http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries...king/52394782/1

What do you think about this?

That the country is screwed and I won't be able to get a new job

I don't see how employers can legally state that an employee may not use tobacco outside the workplace i.e. off the clock. It'd be no different than an employer saying that employees are not allowed to drink alcohol on their own time.

I sense nanny state behind this ...

It's only the beginning.

Strangely enough though, the last two jobs I've had, I have not had to take a pre-employment UA.

bought this dang wizzinator and haven't even had to use it!

Do you know that If I was to post that i was hiring, but i will only hire smokers, someone would sue me for discrimanation. I hate double standards. Its not going to reduce Insurance premiums, the insurance companies are going to find something else to use as an excuse as to why its not reduced.

They say its for health care costs...I have smoked for 33 years, and my time may be coming, but I have been to a Doctor 1 time in 25 years, and that was from Breaking my leg racing motorcycles, I get sick once a year...maybe.

Motorcycle helmet laws, Im all for helmets, but they say its because the states and health care...Most people who can afford a bike also has insurance, Thes states dont pay for motorcycle fatalities.


Smokes are Legal...They shouldnt be able to do this.

Anybody who thinks a business is run like a democracy is delusional.

The ONLY rights a potential candidate has is clearly detailed by the EEOC.

wait until you have to step on a scale to go to work. To a large degree this already happens, but employers can't just plainly say a person is too fat aka, high risk, to hire. They just won't hire them. (not counting flight attendants and the like)

its their company, if you dont want the job dont apply if you cant live with their rules...America rocks !!!!

If you don't like the company policy, don't apply.

Are there any employers who encourage employees to stop smoking cigs and start usinf the healthier alternative - wacky tobaccy?

Didn't ya'll see that story last week?

-Alton

at FXCM, it wasn't a pre-req, but you had to take a UA to check for tobacco if you wanted to get your health insurance at a discounted rate. I really didn't have any problem with doing it that way, because if someone wants to smoke, let them, but not at the cost of every other employees' insurance premiums.

Stuff like that goes on all the time. It's often not legal but how do you enforce it?

thats true, But i have a company policy of Only hot women, Or I only hire people between 25 - 35, Or I only hire catholics, Or I only hire smokers...Im gonna get sued...At least dont havedouble standards where the law allows discrimination for all instead of just smokers.

No wonder Hollywood casino sold out to El Dorado here.

Here is who smokers should be mad at:

Obama and his band of idiots. Rising health insurance premiums directly due to Obamacare. Insurers are raising rates, mine and everyone elses to buffer some money to help pay for the day Obamacare kicks in in its entirety. So, go ahead and vote for some Democrats next time around and seal your fate.

"Such tobacco-free hiring policies, designed to promote health and reduce insurance premiums"

you can't without trying to catch it in the act, or someone internally ratting a person out for mentioning those type things. I 'm sure that and all kinds of other bias come out in the hiring process.

my dad is currently getting a nice taste of age discrimination. he's 61 and probably knows more about automation and sheet metal fabrication than 95% of the people that work with either on a daily basis. no one wants to hire an old guy that knows more than the hiring manager though. sucks, I feel terrible for him. I wish he'd started his own business long ago though, but he remained loyal to the sorry company he worked at until they moved to Kentucky.

Meh,just another place I wont spend money. Pretty soon I'll get to KEEP IT ALL !

Obama wasnt even heard of when they started this... I went to a place for work in the late 90's who already had it listed they wouldnt hire smokers, although Im not sure any testing was in place at the time.

i like it. we had to take a urine test the first day of our xray tech program. One guy was "asked" to leave the following Monday. We werent told whether he passed or failed, just that he was not going to be with the class anymore... and our results were in from our urine tests.

smokers stink, and it could make patients puke all over the place if they smelled that stench on an employee. i dont want to clean puke off me or the machines...

Wish I had known this 2-3 years ago, Our sheet metal shop could have used someone like that.

