Should employers be allowed to ban from employment those who smoke cigarettes off- duty?

[Douglas Carpenter]

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[liberalhistorian]

7. I may hate smoking, but it is SO NOT

an employer's business what people do in their OFF HOURS AWAY FROM THEIR JOBS. Period. Despite the growing attempts of employers to police every aspect of our lives, which I call creeping corporate totalitarianism.

Drinkers are not a "protected class." Should employers be permitted to refuse to hire people because they drink OFF the job? I think not. And if they were, no one would have a job.

[Warpy]

28. Same here. Smoking is a legal stupidity.

Employers who still have pension plans should be thrilled to hire smokers, they don't live as long as non smokers do.

While employers might want smokers to choose an alternative for hours on the job so they're not eating up time with frequent smoke breaks, they have absolutely nothing to say about the time the employee is off the clock.

Fuck those fascists and the health insurance pony they rode in on.

[Lucinda]

9. Two out of two threads I've opened today seem to indicate

that you are out of sorts. Hope it gets better soon.

[taterguy]

21. Thanks for the diagnosis

:eyes:

[Bladian]

23. They were trying to be sympathetic.

Quit being a jackass.

[taterguy]

24. And what are you trying to be?

Well?

[Bladian]

29. Not sympathetic.

You're jumping all over someone who was trying to be kind. I've seen that happen to people way too many times, and I don't like it. I'm sorry for sounding mean, I don't intend it.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

2. This is a non-issue with single-payer systems.

Employers in our system feel compelled to save money by not employing (and thus not providing health insurance to) smokers. If the government got the burden of health insurance off their back, then employers could deal with other matters, like, I don't know, running their business?

[area51]

50. This is what I've been wondering.

It seems to be unlikely to happen in a first-world country where health care is a basic human right. I wonder if any Canadians or Brits could chime in if they've run across companies in their country which won't hire smokers.

[Freddie Stubbs]

66. Smokers have a higher rate of absenteeism

That costs employers more money.

[bemildred]

3. It's none of their business what employees do off duty.

Unless it has some demonstrable pernicious effect on what happens on duty, and even then it is no slam dunk.

[gateley]

4. No. nt

[tsuki]

5. And I feel the same about marijuana. nt

[Poll_Blind]

8. +1

PB

[Tuesday Afternoon]

73. +1

:smoke:

[LynneSin]

10. Off duty I don't think it's anyone's business

I just think during duty - no one wants to smell a stinky smoker. And smokers do stink something fierce and even that smell can screw up people's allergies.

BTW, I also thing perfume should be banned during work hours along with any other heavy cologne

[Xithras]

11. Depends. Who'se paying for the health insurance?

If it's a group plan, then smokers raise the cost not only for the employers, but also for their fellow employees who have to shoulder the higher premiums caused by the poorer health of their smoking co-workers.

Though, personally, I'd like to see that changed so that people who have elective health problems are forced to pay for 100% of the cost of the increased premiums that their tobacco use costs the group.

[etherealtruth]

25. What about other behaviors?

As an adult I've broken my leg twice engaging in sports related activities .... should my employer be able to insist I curtail my participation (especially since I seem to be injury prone)?

A friend is asthmatic ... yet she insists on having pets(their dander seems to increase her asthmatic episodes) .... she's missed a great deal of work and heavily utilized her benefits) .... should her employer be able to dictate her behavior.

Group rates are often heavily influenced by the age of the group being served .... a staff of women of child bearing age could have a deleterious impact on premiums.

In many studies obesity costs often out pace the costs associated with smoking ... should the obese pay higher premiums as well?

I'm not a fan of smoking,; however, it is legal.

[TheKentuckian]

67. They are, benefits are part of compensation.

[dmallind]

12. Employment? No. Insurance? Yes. nt

[demosincebirth]

13. If they're paying for health care insurance, yes

[sabrina 1]

41. How about ice-skating? I skate, have been injured, should an

employer be able to order me to quit?

Tennis? Drinking? How about driving? Or flying? Maybe that's why the Chinese slave labor factories keep those people locked up most of the day, to make sure their slaves don't injure themselves::eyes:

You know what I think, I don't think this country is ready for freedom and democracy. Just ban everything, then we'll all be safe from harm.

[demosincebirth]

45. Sure, why not. nt

[mmonk]

14. They can. Should they? No. Not unless the same applies to management.

This is behavior modification, not job performance related.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. No.

[HockeyMom]

16. Overweight, over 40, disabilities, women of childbearing age,

people with pre-existing conditions, etc. THESE people cost money too. Maybe they should only employ young, male, strong, Aryan, blue eyed, blondes?

[bemildred]

17. It's a slippery slope, and insurance companies love it.

And not only that, but it gets us to argue with each other instead of being mad about their continuing demands for more money.

[customerserviceguy]

26. Well put

Divide and conquer. I remember how the auto insurance industry spent megabucks against an Oregon initiative campaign that would have forbidden the use of credit scores in setting car insurance rates. By the way, the bad guys won.

[frazzled]

18. +1 (Where does it all end)

There is no bright line here.

[saras]

19. You said it. Business exists to serve people, not the other way around.

The cost of having human beings for workers, managers, customers, suppliers, etc. is that the entire environment has to be suitable for human beings, not just corporate profit.

And human beings are sloppy, imperfect, difficult-to-manage things, who generally have a strong sense of what's good for them in the short term (if not, admittedly, the long term). I think it's contingent on the business world to adapt to this, and to stay the hell out of behavior modification with the idea of creating "better employees". They sure the hell get upset when people start organizing to perform behavior modification on corporations with the intent of creating better citizens.

[etherealtruth]

20. To those that voted "yes"

... I assume you would think that employers have the right to ban other LEGAL activities engaged in while not at work.

Employers ban those that drink alcohol (off duty) ... ?

Employers ban those that {insert any other legal activity} .... ?

[customerserviceguy]

27. I voted no, but

I like a good craft beer, fairly often. However, even though my time before work and during breaks is "my own", I really wouldn't expect my employer to be terribly happy if I came in smelling like even good beer, from utilizing that time to quaff a pint. It's like that with tobacco smoke sometimes.

[loyalsister]

22. I wish that had been the case at the salon where I USED to get my hair cut

If you're talking off- duty as in not at work- I say no.
If you're talking off duty as in on breaks it's another. If I own a business and an employee smells so bad that they discourage patronage I think the employer has a right to ask them to refrain during breaks. It just cost one employer I know a customer.
Would an employer be allowed to ask an employee to take a shower if they stink the place up? If said employee says no to this voluntary behavior should the employer really have no choice but to put up with it and ask customers to suffer it out?

[Lucian]

30. I would never work for a company that told me how I should act ouside of work.

Including what I can and can't do.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. Which brings us back to one of the core logic points of having a single payer insurance pool for all

because yes, people make detrimental choices pertaining to their own health, and yes, it's valid to try to help them make better choices if they are so inclined, and yes, it's ALSO legitimate for government to get increased revenue from products, etc. with proven negative health consequences (i.e. taxes on cigarettes, booze, motorcycle licenses, etc)

but the bottom line is, everyone does things other people might not want them to do or might not want to pay for if they incur health consequences. Some people smoke. Some people have sex with multiple partners. Some people mountain climb, hang glide, or ride motorcycles. Some people eat shitty food, etc.

[Initech]

32. No - what people do on their own time is their own damn business.

[metalbot]

63. The flip side of that is that who private employers hire should also be their own business, right?

We have protected groups against whom you cannot discriminate based on membership in those groups. Outside of that, a private employer should be able to hire who they want, with whatever attributes they want.

[Zorra]

33. No. But smoking is bad for children.

And I don't think employers should be allowed to drug test anyone either.

[Douglas Carpenter]

54. I 1000% totally agree

[dmallind]

34. For those fans of the tiresome and false obesity and drinking distractors.

21% of the population smoke. It causes 435000 deaths annually.

65% drink alcohol - 52% regularly. To be equal then it should cause at least 435000*51/21 or 1.06m deaths. It causes 35,000. It is then about 1/30th as harmful.

34% are obese. The CDC retracted its blatantly false 363000 estimate a few months after publishing it and now avoid this datum like the plague. They sort of swag 100k. To be as dangerous as smoking it would have to cause 435000*34/21 or 705000 deaths so it's at most 1/7 as harmful

The closest I can see is this set of tables which shows a BENEFIT in being overweight and either a benefit or a slight increased risk in being obese, depending on age and baseline health. And a MASSIVE increased risk in being underweight, even for nonsmokers.


