No longer hiring smokers. Do you support such restrictions?

[Mistame]

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

Not disagreeing with you, but every time I see "social(ly)" I cringe a bit, as if it's some "standard" with value. It's not. Social media is the perfect example of this. Millions of half-wits spewing their opinions as if they have meaning.

[cubby]

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?

I think it's perfectly reasonable. I don't it's a matter of forcing their employees to do what they want them to do, I think it's a matter of employers wanting to hire healthy people. Healthy people are less sick and cost less money in any number of categories.

[kail]

It falls out of protected class so technically it's fine. I hope this doesn't head to some slippery slope where more companies follow suit. It shouldn't be an extra challenge to get a job because of what you do in your spare time.

[Halicia]

It falls out of protected class so technically it's fine. I hope this doesn't head to some slippery slope where more companies follow suit. It shouldn't be an extra challenge to get a job because of what you do in your spare time.

This leads to the catch 22... most things people do in their spare time is neither illegal, or protected... so companies can make it impossible to be hired without lying, and then be free to fire the employee for lying during the hiring process when it turns out they drink coffee.

[Vash The Stampede]

If you've been around smokers you know they tend to take far more breaks than none smokers do. Plus the actual smoke itself ruins the interior of vehicles. If you're paying for health insurance then this is an obvious problem for you. I'd have no problem if workers are allowed to vape, as that can be used indoors without making nonsmokers hack their lungs out and is healthier. Plus vaping won't ruin the interior of the vehicles.

[breadisfunny]

Be that as it may, they still don't offer insurance to part time workers, which makes up most of their employee count.

par for the course for most companies in the u.s.

- - - Updated - - -

If you've been around smokers you know they tend to take far more breaks than none smokers do. Plus the actual smoke itself ruins the interior of vehicles. If you're paying for health insurance then this is an obvious problem for you. I'd have no problem if workers are allowed to vape, as that can be used indoors without making nonsmokers hack their lungs out and is healthier. Plus vaping won't ruin the interior of the vehicles.

unless you work retail in which you typically don't get a smoke break.

[Zantos]

unless you work retail in which you typically don't get a smoke break.

No one gets a smoke break. They just do it. I worked with smokers when I was in fast food. They constantly would go outside and smoke for 10-15mins almost every other hours. Meanwhile, I was busting my butt cleaning the kitchen, stocking the food and preparing things to be cooked. I grew to detest them for that. Especially since the manager also smoked so they were part of the problem.

I am all for them setting restrictions. Like not smoking on company property and not smoking while on the clock. But I just can't agree with them not hiring people because they smoke. Obese individuals cost more. Many protected people who are disabled cost more. Older individuals cost more. So many people they hire cost additional money.

The sad truth is, even if this is a slippery slope, no one is safe from discrimination. People don't get hired for all kinds of reasons that should be "protected" status. As long as the company doesn't flat out state to you that they are not hiring you for whatever reason, they are safe and clear. Especially since they don't even owe you a call back. Zero accountability for businesses.

[Wyrt]

If it doesn't affect you on the job then it should be no business of your employer's what you do in your free time.

I can understand if they're taking frequent smoke breaks or smell of smoke at work or something like that, but I think a blanket ban is bad. Your work should not control you outside of work hours you are paid for.

[CloverJeweler]

Fully support!

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I support it.

What I said earlier is the primary reason. Yes, we do have smokers that adbid by the rules everyone else deals with (15 min break every 2 hours is our company policy) and they also play a higher insurance price than non-smokers and I cannot say I really have a problem with them. They even have to leave company property to smoke and they do. So those people I would not forcefully fire for example. They follow the rules and get what others get equally and pay more for health insurance because they are at a higher risk.

At the same time we also have smokers that disappear for 10 minutes every hour. Lie on their insurance forms to not have to pay the hiked rate. Are seen on cameras smoking right outside the doors. Honestly they do bring the whole down. But it is kind of always that way. A few bad apples ruin it for those that work within the rules sadly.

[prwraith]

Yup.

1) Smokers cause insurance spikes
2) They're a liability, why add increased risk of workforce death, causes me to waste time hiring more people
3) In general when not able to consistently smoke they get jittery and lose focus.

in short...fuck'em imagine smoking in 2020 omegalawl

[Themius]

It depends on business. As I noted earlier about smoking rates. If I run a company that has a lot of Chinese men h1bs like say... a tech company. Considering over 52% of Chinese men smoke, I couldn’t get away with it.

[d00mGuArD]

If it doesn't affect you on the job then it should be no business of your employer's what you do in your free time.

I can understand if they're taking frequent smoke breaks or smell of smoke at work or something like that, but I think a blanket ban is bad. Your work should not control you outside of work hours you are paid for.

If you are not going to smoke during the work hours, you can just say you are non-smoker. They won't check what you do at home...

[Machismo]

If you are not going to smoke during the work hours, you can just say you are non-smoker. They won't check what you do at home...

Except smokers aren't really known for their restraint, and ability to not actually smoke.

[Powerogue]

Restricting smoking during work because of things like second hand smoking or cleaning the smoke residue makes sense but banning smokers in general doesn't seem reasonable.

[Spectral]

I'm generally pretty strongly inclined towards free association - requiring businesses to hire people that have some characteristic that the business doesn't like seems fairly perverse to me, particularly if the business is small and the hiring manager (or owner) will personally be working with the individual.

I can't say I support this particular choice since I find the modern Puritanism around tobacco pretty bizarre, but ultimately it's just none of my business to tell U-Haul who to hire.

[Vash The Stampede]

Except smokers aren't really known for their restraint, and ability to not actually smoke.

At some point that worker is going to have a very long bathroom break or one of the U-Haul trucks they drive back is smelling of smoke. If they could stop smoking for 8-9 hours then this wouldn't be a problem, but no smoker can last that long before lighting one up. The compromise here is to allow them to use vapes.

[Machismo]

At some point that worker is going to have a very long bathroom break or one of the U-Haul trucks they drive back is smelling of smoke. If they could stop smoking for 8-9 hours then this wouldn't be a problem, but no smoker can last that long before lighting one up. The compromise here is to allow them to use vapes.

Or, they could simply not hire smokers

[Pannonian]

Man, i'm so glad to live in a country with decent workers protection.

Yes, i'm a smoker. Yeah, i go outside once an hour with the other smokers for about 5 minutes. Not really a problem, because: In my country it is the law that if you work with a (PC) screen you need to take a break every hour for 10 minutes, not looking at the screen - to be exact, the law doesn't say it must be a break, but for 10 minutes every hour you're not allowed to look at a screen. Now you could do something else, if we could do something without our screens, but as this is impossible, we smokers go for a smoke, while the rest of the company lounges in the kitchen, talking.

And you know what: The CEOs of our company are perfectly fine with that, even though they're non smokers, as in most smoke breaks we actually talk about work, and there has been a smoke break that in the end turned out to be very work efficient.

But yeah, if they don't want smokers and the law is fine with that, do it...

[Underverse]

I'm generally pretty strongly inclined towards free association - requiring businesses to hire people that have some characteristic that the business doesn't like seems fairly perverse to me, particularly if the business is small and the hiring manager (or owner) will personally be working with the individual.

I can't say I support this particular choice since I find the modern Puritanism around tobacco pretty bizarre, but ultimately it's just none of my business to tell U-Haul who to hire.

Probably less the fact that it's tobacco and more the disgusting smell combined with multiple smoke breaks throughout the day that add up. If people were using nicotine patches or gum I doubt many would care.

I would not hire a smoker, mostly because I wouldn't want to breathe the fumes infused into their hair and clothing while I'm trying to train them/meet about their work.