I'm torn. On one hand, HOW DARE THEY. Its none of their business what I do in my free time.
On the other, its a free market. More power to 'em. You're not required to work there.

But its infringing on my rights to do what I will in my own house.

But they already do that by saying a growing thing is illegal.

Slippery slope, and I'm too much of an individualist to like it.

"its a free market"

that opens them up to too much control...Nobody ever stops at just smokers. If they can control that they will extend to the next thing they can control.

Then why is it there are no male Hooters waiters?

Why is it there are no male Dallas Cowboys' cheerleaders?

Why is it they haven't been sued successfully?

Obvious discrimination to me.

This is just an example of strings being attached to employee benefits.

I've already said that if I ever become extremely wealthy, I am going to hire all the stoners. A UA would be required, but you would have to fail to be considered for work.

We'd just sit around all day brainstorming and eating stuff, but never get anything done. We'd hire tweakers to get the work done and keep the office clean.

Smoke free workplaces are different than a ban on hiring of anyone with nicotine in their system. There is a reason, this is news today, as the article states, rising costs in health insurance premiums. Everyone is complaining about the huge increases that occurred since the ramming of Obamacare.

We deal with it every year at work. We have a physical along with a physical agility test that everyone has to take. Its not the easiset test and I admit I get stressed a bit as I get older thinking something could show up in a physical that could affect my job. reality is I knew the score when I took the job and its my choice to deal with it.

An employer should be allowed to hire who they want just as a person has a choice to make in who they work for. their money, their rules and if those rules are not up to what I am comfortable with I am free to get on down the road to a place I would rather be at. No one owes us a thing.

Insurance companies have always charged more for smokers, insurance premiums and health care cost in general, were steadily rising well before Obama.

Everyone wants someone else (in this case, their employer) to pay for their healthcare, with no strings attached, that is just not reality.

Some states have outlawed "ladies night" at bars because some guys sued and said it was discrimination.

I recall lawsuits to allow Girls on High school sports teams normally just guys play.

Im waiting for someone to sue insurance companies For gender discrimination because young Ladies have cheaper rates than Young Men. This practice has already been outlawed oversees in several places.

the difference being that the current administration sees that as being a right.

Good luck. Insurance actuaries don't like being told they are wrong, because most of the time, they aren't.

If they wanted to test my urine for tobacco, I would tell them don't waste their money on lab fees- and gladly offer to spit in a cup for them.

awesome business model

I'll be an investor

So for those of you that like this idea. Should employers be allowed not to hire Gays because gay sex has a hirer % rate of transmitting AIDS and that leads to higher health care costs? As long as they are at it, should they be allowed not to hire people if they have a motorcycle license?

I think it's BS, and i'd choose not to apply to a company with that policy. If they're that finicky about hiring procedures, imagine how they would be to work for them.

I'd not only test positive, I'd cause a big scene when they made a big deal out of it. Everybody in earshot would get told off.

It's the age of intrusion. Every day they come up with new and improved ways to sink their claws deeper into our lives.

Solution? Start telling people to **** themselves. You're welcome.

Without a doubt. Mine have steadily risen for 20 years, at least. I blame Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Certainly it can't be the fault of the insurance industry or the legal, pharmaceutical, and medical professions!

EXCELLENT points!

Fishbrain,

Next on their list is body fat. They'll start firing people if they're overweight. After that they'll start with genetic testing to see if you're at risk for cancers, heart disease, diabetes...

The ultimate goal of this type of thing is to drive down the amount of money employees can bargain for by pushing the workforce in general into a position of desperation.

But then again, I'm paranoid and should prolly go add a few more wraps of foil to the hat. Foil aside, if you think this through, this step to the next and so on as far as you can go, it can only lead to one conclusion.

Sure, I'm loco as mocos but I have all day to watch the world and notice this stuff.

I gotta speak up on one more point and then I'll try my best to shut up about it:

Everybody was all happy about drug testing. Now I'm not advocating the use of illegal substances or defending people who do them. What I am saying is that when you let them discriminate against one section of people, wrong as that section of people may be, you're helping them get their foot in the door. That foot's in the door and they're about to push it wide open.

First illegal drugs.
Now legal drugs.
Now you're used to the routine and anything they want to do is fine as long as it's happening to that other section.
Now you're in the next section and you see it differently, so you're looked down on by the sections that they haven't got around to yet.
Now they've got the entire workforce into one or more sections so what next? More sections of course.
How many times have you been married? You might be unstable.
How many cars have you owned in your life?
How many times have you moved?

So far they can check your blood for whatever they want as long as you agree. You have to agree or you won't be considered for the position.
They can run your numbers through the computer to check your credit and whatnot.
Did you get in a fight at age 16 that was busted up by the police and though you were never convicted of a crime, you were arrested for assault? We don't hire vilent people. No job for you.


This is gonna get way worse and more and more it'll affect all of us. It's already too late to stop it. Most people don't see it as a problem until they fall into a section.

screw em, I'm just gonna put it on my resume.
I am a smoker
I have steel body parts
I am missing my prostate due to cancer
I have to pee 6 times a day
I am bald
I am a senior


go ahead hire me though because most of the [censored] that can happen to someone has already happened to me so look at the time I won't be missing.

Actuaries are the debil.

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.
- Twain

It has long recognized by public men of all kinds ... that statistics come under the head of lying, and that no lie is so false or inconclusive as that which is based on statistics.
- H. Belloc

Figures don't lie, but liars figure.
- Twain

If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment
- Ernest Rutherford

Hop. the part about being Bald would be enough - lol

It reminds me of the good old days when they hooked you up to lie detectors.The liars could fool the machine,and when you told the truth,it came up a lie.That is why we dont use lie detectors any more.

This is a good thing, it weeds out the companies I absolutely would not want to work for.

Yea....but if hes gonna be truthful and honest, he left out Ugly.

Been happening for years, shortly after I got out of the military I went to work for a security company that had just got a large government contract in the DFW area, they had a job fair where a couple of hundred people showed up, they needed to hire about 30 security guards.

The morning of the job fair the owner of the company walked through the room where everyone was sitting, If you were overweight he asked you to leave, he probably sent 25 - 30 people out the door before they even started with anything else. There were some unhappy people, some were saying they were going to sue but nothing ever came of it.

yea that too

Does the U.S. still subsidize the Pusherman?

If the USA had a "no smoking" policy for being elected to the Presidency and thus being an employee of the American people, Obama would have failed the urine test. He was a smoker wasn't he?
Too bad we didn't, then Obummer would not have been able to be elected. If a smoker can't be hired due to "health insurance" issues, then neither should a gay or lesbian person due to the aids percentage, or a person from another country where they were brought up without regular checkups and vaccinations.

This is exactly right. When businesses start exerting undue influence or control over workers, that workforce often will band together to create a more powerful influence/presence in government.

Madchad.... you are now a union organizer!

I'm with ya brother!

Power to the people!

Where I used to work, beside skill issues, the biggest reason some people didn't get hired was because they had a bad credit history. It was found to be one of the best indicators of a person's character.

as long as they just test for tobacky

Once drug testing was allowed for non-critical jobs such as doctors, pilots, train engineers and the like the flood doors were flung open.

Ever since I was a teenage I’ve thought that insurance, health care, and so forth should not be tied to one’s employment. Tying such to employment places folk into a position of of being coerced. I DO believe that employes have some rights. I do NOT believe that employers have the right to delve into a person’s private life except when their private lives become uncontrolled, and/or a person is engaging in illegal activity.

I can envision that someone might opt to forgo health care via Baylor and when then not hired, retain legal representation.

As a Populatarian I see this development as a slippery slope into corporate control of individual American citizens. To which, or course, I’m absolutely opposed.


