Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 135

Thread: Nicotine Test as Job Requirement

  1. #1

    Default Nicotine Test as Job Requirement

    Recently when going through an interview process at a nearby temporary agency they asked if I was a smoker. When I told her I smoke cigarettes she said she needed a non-smoker. I told her it was not a problem as I do not need a smoke break and would refrain from smoking on work property. She told me that they did a nicotine test where they swab the inside of your cheek and it will react with nicotine. Seeing how tobacco is legal I was wondering some peoples' thoughts on the subject.. particularly on the employer's right to perform a nicotine test/not hire tobacco users.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Member Bruno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Des Moines, Iowa
    Posts
    19,518

    Default

    First they came for the pot smokers, and I did nothing because I did not smoke pot...

  4. #3

    Default

    What state are you in? Many states have laws prohibiting discrimination of potential employees based on them smoking

  5. #4

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    What state are you in? Many states have laws prohibiting discrimination of potential employees based on them smoking
    Since when, which states? At the federal level they are not protected.

    I think the employer is well within his rights to pick and choose whomever they want to hire for whatever the reason.

    Also: If you need the money/work badly enough to go to a temp agency; perhaps you shouldn't be purchasing cigs? The taxes go toward the big govt beast, slay him by starving him.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Snowden;
    So its, I would say; illustrative that the president would choose to say, "someone should face the music" when he knows the music is a show trial.

  7. #6
    Member donnay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Live Free or Die Trying!
    Posts
    20,036
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default

    I wouldn't allow these people to swab my mouth...that sounds like more of a ploy to get your DNA and put it in a databank. Fourth and Fifth amendments.
    *Legal Disclaimer: While I am a keen researcher and want nothing more than to help people, I am not a doctor and more importantly, I am not your doctor. Any article I post that contains general information about medical conditions, treatments and remedies is to bring awareness. The information is not advice, and should not be treated as such. You should never delay seeking medical advice, or discontinue any medical treatment because of information in an article I have posted. The only advice I would give is to continue to research further and use discernment with all advice.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    Ohio
    Seems your state allows the practice.

    Thirty states and the District of Columbia have made it illegal for employers to make employment decisions based on off-duty smoking. Two states — California and Connecticut — prohibit discrimination on the basis of all legal behavior.

    While the American Civil Liberties Union is opposed to nicotine-free hiring policies, Ohio’s “employment at will” laws prevent the organization from doing anything about it, said Mike Brickner, a spokesman for the ACLU in Ohio.
    http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/...ps-560365.html
    There was a bill in 2010 that would have banned discrimination based on tobacco use, but it seems to have failed to make it out of committee
    http://www.medcitynews.com/2010/03/o...-hire-smokers/

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    I wouldn't allow these people to swab my mouth...that sounds like more of a ploy to get your DNA and put it in a databank. Fourth and Fifth amendments.
    You don't have to let them; but then again they don't have to employ you either.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Snowden;
    So its, I would say; illustrative that the president would choose to say, "someone should face the music" when he knows the music is a show trial.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Since when, which states? At the federal level they are not protected.

    I think the employer is well within his rights to pick and choose whomever they want to hire for whatever the reason.

    Also: If you need the money/work badly enough to go to a temp agency; perhaps you shouldn't be purchasing cigs? The taxes go toward the big govt beast, slay him by starving him.
    As if a loss of my five dollars a day would "slay" anything.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    As if a loss of my five dollars a day would "slay" anything
    It all adds up. is that 5 dollars you have to spend? quitting smoking to get a job hardly sounds like a bad excuse to do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Snowden;
    So its, I would say; illustrative that the president would choose to say, "someone should face the music" when he knows the music is a show trial.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    Since when, which states? At the federal level they are not protected.
    Many states

    CALIFORNIA: CA LABOR CODE § 96(k) & 98.6

    § 96. Assignment of claims and liens
    The Labor Commissioner and his or her deputies and representatives authorized by him or her in writing shall, upon the filing of a claim therefor by an employee, or an employee representative authorized in writing by an employee, with the Labor Commissioner, take assignments of:
    (k) Claims for loss of wages as the result of demotion, suspension, or discharge from employment for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises.
    COLORADO: CO REV. STAT. ANN § 24-34-402.5 [CURRENT EMPLOYEES ONLY]

