Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by StayTuned View Post
    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?
    While I do agree with most of what you said, I know from a business standpoint that many (not all) smokers stink. The head of the company has a vision of what he wants it to run, look and smell like.

    My company won't hire people with exposed tattoos because the president says they're ugly, hates looking at them and they're unprofessional. To each is their own. Some don't care if you get high at home, just don't come to work stoned yet some will fire you if you have traces in your system. The joys of at-will employment.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Year2020 View Post
    What is your business ?
    Electrical Engineering firm is the business I work for.

  3. #23
    Scarab Lord Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    4,516
    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.
    "I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling ANTIFA!" - Adolf Hitler
    "I really wish Ghostpanther would stop misquoting me" - Abraham Lincoln

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Zantos View Post

    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?
    Sure. Smokers waste so much time compared to non-smokers on their smoke breaks.

  5. #25
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    22,712
    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.
    " If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.." - Abraham Lincoln
    The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to - prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..” - Samuel Adams

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Thekri View Post
    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.

  7. #27
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,050
    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.

  8. #28
    Don't think I would hire a Smoker. They're fanatical, violent, greedy, short-sighted psychopaths.

    Mother pus bucket!

  9. #29
    Stealthed Defender unbound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    All that moves is easily heard in the void.
    Posts
    6,100
    Quote Originally Posted by Zantos View Post
    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...

  10. #30
    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.
    Last edited by Daedius; 2020-01-16 at 01:34 PM.

  11. #31
    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.
    Last edited by IlikeDemonHunters; 2020-01-16 at 01:39 PM.

  12. #32
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,050
    Quote Originally Posted by unbound View Post
    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.

  13. #33
    Banned matheney2k's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    South of the Border
    Posts
    8,742
    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

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by matheney2k View Post
    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!




  15. #35
    The Undying Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    34,283
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Daedius View Post
    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.

  16. #36
    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.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    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;




  18. #38
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    25,895
    Quote Originally Posted by StayTuned View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    People in cars cause accidents. Accidents in cars cause people.
    "That's my style; I like to kick 'em when they're down!"
    And thus I give you: MALE contraception!

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunseeker View Post
    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.

  20. #40
    The Lightbringer zEmini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Phobos
    Posts
    3,197
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •