The Los Angeles Times Health Blog posted an article about how increasing numbers of employers are refusing to hire people who smoke. Happy Hospitalist should have a field day with this one, given his previous thoughts on cigarettes.
One company cited in the article doesn’t hire smokers, fires workers if they smoke during their non-work time, and even fires workers if their spouses smoke.
Researchers studying the growing trend stated that firing workers because they smoke was “not appropriate” and that “widespread adoption of such policies may make smokers nearly unemployable, cause them to lose their health insurance and affect their health and that of their families.”
News flash … smoking already does affect the ability of people to obtain health insurance and already does affect the health of patients and their families. Is there something about this concept that requires further study?
Smoking decreases productivity while workers go on “smoking breaks,” increases health care costs for employers who provide health insurance, and may affect a company’s image if customers repeatedly witness a gaggle of employees outside puffing away at the “butt hut.” If it is OK to fire workers for having drugs or alcohol in their systems – even though they are not using these substances at work – why shouldn’t employers be able to include cigarettes as well.
The authors note that smoking is a powerful addiction, but if people can’t get a job, they won’t have the money to purchase cigarettes and the problem will eventually take care of itself.
Right now, employment is a buyer’s market. There are more applicants than there are jobs, so employers can be choosy. In the future, if employers with rigid requirements are unable to find enough employees, they may need to relax their standards.
So is cigarette smoking another “right” that we need to add to the list, or are we just increasing the “nanny state” effect by micromanaging everyone’s lives?
I like it in theory but don’t like the government controlling people’s lives. As much as I hate smokers I don’t think this is the appropriate way to help people quit (as much as I agree with the philosophy).
What does a business not hiring smokers have to do with the government? Smoking is the only activity, when used as directed, kills half the people who do it.
That’s why businesses should have a right not to hire smokers. They can’t afford to.
I’m all for giving business owners and employers complete autonomy; however, that pendulum swings both ways. If a business owner wants to have smoking customers (restaurant, bar, etc.), then he or she should be able to independently make that decision as well.
No, he shouldn’t He is exposing his non-smoking customers and employees (who don’t smoke) to second hand smoke. That’s like saying he shouldn’t have to remove the asbestos if he doesn’t want to.
But, they could work somewhere else? Sorry, you have to provide for your employees safety. That’s like not providing safety equipment for coal miners
I guess as long as it is disclosed in the employee’s work agreement, it should be okay I guess. There could be something said for a business not wanting its employees to smell like smoke at official meetings and things like that. I think there is something creepy about a business regulating an employee’s legal habits, however, and wouldn’t want to work for a business like that. It’s different if your excessive smoke breaks are affecting your work or you are smoking in an unapproved area.
What pink said too.
Oh, and PS, Happy should realize that up until a few months ago, he was sedentary and obese with many of the same risk factors for an early death as a smoker. Many of the deaths attributed to “smoking” are cardiac in nature. Obesity kills as well, oftentimes a lot faster than smoking too. He took up exercising, which is great, but, still, maybe a little less projecting would be in order.
Discrimination? I don’t know. But this reeks of the classic nanny state being forced upon people who only want to work.
We know smoking is bad for you. It’s been on the side of packs of smokes for like 20 years now, but people still choose to do so. I choose not to smoke. But some people do. It’s a choice. A poor choice, but a choice.
Now a company could fire a worker due to smoking. We know that health care costs increase for smokers, productivity is lost due to smoke breaks and that it’s generally not a god thing. But where is the line drawn? Firing someone because they are obese? They eat a high-fat unhealthy diet? Yep, both of these contribute to coronary artery disease, which could have a huge impact on health care costs. How about people who drive to work? I mean they’re not out exercising and being sedentary in sitting in their cars so this is a bad thing, right?
Sure this is a “slippery slope” argument. But really, how much should an employer control their employees lives, especially when they are NOT at work? In a perfect world, companies would hire non-smoking, healthy and fit people…but we are far from perfect!
Firing smokers would be a good economic move for employers, I guess, but those unemployment benefits would take a big hit, unemployment numbers would get uglier than they are now and white coat your er would get even fuller with uninsured patients who smoke on top of it. I am smoker try to quit but not sucessfully. I’m 57 y/o zero medical hx and hike mountains on my vacation…don’t call in sick and can’t remember even the last cold I got. Am I an anomaly or just dodgong the bullet? BTW i would be willing to pay a surtax on my health insurance….I think that’s fair.
How can they fire someone for having a spouse that smokes? You can’t force your significant other to quit. That’s ridiculous.
Should it depend on *what* the employee in question is smoking? What if they are (or their spouse is) smoking marijuana? Should that be allowed? Is that justifiable grounds for immediate termination? If the answer is different depending on whether they’re smoking marijuana or tobacco, why?
Tobacco smoking benefits no one (except those selling it, of course). Unlike tobacco, marijuana has actually been shown to have a beneficial use, but is illegal. Should our judgements on employees (& their spouses), and, more importantly, our justifications for firing them depend on the legality of the harmful behavior they are engaging in?
What if they’re smoking, I don’t know… cloves? How about herbal cigarettes? What if they’re smoking the Prozac pills they were legally prescribed?
Geeeeck! I really hate the idea of any employer being “big brother.” Simply make smoking “illegal” on the company grounds..including parking lots. If some dude seems to be missing for half the day (walking off grounds to smoke)…well there you go.
People smoke.
Nicotine is addictive.
Thus smokers become addicts.
Addicts are considered disabled.
Doesn’t the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibit job and hiring discriminiation?
(All said with tongue firmly in cheek)
Don’t think they do for people who self-inflict it on themselves. Just like you wouldn’t get worker’s comp for intentionally injuring yourself
AMEN
I second the notion that we should reap what we sow. Don’t educate or instruct your patient to not smoke and proceed to tell them how bad smoking is to your health right after you just had a cigarette break.
Grr.
Excuse me?! Surely you jest! Discriminate against a potential hire because their SPOUSE smokes? Give me a break!!
1. Then perhaps companies shouldn’t hire people that don’t use green (environmentally safe) cleaning products? “WHAT do you clean your toilet bowl with? You inhale that you know. You use THOSE cleaning products! Are you aware that they are being absorbed through your skin and your are inhaling said products? Do you know what is going on in your lungs even as we speak?!”
2. Oh wait! They may want to discriminate against anyone who can’t hover commute over traffic like the Jetsons (old cartoon), otherwise they are inhaling all that carbon monoxide from tail pipe exhausts while sitting in traffic. And oh my gosh the cumulative effect of sitting in traffic will certainly exacerbate the effects of stress in your system. I suppose they should only hire non commuters, people within walking distance ..well because walking is a healthy alternative to driving.
3. Certainly ..no one using a cell phone or constantly exposed to EMF waves should be hired.. all that potential radiation mixing around in your body.
4. Medical history? Too many CTs/x-rays.(see #3)
5. You paint,strip your own molding and stain it yourself. More carcinogens!
6. What did you have for dinner last night?
7. And so just how much alcohol do you and your spouse drink?
8. And your spouse uses a lawnmower AND a snow thrower?
9. Hair dye? Carcinogens!
10. Well Water? You drink well water?
I envision a universal checklist used by HR… an as in golf..the lower the number..the better.
11. You golf? Hmm risk factor for being hit with a 4 iron or golf ball to the head and subsequent head CT… gotta watch those sand traps…
I think it is wrong to discriminate because a SPOUSE does something. Does it matter if they smoke outside? Or is it about the health insurance.
I don’t want to live in a big government police state.
* I read that when in traffic-use your recirculate air to prevent inhaling the exhaust from the vehicles around you.
I’m a bit late on this one, but I do think that hospitals in particular have a better reason than most business for refusing to hire people who will reek of smoke. People can’t choose not to go there, and they can’t leave when they realize they are being cared for by someone whose miasma of smoke is making them feel worse. One of the less pleasant nights I’ve experienced was when I was admitted to a respiratory care unit following a severe asthma attack. The tech caring for me reeked of cigarette smoke. I don’t understand why people who are likely to be hypersensitive to smoke residue should be placed in that situation.