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/excess_deaths/excess_deaths.htm

Oh and nobody EVER died from second hand alcohol or obesity in and of themselves.

So not really a good comparison.

All data CDC.

[etherealtruth]

37. The equivalency comes in with insurance costs associated with each

I do not think the obese should be discriminated against, nor do I think anyone engaged in a legal activity should be discriminated against.

The obese tend to have higher rates of heart disease, some cancers, higher rates of post surgical complications and joint problems ... to name a few issues that effect medical care.

Being obese is not illegal and its not a "character" flaw ...neither is addiction. I don't think an employer has a say in either, as long as the behaviors are legal.

If something like this is allowed to stand ... becomes acceptable I fervently believe the same kind of assault on the obese is right around the corner.

I'm not obese (or over weight) and I'm not a smoker (I am a caffeine addict)... but I don't think an employer has any say in legal activities engaged in while employees are not working.

[sabrina 1]

42. No one ever died from second hand alcohol?

More people probably died from alcohol related accidents and abuse than from alcohol itself. Alcohol affects one in every six Americans, directly and harmfully. There is no scientific evidence of anyone dying of second hand smoke. And don't bother with the usual links, I've seen them all and it would just be the usual tit for tat. I have other links from other scientists to counter them with, equally credible.

I do not know a single person who has died from second hand smoke and have never heard of anyone doing so. But I know plenty of people who have died from alcohol, liver desease among other things, and from alcohol related accidents. Many murders are committed under the influence of alcohol also. Bosses should therefore not hire anyone who drinks, they can be violent. :sarcasm: just in case.

Talk about the nanny state! So long as someone does their job, when they leave work, their life is their own. In a free society of course. But then when I read posts like I'm seeing here, I wonder how free people are here.

[hunter]

43. I've been hospitalized for second hand smoke...

Not recently because modern asthma meds are much more effective than those I used to take, and I avoid second hand smoke.

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. I was hospitalized almost went into respiratory failure from second hand cat ownership

I'm an asthmatic too. But I have frankly not found second-hand cigarette smoke to be a significant trigger at all. There is no question that cat dander is a far, far stronger asthmatic antigen than second-hand cigarette smoke. I have known people who kept cats and wouldn't even consider getting rid of them even though it was obvious that their cats were making themselves or even their own children very, very sick.

[dmallind]

57. I even did the "in and of themselves" rather than the Latin "per se" to help you out

Alcohol + driving and alcohol + violence hurt people, but neither driving nor violence are prerequisites that always attend alcohol consumption. Until we can find a way to stop smokers exhaling and to capture smoke from cigarettes, ETS will be, unlike the above, unavoidable and necessary components of smoking.

I see you are also a fan of the "anecdote" school of argument. Anecdotes do not equal data, but given that 55000 peeople die from second-hand smoke annually you are either very young, very insular, or very wrong even from an anecdotal perspective.

[SOS]

59. Alcohol deaths are grossly underreported

These numbers are based on death certificate data, which drastically underreports death by alcohol.

ALCOHOL-RELATED DEATHS SEEN UNDERREPORTED

Researchers studying the deaths of 450 young Army veterans found that almost a third were alcohol-related, six times as many as were reflected on death certificates.
The study, reported in the current Journal of the American Medical Association, ''illustrates the important role alcohol plays in premature death and indicates the extent to which alcohol's role is underestimated if you use official cause-of-death data,'' said Dr. Daniel J. Pollock, who led researchers at the national Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/21/science/alcohol-related-deaths-seen-underreported.html

http://teachnet.edb.utexas.edu/~lynda_abbott/cme3_2_24d.html

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00021137.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3381794

[SOS]

60. CDC

says 79,000 dead annually from alcohol, not 35,000.
Extrapolating from the Army research this number is underreported by a factor of 6.
The real alcohol death number is around 480,000.

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/

[dmallind]

70. I suspect that includes drunk driving/violence too - here is anotheer CDC link

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

In this case only direct alcohol deaths are relevant, as anyone who has DUI or violence convictions can be and often are barred from employment , and in any event such actions are not necessary parts of drinking. You can drink and not drive or fight. You cannot smoke without emitting smoke.