TFP

Employers count health insurance as employee compansation AKA part of your pay. This allows them to write it off as wages the arguement that it's about cost is bovine scat. I have asked companies for the money instead of insurance and every time I was told no. You would think that if it was less expensive for a co. to pay more $ than provide insurance they would do it but alas they make more in write offs so the employee is screwed. A 20 to 35 year old employee never uses the insurance so how is this compensating them you can't eat insurance nor will it pay the rent and so on.

I thought ObamaCare would solve all these problems.

You will not get hired as a receptionist in a high brow office or retail unless you are Angelina Jolie.They only hire trophies.Trust me,I have serviced some of these offices.

To me it's picking the low hanging fruit. They are not testing yet at my company but charging more for smokers. Why don't obese people pay more? Why not motorcycle riders? Why not those with sedentary lifestyles? Why not those who drink excessively? (and that's a big frustration point for me) What about those that partake in high risk sports? When I was playing Ice Hockey I guarantee I used more insurance than I do now with broken bones etc...

I think it's absurd that they are doing it, unfortunately it's just the beginning.

Amen +1000

I think obese people often do get charged more. I believe smokers always get charged more. There is a long list of health conditions that cost employers more money if they're employees have them. Companies avoid hiring these people when possible as well.

Show me where obese people get charged more? We all pay the same premium here at my office and every office I've worked at before. Now we get an added fee for smokers....

I think if a person goes out on a limb and builds a company that they ought to be able to hire or not hire anyone they choose. Don't want to hire tall ugly dudes...well I'm out of luck I'll have to apply elsewhere or I can take the risk if I want to and open my own company and hire who ever I want to.

Not a popular way of thinking I know but I just don't understand why anyone would think that they have the right to force any company owner to hire them...reguardless of reason.

Jason

I agree. I'm going to petition my school district to to only hire teachers that voted Republican in the last election.

And if that passes I am headed your way to enroll my kids!!!

Jason

In a group policy, what you pay and what the insurance company charges for you may not be the same. They can spread the additional cost of a high risk individual across the rest of the group.

Example: Lets say there are four people in your office. No smokers or high risk people. The insurance company charges $100 per person. That averages out to $100 per person, so that is what everyone pays. Hire a fifth person that smokes, the insurance company charges $200 for them. That drives the group average up to $120. They could have saved 20% on insurance if they would have hired a nonsmoker instead of the smoker. That is what is going on here.

You're company seems to be singling out the smokers instead of spreading the additional cost across the group.

It doesn't count as infringing on a "right" if it is a private entity doing it.

This isn't the government we're talking about, it's individual companies.

I'm perfectly ok with those things. Union supporter aren't you?

Agreed, that's the point I'm making.

I think though the line get's blurred a bit when it's a 'public' company. I.E. owned by shareholders, aka 'public'.

I agree in pure 'Private' companies they can do whatever they like.

Of course I admit a large bias against today's 'Public' companies.

Of course I admit a large bias against today's 'Public' companies

I do too, a lot of families struggle while board members get raises and bonuses.

So? It's still not the government.

The shareholders are still individuals or other companies owned by individuals

Bill you ever worked for a large company? It's as dadgum close as you can to working for the govt. Everything takes days to get accomplished and people hide behind red tape all day long. just having fun

We'll just agree to disagree

It doesnt take days to get anything done, just do it. Its easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission...You always hope the pink slip gets caught up in red tape or someone along the long line of people who has to look at what happened agrees with you.

Except in fishing tourneys.

I agree it can be like the government. But it is not in fact the government, and they should be able to hire or not hire anyone they want.

Nut,

The problem is that there is are vast differences between a small business and a major corporation. First, public education is a function of government. Ergo, hiring practices by public education is also hiring practices of government. That public education is part and parcel of government is manifestly evident by the fact that public school districts publicly elect boards of trustees via the same election process that all elected governmental office holders are, and the fact that ISDs levy taxes. Private enterprise does not, indeed cannot levy taxes. Ergo, public education is a governmental function. Even in the private sector large corporations act in many ways more like governmental entities than mid-sized or small business does. This is a matter of their having much greater institutional mass, and bureaucratic inertia. For this reason small and mid-sized business need to be treated as different sorts of institutions than large corporations.