    24-34-402.5. Unlawful prohibition of legal activities as a condition of employment
    (1) It shall be a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee's engaging in any lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours unless such a restriction:
    (a) Relates to a bona fide occupational requirement or is reasonably and rationally related to the employment activities and responsibilities of a particular employee or a particular group of employees, rather than to all employees of the employer; or
    (b) Is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with any responsibilities to the employer or the appearance of such a conflict of interest.

    (II) This paragraph (b) shall not apply to an employee of a business that has or had fifteen or fewer employees during each of twenty or more calendar work weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
    CONNECTICUT: CT GEN. STAT. ANN. § 31-40s

    Sec. 31-40s. Smoking or use of tobacco products outside of the workplace.

    (a) No employer or agent of any employer shall require, as a condition of employment, that any employee or prospective employee refrain from smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of his employment, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment for smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of his employment, provided any nonprofit organization or corporation whose primary purpose is to discourage use of tobacco products by the general public shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: D.C. CODE ANN. § 7-1703.03

    Prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of tobacco use [Formerly § 6-913.3]* (a) No person shall refuse to hire or employ any applicant for employment, or discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to compensation or any other term, condition, or privilege of employment, on the basis of the use by the applicant or employee of tobacco or tobacco products. Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting a person from establishing or enforcing workplace smoking restrictions that are required or permitted by this subchapter or other District or federal laws, or in establishing tobacco-use restrictions or prohibitions that constitute bona fide occupational qualifications.
    ILLINOIS: 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 55/5 [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]

    § 820 ILCS 55/5. Discrimination for use of lawful products prohibited
    Sec. 5. Discrimination for use of lawful products prohibited. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law and except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section, it shall be unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise disadvantage any individual, with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because the individual uses lawful products off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.
    (b) This Section does not apply to any employer that is a non-profit organization that, as one of its primary purposes or objectives, discourages the use of one or more lawful products by the general public. This Section does not apply to the use of those lawful products which impairs an employee's ability to perform the employee's assigned duties.
    (c) It is not a violation of this Section for an employer to offer, impose or have in effect a health, disability or life insurance policy that makes distinctions between employees for the type of coverage or the price of coverage based upon the employees' use of lawful products provided that:
    (1) differential premium rates charged employees reflect a differential cost to the employer; and
    (2) employers provide employees with a statement delineating the differential rates used by insurance carriers.
    INDIANA: IND. CODE §§ 22-5-4-1 et seq.

    22-5-4-1. Employment or discrimination based on employee's off duty use of tobacco prohibited.(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), an employer may not:
    (1) require, as a condition of employment, an employee or prospective employee to refrain from using; or

    (2) discriminate against an employee with respect to:
    (A) the employee's compensation and benefits; or
    (B) terms and conditions of employment;
    based on the employee's use of;
    tobacco products outside the course of the employee's or prospective employee's employment.
    (b) An employer may implement financial incentives:
    (1) intended to reduce tobacco use; and
    (2) related to employee health benefits provided by the employer.
    KENTUCKY: KY REV. STAT. ANN. § 344.040

    344.040. Discrimination by employers.
    It is an unlawful practice for an employer:

    (1) To fail or refuse to hire, or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against an individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of the individual's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age forty (40) and over, because the person is a qualified individual with a disability, or because the individual is a smoker or nonsmoker, as long as the person complies with any workplace policy concerning smoking;
    (2) To limit, segregate, or classify employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive an individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect status as an employee, because of the individual's race, color, religion, national origin, sex, or age forty (40) and over, because the person is a qualified individual with a disability, or because the individual is a smoker or nonsmoker, as long as the person complies with any workplace policy concerning smoking; or
    (3) To require as a condition of employment that any employee or applicant for employment abstain from smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of employment, as long as the person complies with any workplace policy concerning smoking.
    LOUISIANA: LA REV. STAT. ANN. § 23:966 [CURRENT EMPLOYEES ONLY]