And a (tiny) sample of a demographic far more prone than the norm to heavy drinking and dangerous behavior is not an appropriate one to extrapolate total deaths. I think the CDC knows better than either of us here.

It's worth noting that even in your fantasy scenario, the impact of alcohol would STILL be way under that of smoking - under half even - as far more drink than smoke. So even in that silly stretch, you make my point that they are not comparable.

[louslobbs]

35. Nope. n/t

Lou

[Tesha]

36. Depends on the job.

In semiconductor fabs ("chip" manufacturing plants),
a smoker continues to exhale easily-detectable par-
ticulate matter for a long time (hours) after their
last cigarette and that particulate matter screws up
the clean rooms and the chips.

So yes, they should be able to not hire smokers.

For routine office jobs, it doesn't matter.

Tesha

[War Horse]

38. People vote yes to this - even OFF DUTY?

ON duty is not enough anymore?

God I need a smoke to even begin to to digest this kind of lack of empathy. Talk about viewing people as non entities - this is depressing.

And yes, I know I should quit, and I will. Just to get that out of the way.

[The Straight Story]

40. Because some people only care about some rights, facist when it is something they don't like (nt)

[Shagbark Hickory]

62. If you need a smoke just reading this, imagine how many smokes people need in stressful professions.

If they can't get through the day or even think straight because they're addicted to nicotine, how does that not effect job performance?

[Marnie]

39. On what specific grouds are the smokers banned? And

if employers can ban them who else can the refuse to hire on, presumably, heath insurance grounds.
Older employees, males under 25, Blacks ( more prone to high blood pressure), over weight but not necessarily obese, anyone with a preexisting condition of any kind like type I diabetes, childhood onset diabetes?

[Donnachaidh]

44. are you fucking kidding me with this post of nanny state handwringing bullshit?

Honestly -- wtf?

Some people just never got to wear the hall monitor badge in grade school, huh? :sarcasm:

[Douglas Carpenter]

48. that must be it..We need to issue some people the hall monitor badge so they can work out their

impulse to tell people what to do.

[Odin2005]

46. Companies should have no right to interfere in people's private lives, period.

[HappyMe]

47. Hell no. nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

49. Smokers stink even when they are not smoking.

I can smell them from several feet away.
And smoking is NOT analagous to eating garlic.

Garlic eaters do not reek stinky smells from every single pore.

[B Calm]

51. Who are the 17 fascists who think employers own you?

[Shagbark Hickory]

61. Well if you go calling them fascists, don't be too surprised when they don't reply. nT

[B Calm]

69. I call it like I see it.

[Shagbark Hickory]

71. Ok. N/T

[Capitalocracy]

52. I passionately hate cigarettes. They are disgusting.

But no, they shouldn't. And I understand some of the arguments, like oh, that makes company health care more expensive. Well, we should have single payer. I know we don't, but we should. And a tobacco addiction shouldn't be a factor in choosing employees.

[Vinca]

53. If I owned a business with close customer contact, I would prefer

a nonsmoking employee. Smokers often don't realize they reek . . . sorry, truth hurts . . . and it puts off people.

[-..__...]

55. Why not prohibit employess from engaging in ANY "risky" activities.

if the argument is about health insurance costs?

No motorcycles, skiing, contact sports, jet skis, bicycling, etc.

It's not an uncommon or unheard of practice... movie studios and sports teams regularly put these kind of clauses in contracts.

Even though it's for a different reason (protecting their investments), the bottom line is about $$$$.

Think of the hospital, doctors visits, treatment, care that could be spared by banning employees from those as well.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. Exactly!! If an employer does not have the right to tell their employees what they can do outside of

work, then what rights do they have?

[truebrit71]

58. Nope. Just like they shouldn't be able to dictate what I eat or drink...

..I have been completely nicotine-free for almost 15 months now after 30+ years, and despise the very smell of smoke, but if you wish to kill yourself in your own time, knock yourself out...

[Liberal_in_LA]

64. nope.

[Romulox]

65. Absolutely. I think they should test every employee's urine or hair for nicotine.

:hi:

[Shagbark Hickory]

72. It really should be easy to do. Just bring in someone who's allergic to smoke