TFP

Companies can only be selective if the market allows them to be so. If the supply of potential employees outstrips the demand then companies can be more selective, but if the demand outstrips the supply of potential employees then companies can not be nearly so demanding when it comes to potential employees. What is now allowing Baylor, and other such employers to reject potential employees based on their use of tobacco is that such a large portion of the current adult population are non-smokers. Tn particular those folks in healthcare professions, and others that work in healthcare have an ever larger segment of that population that are non-smokers than does the general public. Thus, excluding smokers from consideration for employment Baylor only marginally diminishes the pool of potential employees. This could not have happened back in the ‘50s more than 40% of the adult population at that time were smokers. Currently, only about 20% of adults in the general population smoke. I suspect that at most only about 12% or so of those that are in health-care occupations smoke. When the population from which employees are drawn have only 1 in 8 smokers rather than more than 2 of 5 then employers can afford to be much more selective.

TFP

Study

The above link is to a study undertaken by the NIH. The study is about the effect on the nursing staff at hospitals from nurses that smoke via the smoking nurses taking more, and/or longer work-breaks than do non-smoking nurses. Basically nurses that smoke are very much more likely NOT to miss work-breaks than are non-smoking nurses. The upshot is that nurses that smoke use their breaks to go smoke in-order to satiate their nicotine cravings. Non-smoking nurses not having such cravings are more prone to miss their work-breaks. The upshot is that non-smoking nurses end up covering for their counterparts that smoke, thus denying the non-smoking nurses the opportunity to take a break and ‘recharge their batteries.’

In effect the smoking nurses place a greater uninterrupted workload on their non-smoking counterparts because of their ‘smoking-breaks.’

I can personally attest to problems with nursing, and care staff at the nursing home that my parents were in some years ago. Both my folks were in a nursing home, my Dad due to his COPD, and my Mom because of her Alzhimer’s. Dad kept very much his lucidity till about a month before his death. This over three and a half years. Mom’s lucidity diminished in an uneven way over the nearly five years that she was there. About 14 months before Dad passed away, Mom was experiencing some discomfort in the early morning hours. Dad pressed his nurse call button, and speed-dialed the nurses desk to get Mom some help. After doing both these things several times, he called me at the house. I must have been in the deepest portion of my sleep cycle because I never heard it. Dad then tried to call two of Mom’s sisters. At the time they and their husbands were all out of town. Finally, after again calling the nursing desk and getting no answer Dad called 911. The 911 dispatcher tried to call the nursing desk repeatedly, and then dispatched ETs via the Tyler Fire Department. The fire department rolled a truck with full lights and sirens. Upon their arrival the ETs found the staff out on the back patio taking a smoking break. The fire chief was notified and he contacted the director of nursing, and the facilities administrator while the ETs were still at the nursing home. I was phoned at six am by the administrator and got to the nursing home at seven that morning. I went directly to my folks room. I found Dad looking pretty pleased with himself, and he told me what happened. When I went to see the administrator she explain what had happened. The staff that was on duty at the time was fired for cause by the time I had been phoned that morning, and she and the director of nursing were already interviewing for new staff. Finally, state nursing home inspectors, etc. were just arriving to conduct an investigation.

The upshot of all this is that four heads rolled for all being inaccessible at same time. One was an LVN, and the others were CNAs. I know that the four were having their licenses reviewed, but I don’t know if anything after that. I can also attest that after that if my Dad hit the call-button someone was in my folks room with but little delay for the next six months. I also can say that several families of residents of the wing that my folks resided in at the nursing home subsequently spoke with me letting me know that they felt much better about the care that their folks were being given because my Dad still had his mental faculties, and could thus take some sort of action, even if it was just making a phone call.

