No longer hiring smokers. Do you support such restrictions?

[Low Hanging Fruit]

What is your business ?

Electrical Engineering firm is the business I work for.

[Thekri]

Well "No smoking on company time or property" is different then "No Smokers period". I am fine with the former, not the latter. My company for instance doesn't allow any smoking anywhere on the facility, which makes obvious sense because we have giant tanks of oxygen, natural gas, and toxic chemicals sitting everywhere. So you can get fired if they find a cigarette on your person on site, because it is a spark hazard. This naturally leads to hiring almost exclusively non-smokers, since they can't smoke during the workday.

However straight up banning smokers from employment to keep medical costs seems wrong. If it is a legal substance, they should be able to consume it on their own time, as long as it doesn't have effects on their work. It is the same as alcohol. Obviously you can't drink at work, and you can't show up to work drunk, but it is none of their business if you drink when you aren't on the clock.

[Ghostpanther]

Their company, their rules. Which do not violate any Constitution rights or laws that I am aware of. People who do not like it, are always welcome to work someplace else.

[Flarelaine]

Well "No smoking on company time or property" is different then "No Smokers period".

True, but in practice... smokers can't not smoke for 8 hours.

[ghotihook]

The company I work for is a Tobacco Free campus. They will still hire you if you use tobacco, but you can't use any tobacco while you're on the work premises. However you can smoke in your car (which seems silly to me cause you're still on campus). They also give about a $20/month discount on health insurance to non-tobacco users.

[tankbug]

Don't think I would hire a Smoker. They're fanatical, violent, greedy, short-sighted psychopaths.

[unbound]

According to many sources, starting Feburary 1st, Uhaul will no longer hire smokers in 21 states. Do you think this type of cherry picking should even be allowed? Only 21 states allow this, but it still seems too far to me. I don't smoke, but I don't believe a company should have any say in what someone does in their personal life's. Especially when it doesn't impact them on the job.

Do you believe such restrictions should be allowed? Or is this going too far when trying to force your employees to do what you want them to?

Unfortunately there is more to the story than that. Similar to how some companies have rules regarding dress and personal hygiene, smoking has similar impacts to the company's presentation. Most people don't smoke anymore (about 14%) in the US, and when you don't smoke, running into someone who smokes regularly is a big put off....it is a strong stench that people don't want to deal with anymore.

My mother used to smoke and called us liars when we told her how sick it made us feel and how bad it smelled. When she quit, after about 3 months, she finally realized the truth of the matter. Smoking clings to clothes and a lot of other things (it was rather disgusting when I replaced the light fixture in my father-in-laws room with 30+ years of smoking).

So U-Haul is probably looking at a negative impact to their business with smokers on premise. And if you think corporations care more about people than money, I have some nice bridges for sale around the country...

[Daedius]

I'm fine with that. Smokers that reek of cigarettes are beyond disgusting to work with, and are a nuisance pestering to go on smoke breaks.

[IlikeDemonHunters]

Whilst I agree that smoking is a terrible habit and it is about time it was de-legalised (only isn't because of tax take) . Where do you draw the line? No ugly people? because who doesn't prefer being greeted by a 'pretty face'. What about no 'fat' people. People who drive ICE cars (looks bad on the green image of the company) . Smoking is an easy one to target but it is a slippery slope if we allow employers to dictate to us rules on a legal lifestyle and image (most of us work to live as it is and the balance has gone far to towards the employer.) UK pov btw I know you US posters view this stuff a bit differently.

[ghotihook]

Unfortunately there is more to the story than that. Similar to how some companies have rules regarding dress and personal hygiene, smoking has similar impacts to the company's presentation. Most people don't smoke anymore (about 14%) in the US, and when you don't smoke, running into someone who smokes regularly is a big put off....it is a strong stench that people don't want to deal with anymore.

My mother used to smoke and called us liars when we told her how sick it made us feel and how bad it smelled. When she quit, after about 3 months, she finally realized the truth of the matter. Smoking clings to clothes and a lot of other things (it was rather disgusting when I replaced the light fixture in my father-in-laws room with 30+ years of smoking).