    § 23:966. Prohibition of smoking discrimination
    A. As long as an individual, during the course of employment, complies with applicable law and any adopted workplace policy regulating smoking, it shall be unlawful for an employer:
    (1) To discriminate against the individual with respect to discharge, compensation, promotion, any personnel action or other condition, or privilege of employment because the individual is a smoker or nonsmoker.
    (2) To require, as a condition of employment, that the individual abstain from smoking or otherwise using tobacco products outside the course of employment.
    B. A smoker, as referred to herein, is limited to a person who smokes tobacco.
    C. Nothing in this Section shall preclude an employer from formulating and adopting a policy regulating an employee's workplace use of a tobacco product or from taking any action consistent therewith.
    D. Any employer who violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined up to two hundred fifty dollars for the first offense and up to five hundred dollars for any subsequent offense.
    MAINE: ME REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 26, § 597

    § 597. Conditions of employment
    An employer or an agent of an employer may not require, as a condition of employment, that any employee or prospective employee refrain from using tobacco products outside the course of that employment or otherwise discriminate against any person with respect to the person's compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment for using tobacco products outside the course of employment as long as the employee complies with any workplace policy concerning use of tobacco.
    MINNESOTA: MINN. STAT. § 181.938

    181.938 NONWORK ACTIVITIES; PROHIBITED EMPLOYER CONDUCT [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]
    Subdivision 1. Definition.
    For the purpose of this section, "employer" has the meaning given it in section 179.01, subdivision 3.
    Subd. 2. Prohibited practice.
    An employer may not refuse to hire a job applicant or discipline or discharge an employee because the applicant or employee engages in or has engaged in the use or enjoyment of lawful consumable products, if the use or enjoyment takes place off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours. For purposes of this section, "lawful consumable products" means products whose use or enjoyment is lawful and which are consumed during use or enjoyment, and includes food, alcoholic or nonalcoholic beverages, and tobacco.
    MISSISSIPPI: MISS. CODE ANN. § 71-7-33

    § 71-7-33. Requirement of abstention from use of tobacco products during nonworking hours as condition of employment prohibited
    It shall be unlawful for any public or private employer to require as a condition of employment that any employee or applicant for employment abstain from smoking or using tobacco products during nonworking hours, provided that the individual complies with applicable laws or policies regulating smoking on the premises of the employer during working hours.
    MISSOURI: MO. REV. STAT. § 290.145 [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]

    § 290.145. Discrimination, refusal to hire or discharge employee for alcohol or tobacco use not during working hours, prohibited, exception -- not cause for legal actions
    It shall be an improper employment practice for an employer to refuse to hire, or to discharge, any individual, or to otherwise disadvantage any individual, with respect to compensation, terms or conditions of employment because the individual uses lawful alcohol or tobacco products off the premises of the employer during hours such individual is not working for the employer, unless such use interferes with the duties and performance of the employee, the employee's coworkers, or the overall operation of the employer's business; except that, nothing in this section shall prohibit an employer from providing or contracting for health insurance benefits at a reduced premium rate or at a reduced deductible level for employees who do not smoke or use tobacco products. Religious organizations and church-operated institutions, and not-for-profit organizations whose principal business is health care promotion shall be exempt from the provisions of this section. The provisions of this section shall not be deemed to create a cause of action for injunctive relief, damages or other relief.
    MONTANA: MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 39-2-313 & 39-2-314 [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]

    39-2-313 Discrimination prohibited for use of lawful product during nonworking hours -- exceptions.
    (1) For purposes of this section, "lawful product" means a product that is legally consumed, used, or enjoyed and includes food, beverages, and tobacco.
    NEVADA: NEV. REV. STAT. § 613.333

    613.333. Unlawful employment practices: Discrimination for lawful use of any product outside premises of employer which does not adversely affect job performance or safety of other employees.
    1. It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to:
    (a) Fail or refuse to hire a prospective employee; or
    NEW HAMPSHIRE: N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 275:37-a

    275:37-a Discrimination on Basis of Using Tobacco Products Prohibited.
    No employer shall require as a condition of employment that any employee or applicant for employment abstain from using tobacco products outside the course of employment, as long as the employee complies with any workplace policy, pursuant to RSA 155:51-53 and, when applicable, 1. RSA 155:64-77.
    NEW JERSEY: N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 34:6B-1 et seq.