FWIW,
Larry

Fixed that for you. Size of companies does matter when it comes to ‘open’ employment as well as many other things. Just because it is not government per se, does not mean that statute, and policy should be the same for large corporations as it is for small business. The reason for this is that organizations that wield large amounts of power must be held accountable by society at large for their actions, policies, etc. simply because they DO wield large amounts of power. What in part makes the American system the AMERICAN system is checks and balances on power.

Being a Populatirian, I don’t trust BIG government, BIG business, BIG labor, BIG religion, and I certainly don’t trust BIG media. I simply do NOT trust large concentrations of power in the hands of the few. I further do not trust bureaucracy, and bureaucrats of any sort anymore than I trust politicians, and I don’t trust ANY politician any further than I can throw the Battleship Texas. Freedom, and Liberty along with the security of society as a whole has to be based on a social system that disperses, and distributes power throughout society rather than concentrating power in just one, or just a few nodes, and/or nexuses. When power is disseminated broadly within a society then there is little opportunity for power centers to become established that have the potential to usurp the rights, and liberties of the individual as there will be more than plenty of others that possess the power to counter any potential usurpations of liberty, and personal rights.

TFP

I don't think government regulation is the proper tool for that check on power. If the people care that much, popular opinion will do something about it. People will stop working there, shopping there, supporting them. If they don't care enough not to, it must not be that big of a deal.

Hey Fishing Physicist, do you have any numbers on the proportion of healthcare professionals that smoke compared to the general population. I don't, but based on personal observation, I think it is at least as high if not higher. I was surprised when I saw a respiratory therapist smoking but my neighbor (who used to be a RT and a smoker) told me that most of them are.


RE: Urin testing, I don't care if the company is private or public or the government. I think it is too intrusive but that is what we open the door up to when we expect employers to meet our private an personal needs.

I prefer to test my tobacco for urine.

What about the BIG Bang Theory?

Its been years since I relieved myself on your tobacco. Why waste all that money testing it?

Biggie Smalls?

This!!!!

And I hope anyone thinks that doing ANYTHING will bring our premiums down. Nothing will. It's all a scam to ge the idiot public to think that but has ANYONE's ins gone down, ever?

We have "Right to Work" laws to protect workers from union coercion. I don't see why this is any different.

I think they should be able to hire whoever they want, If they only want to hire "little people" I could care less. A place in OKC called Chilinos seemed to only hire Mexicans to work at thier restraunts fine by me.

If they want to narrow the field of choice that is thier problem, might miss the best emploee ever that way.

I got to say though the smokers Iv worked with were always on a "smoke break" ( ALL of them at the last place came in, in the morning clocked in already stinking up the place and went on break) and they tend to stink even first thing in the morning!

Well if you don't like the policies of a company don't go to work there. Take your $$$ and start your own company. This is the USA and you are free to work wherever you want.

I get tested for cig's
but get a pretty good discount on my health insurance

How about it's my businesses and I'll hire who I want. If i don't want to pay the extra for insurance premiums for smokers then so be it. If you want to smoke then you can go work elsewhere. I have the same right to say that you want to work for me then you had to have gone to Harvard Business school. As long as you are not hired due to your race, religion, and those other deals the gov't says you can't base employment on then so be it. I think it's bs that I can't not hire someone because they are from some country that hates America.

I guess this means that tobacco is about to become an illegal substance ...

What if the company is a major corporation where the ownership is a very large number of shareholders, and the stock is offered publicly? This is BIG business. There is no sole proprietor, and the CEO, CFO, etc. along with the board of directors do not constitute a majority of shareholder, and in many, many case no where near a majority of shareholders. In many cases those making company/corporate policy are NOT the owners. They have been hired to be CEO, CFO, etc. and were in now way involved in the building of the company.

What then?
TFP

The executive management of any large corporation routinely make strategic and tactical decisions which directly effect the operation of the corporation.

They ARE the custodians of the corporation.

I say smokers should unite, form a union and demand cigarrettes and smoke breaks. You should have quite a voice, being about 10% of the workforce today. That'll learn em.