smoke-free hiring

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

As an employer, I will say that I will NEVER hire a smoker again. I used to have three. Now I have two. Soon i suspect it will be one.

I only have a ten person sample, so its not statistically significant, but my smokers take dramatically more sick days than my non-smokers. They take more breaks and they waste significantly more time during the day.

I never cared before, which is why I hired them. I don't much care about the medical costs. Nonsmokers are more productive.

As a private employer, how is it not my right to say that? If its not a protected class, I can restrict my labour pool any way I want. If I ONLY wanted to hire left-handed rockclimbing teetotaling skydivers with long hair, that's my business. If I can't find any, that's my problem.

I'm curious whether you ask job candidates point-blank whether they're smokers. Not knowing how you felt, they might not cover it up. But if they did know in advance, they could conceivably cover it up long enough to get the job.

Re: sick days, if they're salaried, you can always set (i.e., lower) the maximum number of paid sick days per year, for everyone, to a number you can live with. This obviously applies less if they're hourly workers who will simply lose wages anyway if they take a sick day.

Re: breaks & productivity, you can do what many other employers already do: enforce a strict policy that, except for regularly-scheduled break periods and meal periods, employees are not permitted to take unscheduled "mini-breaks" to smoke, and have a strict no-smoking policy on premises, both indoors and outdoors. (Of course, if some employees do their work off of company premises, this is less effective.)

I think you're probably right that smokers are not a protected class, at least under US Federal law (I don't know about the state law wherever your business is located). And yes, my understanding is that, as long as it doesn't run afoul of any Federal or state anti-discrimination (or other) laws, you can limit your hiring pool however you see fit.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

But that's not the situation. All new smoking employees are being hired at 95%.

+/- 5% is very small compared to what is normally considered a "Fair" range for equivalent work within a same pay grade. - complaints for a 5% difference in pay for the same job (as a starting salary even) would be laughed at.

this difference in pay would need to be a bit more than that (for higher paying jobs) to provide motivation for someone to give up such a disgusting addiction

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Pendejo 0]

Quote

Quote

But that's not the situation. All new smoking employees are being hired at 95%. The rest are being paid the full rate. Review that note about women and minorities again.

Perhaps in your scenario, but not in the one I proposed.

In the one I proposed, all new hires are hired at 95%, and all new hires are eligible receive healthy lifestyle bonuses if they qualify (i.e. meet healthy lifestyle requirements). Employees would be able to choose whether or not to seek those bonuses. It's positive incentive, not negative incentive. Of course, optimumly, the unearned bonus monies would be spent covering extra costs due to unhealthy lifestyles, and, hopefully, meaningful education/opportunities to adopt more healthy lifestyles.

Nice misdirect about women and minorities. Women are born women, transsexuals notwithstanding, and minorities are typically born minorities. That's completely different from choosing to be a smoker, meat eater, etc.

In your scenario the winner is big business. If the entire labor force took a pay cut of 5%, then, those companies gave the bonus’ to only those who met the “companies” criteria, that would mean that a large percentage of the income that was paid out would be kept by the company.

Even if 80% of the people in the work force woke up tomorrow and changed their life style to live what is deemed a “healthy lifestyle” that would mean that 20 percent took a 5% pay cut.

Then, just like in the other examples I have given, we get to argue about who decides what constitutes a healthy life style. Considering that for the most part they can’t decide what is actually good for you (depending on what week you ask them about) I think that would certainly be an interesting conversation to sit in on.

You say I am trying to make it look like a bigger mess than it really would be, but I think you are underestimating peoples power to attempt to work around and abuse a system like what you are purposing. Thats why freedom is what I prefer.

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

My personal experience is: many of the vegetarians that I know get ill frequently & have low energy levels compared to the norm. I believe that humans have evolved to be omnivores, not strict herbivores. Just my experience.

Humbug!!..or at least those you know are far different than the many, many that I do. Most vegetariarians don't just cut out animal flesh without compensating; they carefully and diligently compensate with alternative protein sources that are very abundant and easily obtainable, as well as plenty of vitamin and mineral supplements. They tend to be very healthy. The myth that vegetarians are typically under-protein-nourished, sickly and comparatively lacking in energy is just that - a myth.

[Pendejo 0]

Quote

Quote

But that's not the situation. All new smoking employees are being hired at 95%.

+/- 5% is very small compared to what is normally considered a "Fair" range for equivalent work within a same pay grade. - complaints for a 5% difference in pay for the same job (as a starting salary even) would be laughed at.

this difference in pay would need to be a bit more than that (for higher paying jobs) to provide motivation for someone to give up such a disgusting addiction

So then if they hire all their women employees at 5% less you think it would be laughed at? Wow.... Thats all I can say about that kind of comment... Just wow....

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If the entire labor force took a pay cut of 5%, then, those companies gave the bonus’ to only those who met the “companies” criteria, that would mean that a large percentage of the income that was paid out would be kept by the company.

As I said, the funds would optimally be used by the company to cover additional casts associated with smoking and other unhealthy lifestyles, as well as to fund meaningful education/opportunities to adopt healthier lifestyles.