    § 34:6B-1. Smoking, use of tobacco products shall not affect employment
    No employer shall refuse to hire or employ any person or shall discharge from employment or take any adverse action against any employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or other privileges of employment because that person does or does not smoke or use other tobacco products, unless the employer has a rational basis for doing so which is reasonably related to the employment, including the responsibilities of the employee or prospective employee.
    NEW MEXICO: N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 50-11-3

    § 50-11-3. Employers; unlawful practices
    A. It is unlawful for an employer to:
    (1) refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise disadvantage any individual, with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because the individual is a smoker or nonsmoker, provided that the individual complies with applicable laws or policies regulating smoking on the premises of the employer during working hours; or
    (2) require as a condition of employment that any employee or applicant for employment abstain from smoking or using tobacco products during nonworking hours, provided the individual complies with applicable laws or policies regulating smoking on the premises of the employer during working hours.
    B.
    NEW YORK: N.Y. [LABOR] LAW § 201-d [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]

    § 201-d. Discrimination against the engagement in certain activities
    2. Unless otherwise provided by law, it shall be unlawful for any employer or employment agency to refuse to hire, employ or license, or to discharge from employment or otherwise discriminate against an individual in compensation, promotion or terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of:
    b. an individual's legal use of consumable products prior to the beginning or after the conclusion of the employee's work hours, and off of the employer's premises and without use of the employer's equipment or other property;
    NORTH CAROLINA: N.C. GEN. STAT. § 95-28.2 [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]

    § 95-28.2. Discrimination against persons for lawful use of lawful products during nonworking hours prohibited
    (a) As used in this section, "employer" means the State and all political subdivisions of the State, public and quasi-public corporations, boards, bureaus, commissions, councils, and private employers with three or more regularly employed employees.
    (b) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire a prospective employee, or discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the prospective employee or the employee engages in or has engaged in the lawful use of lawful products if the activity occurs off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours and does not adversely affect the employee's job performance or the person's ability to properly fulfill the responsibilities of the position in question or the safety of other employees.
    NORTH DAKOTA: N.D. CENT. CODE §§ 14-02.4-01 et seq.

    14-02.4-01. State policy against discrimination.

    It is the policy of this state to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, the presence of any mental or physical disability, status with regard to marriage or public assistance, or participation in lawful activity off the employer's premises during nonworking hours which is not in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer; to prevent and eliminate discrimination in employment relations, public accommodations, housing, state and local government services, and credit transactions; and to deter those who aid, abet, or induce discrimination or coerce others to discriminate.
    OKLAHOMA: OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 40, § 500

    § 500. Nonsmoking as condition of employment
    It shall be unlawful for an employer to:

    1. Discharge any individual, or otherwise disadvantage any individual, with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because the individual is a nonsmoker or smokes or uses tobacco products during nonworking hours; or
    2. Require as a condition of employment that any employee or applicant for employment abstain from smoking or using tobacco products during nonworking hours.
    OREGON: OR. REV. STAT. §§ 659A.315 & 659A.885

    659A.315. Restricting use of tobacco in nonworking hours prohibited; exceptions.
    (1) It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer to require, as a condition of employment, that any employee or prospective employee refrain from using lawful tobacco products during nonworking hours, except when the restriction relates to a bona fide occupational requirement.
    (2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if an applicable collective bargaining agreement prohibits off-duty use of tobacco products.
    RHODE ISLAND: R.I. GEN. LAWS § 23-20.10-14

    § 23-20.10-14. Prohibited condition of employment -- Smoking by employees outside course of employment
    (a) No employer or agent of any employer shall require, as a condition of employment, that any employee or prospective employee refrain from smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of his or her employment, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment for smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of his or her employment. Provided, however, that the following employers shall be exempt from the provisions of this section: Any employer that is a nonprofit organization which as one of its primary purposes or objectives discourages the use of tobacco products by the general public.
    SOUTH CAROLINA: S.C. CODE ANN. § 41-1-85

    § 41-1-85. Personnel action based on use of tobacco products outside of workplace prohibited.

    SOUTH DAKOTA: S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 60-4-11 [CURRENT EMPLOYEE ONLY] [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]

    It is a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to terminate the employment of an employee due to that employee's engaging in any use of tobacco products off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours unless such a restriction:
    (1) Relates to a bona fide occupational requirement and is reasonably and rationally related to the employment activities and responsibilities of a particular employee or a particular group of employees, rather than to all employees of the employer; or
    (2) Is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with any responsibilities to the employer or the appearance of such a conflict of interest.
    Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the sole remedy for any person claiming to be aggrieved by a discriminatory or unfair employment practice as defined in this section shall be as follows: the person may bring a civil suit for damages in circuit court and may sue for all wages and benefits which have been due up to and including the date of the judgment had the discriminatory or unfair employment practice not occurred. However, nothing in this section may be construed to relieve such person from the obligation to mitigate damages. It is not a discriminatory or unfair employment practice pursuant to this section for an employer to offer, impose or have in effect a health or life insurance policy that makes distinctions between employees for the type of coverage or the cost of coverage based upon the employees' use of tobacco products. The provisions of this section shall not apply to full-time fire fighters.
    TENNESSEE:* TENN. CODE ANN. § 50-1-304 [CURRENT EMPLOYEES]

    50-1-304. Discharge for refusal to participate in or remain silent about illegal activities, or for legal use of agricultural product -- Damages -- Frivolous lawsuits.

    (e) (1) No employee shall be discharged or terminated solely for participating or engaging in the use of an agricultural product not regulated by the alcoholic beverage commission that is not otherwise proscribed by law, if the employee participates or engages in the use in a manner that complies with all applicable employer policies regarding the use during times at which the employee is working.
    (2) No employee shall be discharged or terminated solely for participating or engaging in the use of the product not regulated by the alcoholic beverage commission that is not otherwise proscribed by law if the employee participates or engages in the activity during times when the employee is not working.
    VIRGINIA: VA. CODE ANN. § 2.2-2902 [STATE EMPLOYEES ONLY]

    § 2.2-2902. Use of tobacco products by state employees

    No employee of or applicant for employment with the Commonwealth shall be required, as a condition of employment, to smoke or use tobacco products on the job, or to abstain from smoking or using tobacco products outside the course of his employment, provided that this section shall not apply to those classes of employees to which 1. § 27-40.1 [FIRE FIGHTERS] or § 51.1-813 [POLICE OFFICERS] is applicable
    WEST VIRGINIA: W. VA. CODE § 21-3-19 [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]

    § 21-3-19. Discrimination for use of tobacco products prohibited.

    (a) It shall be unlawful for any employer, whether public or private, or the agent of such employer to refuse to hire any individual or to discharge any employee or otherwise to disadvantage or penalize any employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment solely because such individual uses tobacco products off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.
    (b) This section shall not apply with respect to an employer which is a nonprofit organization which, as one of its primary purposes or objectives, discourages the use of one or more tobacco products by the general public.
    (c) This section shall not prohibit an employer from offering, imposing or having in effect a health, disability or life insurance policy which makes distinctions between employees for type of coverage or price of coverage based upon the employee's use of tobacco products: Provided, That any differential premium rates charged to employees must reflect differential costs to the employer: Provided, however, That the employer must provide employees with a statement delineating the differential rates used by its insurance carriers.
    (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an employer from making available to smokers and other users of tobacco products, programs, free of charge or at reduced rates, which encourage the reduction or cessation of smoking or tobacco use.
    WISCONSIN: WIS. STAT. §§ 111.31 et seq. [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]

    111.321. Prohibited bases of discrimination.
    Subject to S. 111.33 to 111.36, no employer, labor organization, employment agency, licensing agency, or other person may engage in any act of employment discrimination as specified in s. 111.322 against any individual on the basis of age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, arrest record, conviction record, military service, or use or nonuse of lawful products off the employers premises during nonworking hours.
    111.35.