Um, isn’t “discrimination” treating someone differently based on something they can’t change? You can’t choose to be black, or a women, or (some would argue) gay. But you can choose to smoke. And yes, quitting may be hard, but it’s a lot easier than quitting being black …
Yes it does. Its not right because as long as it is not effecting the rate at which the worker works why should it be a problem. And if the companies are having such a big deal about it then they should offer an alternative option to not smoking. The companies are protecting themselves when they should be protecting the company and the workers. The workers are being discriminated against because they can say I am not going to hire you but I think that having an alternative option. But of course they won’t.
You anti-smokers are retards. You seem to have the impression that everyone would live forever if there were no smoking period. I wonder how many of you morons drive to fast, are fat, drink too much, are predisposed to contract terminal illnesses via heredity, etc. etc. etc.
Now I’m going to try and say this slowly so you idiots can comprehend it..
EVERYBODY LOSES WHEN RIGHTS ARE RESTICTED.
E V E R Y B O D Y ! !
The rights of non-smokers have been addressed with smoking bans in public places. Enough already you pint-sized Nazis..
I remember a time when insurance companies pushed to get laws on the books for minimum liability coverage on all automobiles prior to being registered. Ok, fine. still got uninsured motorists out there, but very few. Now it seems insurance companies are putting the pressure on companies by hiking the price of health insurance to the point where it’s nearly unaffordable. Then, seeing as how in most places the company pays at least half the rates for an employees health insurance, the insurance companies make them an offer that, if all their employees are smoke free, then they’ll cut them a huge break in insurance prices. Next thing you know they find a way to rid themselves of all employees that smoke. Health insurance prices go way down and i wonder if the company is still paying half and if so is the price they charge for the product or service they provide reduced? Or do they still charge the same and the owner(s) sticks the extra bucks in their pockets? Makes me wonder, who is really running this country? The government or the insurance companies?
Sooner or later we are going to witnessing a monumental war between the insurance comapnies and Big Tobacco. I wonder who will win.
Everybody in the world has stopped smoking. What do you see one year from now?
hmm where does the lost cigarette tax money (billions) come from now?
Who really cares, we are heading for the New World Order and everybody will
be controlled by the government. Enjoy what little freedoms you have now.
Not hiring me because i smoke and testing me for nicotine is to me on the same level as giving a woman a pregnancy test and denying her the job if she was pregnant. I can see an employer firing me if im going out for a smoke break every 30 minutes as many of my coworkers have been, but i dont do that and i use deodorant so not to offend anyone, why should i be denied a job. quite frankly however though some customers would be appalled at the smell of smoke im sure they would be even more offended by me without a cigarette for my 8 hour shift. also the us government hiked taxes for tobacco products TO GO TOWARDS HEALTHCARE. thus the insurance companies are getting money on my behalf as a smoker(This is the reason employers state that they wont hire me is because they have to pay an insurance premium)if they can’t ask your sexual orientation, what religion you are, etc they should not be able to discriminate against you because you choose a lifestyle that includes nicotine intake after all it’s not like it’s illegal!!!!
and a final note, there’s a new trend called the electronic cigarette that’s simply nicotine infused water that’s subsequently turned into a vapor, this removes all carcinogens and the 4,000+ chemicals in cigarettes and thus all health risks but ill still be turned down for using it based on health insurance that i wont be applying for
was discussing this with some friends and this seems to be the general thinking among us. mind you this isnt my writing but taken from a forum i frequent.
Right now, it seems employers are treating their employees – the ones they are always telling that they’re looking out for them – as expendable. They are dictating to employees all kind of things, including which chemicals they can put in their bodies. The antismoking thing they are attributing to the health insurance cost, but will not waive it if the employee is willing to waive the health insurance. Why is the health insurance carrier more important to the employer than the employee? Why can’t the employer tell the insurance carrier, “Nope, sorry, we are not going with any carrier that discriminates against nicotine addicts. That would not be fair to our employees.”? Why is it ok, at all, for an employer to test for ANYTHING that is not illegal? They are not testing to see if I have had alcohol in the past year – and far more costly hazards occur from its abuse. They are not testing to see what my blood sugar has been in the past three months (and I know this one is possible) to see if I am a diabetic on self-destruct. Maybe I should stop now, before I give them pricks any ideas. Why is the insurance carrier more important than the person who jumps through innumerable hoops every single day to remain their employee?
On a side note, there was a state that fined state employees(maybe it was a city/county I forget), they had to pay 25 a month or so if they smoked to cover the costs. It was allowed. They tried to then fine overweight people. Everyone went apeshit. this is a total load of crap in my eyes.
I would like to say that yes I am a smoker of cigarettes, I just started a job today which I was in for the interview last week, note: had several cigs on the way in to the interview, sprayed my spray on me, washed my hands and applied lotion before entering the interview, got the job on friday evening, started work their this morning, worked all day took my 1 hour lunch break, did spray, washed hands etc. Went back to work, took my assigned break in afternoon, outside smoked 1 cigarette, went into bathroom with soap, febreeze ritual, finished my day and was just excited. Got home after work, recvd.a phone call stating the employer had a problem with the smell of ME, and that either I not smoke before or during my breaks while in my vehicle and not on their premises and wait till after work.. HMMMM… I had to tell them to SHOVE IT.. I am a hard working mother, I dont drink, I dont drive fast, I never in my life would have ever dreamed that this would happen, I have been so upset and then my husband told me when he came home, forget it, you dont want to work for PEOPLE like that..
Not hiring or firing someone because they smoke is discrimination at its worst and a double standard at its best. When folks target any group for alienation or rejection it’s called discrimination. Companies are looking for young, healthy, traditional people so if you don’t easily fall into that category, say you’re a smoker, toker, fat, gay, atheist, disabled or a person of color, and over 40, or don’t watch football, you better have a solid plan of action or start your own business. It’s called being marginalized folks. But don’t worry – take your meds – because that’s okay!
I`m a 40 year old male, just finished a 25 year pack a day smoking habit. Haven`t had a smoke for 4 months and don`t intend to smoke ever again. But I have been a manager in my company for 10 years and have hired and fired for about the same. You cannot legally discriminate against a smoker. You can force distinct breaks with no exceptions and let them make their own bed, Most will fall into accordance but the few that don`t you have grounds for disipline. It usually takes a couple of verbal warnings and a written warning to validate a dismissal. Anyway,smoke `em if you got `em, you do have that right but if you are reading this be sensible at work. Productivity is always recognized.
Hey, Let’s not hire fat people because they eat to damn much and our insurance goes up because their health is bad.
what if i desided not to hire women because they could get pregnant and miss a year of work? or drinkers because if they come to work with a hang over their unprductive? or gays because aids cost a fortune to insure. or people who eat meat? or skinny people because their bone break easily? or people who talk on the cell phones to much? or people with kids, or fat people etc?
Let these companies dig their own grave! like L3 Communications did when they fired their best sr mechanics for smoking in their cars during break.
Worthless article. Does not offer any discrimination laws or acts that backs any information up. Opinion based.
[...] Does Refusing to Hire Smokers Amount to ‘Discrimination’?, in Emergency Physicians Monthly, 11 February 2010. [...]
Whats next,if you eat fastfood and drink soda they won’t hire you. How about drive a gss guzzling air poluter to commute, who is killing who here????
I don’t think it’s ok for employers to not hire smokers BUT I think it is well within their rights to deny the right to a smoke break or prohibit smoking on their property – which might then have the same effect as denying employment.
Things are getting really tough for smokers in the employment sector. A friend of mine who works in Respiratory was fired from a hospital after a 5 month job search, because she had nicotine in her system–what’s next using genetic testing to exclude job applicants???
I believe Clinton passed a law prohibiting genetic discrimination – though I would have to double check that. Anyways something genetic would be covered under Disablity Act since you can’t really change it.
No hiring or firing workers for smoking is quite legal, maybe not ethical, but clearly within employers rights