Quote

You say I am trying to make it look like a bigger mess than it really would be, but I think you are underestimating peoples power to attempt to work around and abuse a system like what you are purposing. Thats why freedom is what I prefer.

This proposal is freedom. Smokers could choose to take the job or not. They could choose to quit smoking or not. It sounds like, by freedom, you mean the ability to to have costs of their smoking subsidized.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

this difference in pay would need to be a bit more than that (for higher paying jobs) to provide motivation for someone to give up such a disgusting addiction

You might be right. I just pulled 5% out of the air for the sake of this discussion.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Humbug!!..or at least those you know are far different than the many, many that I do. Most vegetariarians don't just cut out animal flesh without compensating; they carefully and diligently compensate with alternative protein sources that are very abundant and easily obtainable, as well as plenty of vitamin and mineral supplements. They tend to be very healthy. The myth that vegetarians are typically under-protein-nourished, sickly and comparatively lacking in energy is just that - a myth.

It's not a myth, just a slight exaggeration. The Bay Area is full of examples.

You're correct- it's quite possible to have a complete diet without animal flesh. But it's certainly more difficult (I have no idea how they manage it outside of the granola regions), and I can't accept the assertion that all vegetarians are careful nutritionists when the bulk of society won't even read product labels. Half of the 'meat is murder' crowd are parroting idiots.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Nice misdirect about women and minorities. Women are born women, transsexuals notwithstanding, and minorities are typically born minorities. That's completely different from choosing to be a smoker, meat eater, etc.

No, smokers have a health problem - an addition to nicotine. You're supposed to help them, not dicriminate against them.

This should be straight out of the liberal handbook, but for some reason smokers don't get the same nuturing care as druggies or criminals. It really quite odd, actually. Its' the same sort of reaction the conservatives have to people getting off on porn or hookers. How dare they engage in sinful fun!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Maybe you can explain how giving people a lower starting salary isn't taking away from them.

are you kidding? the words "starting salary" clearly explain it

because they can turn down the job offer and apply elsewhere

You can dress it up as you like, but it still comes down to salary discrimination. The indirection doesn't change that, and if they were a protected class, it would be just as illegal. The end result is all that matters.

Landlords try similar games with rent control - say the rent is 2200, but discount it 200 for the first year. Sorry, doesn't work that way. If the rent is 2000, it stays at 2000.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

No, smokers have a health problem - an addition to nicotine. You're supposed to help them, not dicriminate against them.

Agreed. You must have missed the part where I wrote about using the unearned bonus money to cover additional casts due to unhealthy lifestyles and provide meaningful education/opportunities to adopt healthier lifestyles. One obvious offering would be tobacco cessation programs.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[happythoughts 0]

The main parts of this that I find interesting are:

1- Some group has defined themselves as the people who should control the choices of others.

Smoking is a choice. Not a healthy one. So? It is legal. Who said that these people control my personal life? One of my neighbors belongs to a church that prohibits tobacco, alcohol, and dancing.

2- The same reasons can be applied to other choices.

People should not bitch when the nanny-state starts controlling the other choices also.

Obesity - a major health damaging choice.
Weight limits? BMI limits? Cholesterol screenings?

Alcohol - nuff said.
What if every state government job did not allow private alcohol consumption?
All of the same arguments being used against tobacco can be applied to alcohol to a factor of 10.

3- The "there are other jobs" statements.
This article was about all of Escambia County.

I have been thinking about becoming a qualified city manager. Then I can't work in my own county, even though I am not doing anything illegal?

There is only one "government". If you work in government jobs, you can't go work for the alternative government. It is a monopoly.

4- Financial penalties.

Of course, women should be paid 12% less to cover the cost of breast cancer. Why should men be paying elevated health care costs for an issue that involves women 95% of the time?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Smoking is a choice. Not a healthy one. So? It is legal. Who said that these people control my personal life?

No one. If you want to smoke, smoke. It's your choice. We are all both limited and empowered by the choices we make. Personally, I've worked for employers who only hired tobacco users and employers who rarely (if ever) knowingly hired tobacco users. The former didn't want the hassle of a smoke free workplace. The latter found smoking unappealing, and even went so far as to offer some regular customers who smoked $1000 if they could quit smoking for six months.

Quote

People should not bitch when the nanny-state starts controlling the other choices also.

They are not controlling your choice to smoke. They don't even appear to be controlling their employees' choice to smoke or not. They are simply exercising their right to choose new hires who can statistically be expected to represent lower costs to taxpayers and other county employees.

The way the article reads, you can even choose to give up smoking long enough to pass the employment screening, then choose to resume smoking, without penalty.

The assertion that the new policy limits choice is absurd. It may create a new consequence of a choice, but the choice is still the individual's to make.

Quote

Obesity - a major health damaging choice.

Usually a result of lifestyle choices.

Quote

Weight limits? BMI limits? Cholesterol screenings?

It is not unheard of for employers to incorporate a physical examination as part of the screening process. New hire training represents a significant cost; some employers choose to be very selective about how that money is invested.

Quote

All of the same arguments being used against tobacco can be applied to alcohol to a factor of 10.