    (4) Notwithstanding s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of use of a lawful product off the employers premises during nonworking hours to refuse to employ an applicant if the applicants use of a lawful product consists of smoking tobacco and the employment is as a fire fighter covered under s. 891.45 or 891.455
    WYOMING: WYO. STAT. ANN. §§ 27-9-101 et seq. [INSURANCE DIFFERENTIALS OK]

    § 27-9-105. Discriminatory and unfair employment practices enumerated; limitations.(a) It is a discriminatory or unfair employment practice:

    (iv) For an employer to require as a condition of employment that any employee or prospective employee use or refrain from using tobacco products outside the course of his employment, or otherwise to discriminate against any person in matters of compensation or the terms, conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of use or nonuse of tobacco products outside the course of his employment unless it is a bona fide occupational qualification that a person not use tobacco products outside the workplace.
    Last edited by eduardo89; 03-29-2012 at 08:33 AM.

  13. #12

    Default

    Oh geeze another smoking-vs-nonsmoking debate...

    It's your right to smoke.

    It's his right to not hire you if he so chooses.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eduardo89 View Post
    Many states
    Yeah, that sucks. more loss of employers' rights. i remember when I ran into this ban about 14years ago out in cali, i thought it sucked as I was not an employer but an employee and i smoked. my views have changed now that the roles have reversed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Snowden;
    So its, I would say; illustrative that the president would choose to say, "someone should face the music" when he knows the music is a show trial.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Oh geeze another smoking-vs-nonsmoking debate...
    I don't think anybody in this thread is making that debate argument, this is about employment issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    It's his right to not hire you if he so chooses.
    Not in about 30 states according to the information Eduardo posted.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Snowden;
    So its, I would say; illustrative that the president would choose to say, "someone should face the music" when he knows the music is a show trial.

  16. #15
    Member donnay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Live Free or Die Trying!
    Posts
    20,036
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    You don't have to let them; but then again they don't have to employ you either.
    Very true. That's kind of where this is all heading anyways. Until government is removed from dictating and placing regulations on businesses, most people will be beholden to them to survive. It certainly is a catch-22. I long for the day that people wake up to this and get rid of crony capitalistic ventures.
    *Legal Disclaimer: While I am a keen researcher and want nothing more than to help people, I am not a doctor and more importantly, I am not your doctor. Any article I post that contains general information about medical conditions, treatments and remedies is to bring awareness. The information is not advice, and should not be treated as such. You should never delay seeking medical advice, or discontinue any medical treatment because of information in an article I have posted. The only advice I would give is to continue to research further and use discernment with all advice.

  17. #16

    Default

    Anyone wanting to physically test your body fluids/cells/whatever for a job that does not by definition require such a test has an understanding of the employer-employee relationship so much different than mine that I could never work for such an organization.
    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

    - SAMUEL ADAMS

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    I don't think anybody in this thread is making that debate argument, this is about employment issues.
    Not in about 30 states according to the information Eduardo posted.
    It is also about my right to smoke. I had informed them that I did not need smoke breaks nor would I use tobacco on their property but in the sanctity of my own home I thought I was free to do as I please in. It sounds more like a health initiative much like the bans in many public parks.
    Last edited by kcchiefs6465; 03-29-2012 at 08:15 AM.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    It is also about my right to smoke. I had informed them that I did not need smoke breaks nor would I use tobacco on their property but in the sanctity of my own home I thought I was free to do as I please. It sounds more like a health initiative much like the bans in many public parks.
    It is more likely that it comes down to $$$ and insurance rates being cheaper if they employ no smokers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Snowden;
    So its, I would say; illustrative that the president would choose to say, "someone should face the music" when he knows the music is a show trial.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    It is more likely that it comes down to $$$ and insurance rates being cheaper if they employ no smokers.
    Yeah, it's usually that. That's why many states allow employers to charge you more for health insurance and they can also offer incentives to quit smoking.

  21. #20
    Member fr33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middle of Nowhere, TX
    Posts
    7,232

    Default

    Wow so even if you use e-cigs you can't be hired.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    It is more likely that it comes down to $$$ and insurance rates being cheaper if they employ no smokers.
    This is true for many jobs. The job I was applying for however had no insurance benefits.

  23. #22

    Default

    My employer doesn't prohibit smoking. However, we have a yearly re-up on health insurance. As part of that process, you can voluntarily take a health screening. Basically, they test for risk factors, and for each test that you "pass," you get credits to use against your health insurance deductible. One of the risk factors is smoking, so they do test for nicotine, and a negative test is passing.

    It's interesting and maybe just a bit troubling, but as my wife and I quit smoking about six years ago, no longer an issue for us. Now weight, on the other hand... <g>
    Be careful when you pry my gun from my cold dead hands, the barrel will be hot.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    This is true for many jobs. The job I was applying for however had no insurance benefits.
    That might not matter. If their internal policy is to not hire any nicotine users for insurance reasons; they probably just make it a blanket policy even for those not getting benefits.
    Quote Originally Posted by Edward Snowden;
    So its, I would say; illustrative that the president would choose to say, "someone should face the music" when he knows the music is a show trial.

  25. #24

  26. #25
    Member donnay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Live Free or Die Trying!
    Posts
    20,036
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    It is more likely that it comes down to $$$ and insurance rates being cheaper if they employ no smokers.
    Which is kind of ironic because most smokers I know are healthier than some of the non-smokers I know. That's why healthcare should not be dictated by the federal government. I do not think employers should have to pay for employees benefits.
    *Legal Disclaimer: While I am a keen researcher and want nothing more than to help people, I am not a doctor and more importantly, I am not your doctor. Any article I post that contains general information about medical conditions, treatments and remedies is to bring awareness. The information is not advice, and should not be treated as such. You should never delay seeking medical advice, or discontinue any medical treatment because of information in an article I have posted. The only advice I would give is to continue to research further and use discernment with all advice.

  27. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Washtenaw Co., MI
    Posts
    3,842

    Default

    It is thier right to do so.

    It is also our right to publicize this discriminatory behavior and put pressure on them to change thier policies.

    I would like to see more effort being given to these non-political, non-legal-system efforts to promote freedom. It'd be an organization that sets out its own constitution and works to (peacefully and voluntarily) spread its ideas of individual soviergnty.

    Or we can continue to pontificate about the nature of rights in online forums.
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul

  28. #27

    Default

    Non smokers are cheaper to insure AND multiple double blind studies have shown that non-smokers are more productive than smokers. Yes you may only smoke at home but it still affects your immune system and ability to recover from illness that may affect your time on the job.

    At the end of the day you have the right to smoke, but the employer has the right to ASK you you do anything as a contract for employment, you have the right to refuse and he has the right to refuse to employ you.

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    Recently when going through an interview process at a nearby temporary agency they asked if I was a smoker. When I told her I smoke cigarettes she said she needed a non-smoker. I told her it was not a problem as I do not need a smoke break and would refrain from smoking on work property. She told me that they did a nicotine test where they swab the inside of your cheek and it will react with nicotine. Seeing how tobacco is legal I was wondering some peoples' thoughts on the subject.. particularly on the employer's right to perform a nicotine test/not hire tobacco users.
    I know this is a Cliche thing to say, but...

    Do you really want a job where someone somewhere in Administration decides that they just don't want to hire people who smoke?
    If you wanted some sort of Ideological purity, you'll get none of that from me.

  30. #29
    Lone Coyote ClydeCoulter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Here, for a little while longer
    Posts
    9,920
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Maybe, just maybe it is their (employers) loss:
    http://www.sott.net/articles/show/24...ion-and-memory

  31. #30

    Default

    Next it will be a weight thing, and then a genetic tendency thing. Don't work for them.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

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