So U-Haul is probably looking at a negative impact to their business with smokers on premise. And if you think corporations care more about people than money, I have some nice bridges for sale around the country...

That sounds nice, but I think it's much more likely due to insurance than a good image. I know that's why the company I work for is tobacco free. The only person anyone deals with are the truck delivery drivers. I doubt that's the reason they are banning it.

[Daedius]

I'm perfectly fine with that and I hope more companies follow Uhaul's lead.

I'd love to see an America without cigarette smokers in it honestly and I say this as somebody who smoked cigarettes for almost 10 years

But it's the American thing!

[Themius]

29 states prohibit employment discrimination of smokers.
Only 21 prohibit employment discrimination of homosexuals.

That was true a few years ago in the past four years more states have added protections so now LGBT have some level of protection in 33 states.

However if we deduct the ones who only say you’re protected if you work for the public, then... it becomes 26 states where you’re safe in employment. (Including dc)

Smokers have protections in 30 states (including dc)

- - - Updated - - -

But it's the American thing!

When I think of what a smoker looks like. I think Chinese.

The smoking rate in China is astronomically high compared to most nations.

About a third of the population smokes. Over half, 52.9% of men, in China smoke which is just way high.

[Hellobolis]

straight up not hiring because you smoke seems bad. just have people to a physical fitness test before you hire them if that's the issue.

not offering smoke breaks on the other hand i'm perfectly okay with.

[Daedius]

When I think of what a smoker looks like. I think Chinese.

The smoking rate in China is astronomically high compared to most nations.

About a third of the population smokes. Over half, 52.9% of men, in China smoke which is just way high.

I hope you ain't imagining the Chinese of the 1800s smoking.

A common pose;

[Sunseeker]

This being said, I think it's entirely retarded because who the fuck cares what their employees do in their private time?

Largely because they stink. And their stink rubs off on everything they touch, meaning the vehicles that other people rent often stink. To top it off, few smokers (IME) keep their smoking to "private time", they're constantly stepping out for a smoke and constantly coming back in reeking.

[Hellobolis]

Largely because they stink. And their stink rubs off on everything they touch, meaning the vehicles that other people rent often stink. To top it off, few smokers (IME) keep their smoking to "private time", they're constantly stepping out for a smoke and constantly coming back in reeking.

Kinda reads like they can only do this because cultural attitude towards smoking has shifted. cause i'm guessing it was just as legal 10-20 years ago as it is today.

Have a feeling if they tried to do this with e.g. overweight people (who no doubt also cost the company extra on average), they would have a PR shitstorm on their hands.

[zEmini]

Insurance costs are very expensive. I can see why Uhaul may want to do this. They would probably save millions.

But is this a slippery slope? Can companies start discriminating against people with other diseases? I know at my company we had one employee (or spouse) that was using some fancy prescription medication that in the end costed insurance nearly a million per year and therefore increased our insurance costs by a additional 100k. We legally can't just go fire that person but fucking hell. Bernie 2020

[GreenJesus]

It's their company. They can hire whomever they want unless they're actively profiling against a protected class.

Smokers aren't a protected class.

This being said, I think it's entirely retarded because who the fuck cares what their employees do in their private time?

Smokers have to take breaks to go smoke, they smell like shit, and if they smoke near the business they can cause customers to choke. I would never hire a smoker either.

[Zantos]

Smokers have to take breaks to go smoke, they smell like shit, and if they smoke near the business they can cause customers to choke. I would never hire a smoker either.

I think its for this exact reason that a ton of places have dedicated areas for smokers to stand. I know seeing them outside of a gas station is kind of off putting since its possible they will be annoyed they have to stop smoking to deal with you.

[Sunseeker]

Kinda reads like they can only do this because cultural attitude towards smoking has shifted. cause i'm guessing it was just as legal 10-20 years ago as it is today.

Culture and acceptable social norms change. Shocker!

Have a feeling if they tried to do this with e.g. overweight people (who no doubt also cost the company extra on average), they would have a PR shitstorm on their hands.

All things are not socially the same, and therefore cannot be acted upon as though they were.