Very doubtful.

Quote

3- The "there are other jobs" statements.
This article was about all of Escambia County.

I have been thinking about becoming a qualified city manager. Then I can't work in my own county, even though I am not doing anything illegal?

Appearance is also often a consideration in the hiring process, yet there are very few laws regarding personal appearance. Most are limited to requiring genitals, and, in some cases, female nipples to be covered.

Quote

There is only one "government".

Nonsense. There's municipal governments, county governments, state/provincial governments, federal/national governments, even international governments.

Quote

If you work in government jobs, you can't go work for the alternative government.

Why not?

Quote

Of course, women should be paid 12% less to cover the cost of breast cancer. Why should men be paying elevated health care costs for an issue that involves women 95% of the time?

Did you forget prostate cancer? Some diseases affect one gender more often than the other. It's a fact of life. Typically, people are born into their gender. Women can't decide to be men in order to avoid breast cancer. Smokers can quit smoking in order to reduce their chances of getting smoking related illnesses.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

It's not a myth, just a slight exaggeration. The Bay Area is full of examples.

You're correct- it's quite possible to have a complete diet without animal flesh. But it's certainly more difficult (I have no idea how they manage it outside of the granola regions)

Without getting into it at length, it's really not very difficult at all.

Quote

I can't accept the assertion that all vegetarians are careful nutritionists when the bulk of society won't even read product labels.

Not "all", but most, especially after they've been at it awhile, and have learned the routine.

Quote

Half of the 'meat is murder' crowd are parroting idiots.

I'll ignore the cruel slander against parrots. In any event, if one is an idiot, and parrots wisdom, one is still speaking wisdom.

Quote

This should be straight out of the liberal handbook,

You mean this one?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'll ignore the cruel slander against parrots. In any event, if one is an idiot, and parrots wisdom, one is still speaking wisdom.

We got idiots who have been siting in an Oak tree in Berkeley for 20 months. They're probably killing it with their presence, but they don't want the university to bulldoze it.

What's the difference between killing a brainless cow, or a bunch of plants?

Argue the energy differential, or the health angle, but the notion that animals shouldn't be killed - no credence here.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I'll ignore the cruel slander against parrots. In any event, if one is an idiot, and parrots wisdom, one is still speaking wisdom.

We got idiots who have been siting in an Oak tree in Berkeley for 20 months. They're probably killing it with their presence, but they don't want the university to bulldoze it.

What's the difference between killing a brainless cow, or a bunch of plants?

Argue the energy differential, or the health angle, but the notion that animals shouldn't be killed - no credence here.

Too much thread drift.
And don't call me a cretin.

[kelpdiver 2]

SC regulars don't get to complain about thread drift. Only visitors, and they will be mocked for it.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

SC regulars don't get to complain about thread drift. Only visitors, and they will be mocked for it.

We're supposed to complain about visitors?

Are the new owners aware of this policy?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

This should be straight out of the liberal handbook, but for some reason smokers don't get the same nuturing care as druggies or criminals.

???
I've got an impression that every hospital in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties run some sort of free "quit smoking" program.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So then if they hire all their women employees at 5% less you think it would be laughed at? Wow.... Thats all I can say about that kind of comment... Just wow....

did you pat yourself on the back and call your mom to tell her about your cleverness?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Pendejo 0]

Quote

Quote

So then if they hire all their women employees at 5% less you think it would be laughed at? Wow.... Thats all I can say about that kind of comment... Just wow....

did you pat yourself on the back and call your mom to tell her about your cleverness?

Nope, I prefer instead to have fun with people who make statements without thinking them through.

In general, I certainly agree that smoking is a bad I idea and does nothing good for a person. In general I also think that there are lots of other things that people do which are a bad idea and do nothing good for them. What I do not agree with, is anyone deciding what a person can or can not do in the privacy of their own home (so long as that activity is legal). And thats really what is being done in the situation.

It’s a shame that we as a society allow our dislike of a group of people to cloud our judgement regarding discrimination. Because in truth, this is discrimination. The hiring practice is flawed to the core as stated by one of the other posters. The fact that a person can stop long enough to get the job and then start using tobacco products again without any fear of retribution, is the best example I have seen thus far.

For me, it isn’t so much about the actual policy about smokers. Its where that policy can lead to later. As I said in another post in this thread, when they start down the path of taking things, rarely do they just stop with the one thing they are taking today. Sometimes it takes a long time before the additional freedoms are taken (all in the name of protecting me from myself), but after the precedent is set its just a matter of time.

By the way, the insurance excuse is nothing more than another ploy by an insurance company wishing to limit their exposure (which is confusing about them being able to start again without issue don't you think?). In todays climate of universal health care I find it comical that some would support such a thought. Given that line of thinking, would then the universal healthcare system be for all who do not use tobacco? But then I guess I am just making this more messy than it really is, cause you know... Using your brain to think a subject all the way through is just messy lol

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[rehmwa 2]

See? that was much better.

the slippery slope canned response is a much more valid argument and open to discussion than the "you're unenlightened and I know better" canned response

but combining the two? pure genius

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants