureaucrats in government offices perpetrating this assault on smokers, who are also taxpayers. No one in any government office or agency should have any right to exclude smokers from filling any positions, period. Smokers should not even be summarily executed, er, I mean excluded from police or other demanding positions as long as they meet physical requirement standards of the job. These politicians and bureaucrats have no qualms with taking money from us in taxes even with all the carcinogens on it from our tobacco stained fingers, so they should have no problem with treating us fairly.

Montgomery County is just the tip of the iceberg. Smokers are currently discriminated against for government employment in literally hundreds of positions across this nation thanks to the anti-smoking extremists.

I applied and was called to an interview to man 911 calls here. My first question before agreeing to the interview was "Is smoking allowed at the desk?", I was told smoking was only allowed outside the building. I asked if they were concerned that the nicotine increased the mental activity of smokers and deprevation would cause the smokers to become less alert at a critical time. They had never considered it. I asked if they would provide ADHD drug theropy to compat the problem. I was told no, I thanked them for their interest, but I had no further interest in the position.

This thread made me think of a friend of mine who works for a hazardous materials company. They do cleanups and disposal.

Their lunch room has two tables. One's nonsmoking and the other's smoking. He told me they're two feet apart.

So here we have companies that send their smokers outdoors because of some supposed health risk to nonsmokers while my friend works for a company well versed in what's hazardous and they allow smoking not only indoors, but right next to nonsmokers. It's almost funny.