DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Political and Religious Forum (aka the echo chamber) => Topic started by: Phoenix87x on March 08, 2014, 07:14:41 PM

Title: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Phoenix87x on March 08, 2014, 07:14:41 PM
I work in a hospital as a pharmacy student/technician.

For a few years now the hospital's policy was that no smoking was permitted anywhere on the premises, but a couple weeks ago I got a letter in the mail that said flat out that starting March 1st that my hospital and all hospitals within the network would no longer hire "nicotine users" aka smokers.

From March 1st forward an applicant would have to take a drug test and if any trace of nicotine was found in their system, their application would be rejected, and even if hired they would be subject to random drug testing in the future, which if nicotine was found in their system they would be terminated.

As a non-smoker this does't effect me personally, but as far as I'm concerned, what a person does in their own home is their business, especially with a legal substance, but I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

(this policy also applies to janitors, grounds keepers, cooks, and maintenance people as well, not just "health care professionals" such as doctors, nurses, ect.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 08, 2014, 07:20:30 PM
As an ex-2 pack a day smoker, I have to say that I'm looking forward to the day when nicotine ISN'T legal....hopefully that will come soon.

I can see where they are coming from.   It's about representing the interests of your trade.   Smoking while you're working for health care is like working for Microsoft and everything you own is a Mac....kindof a conflict of interests. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dr. DTVT on March 08, 2014, 07:28:58 PM
A private employer has the ability to hire who they want, particularly if their policy is clearly against the mission of their institution.  Working in the health care industry, it sounds like they want you to take care of yourself.  Putting it on paper and making it public helps protect them against protected types of discrimination (say hiring no black people).

Two years ago I put in application at two schools that required the candidate to match the religious affiliation of the school.  I didn't get an interview at either of them, and after seeing who they hired, both schools decided to take a vastly inferior candidate - I have to assume it was strictly a religious matter because one only had a M.S. degree (despite the posting saying Ph.D. required), and the other had rather glaring red flags in his C.V., and probably was only going to be hired by a school who was disqualifying about 99% of applicants out of the gate.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: black_biff_stadler on March 08, 2014, 07:31:15 PM
I hate cigarettes and a very big chunk of smokers in general considering how absurdly discourteous most are but I think it's incomprehensibly intrusive of them to do this especially since alcohol and bad diets are apparently still copacetic for them.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Shadow Ninja 2.0 on March 08, 2014, 07:35:53 PM
If they're not smoking on the job, I don't see why it would be a problem, but I think it's the hospital's right to put the policy in place if that's what they want.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: MinistryOfLostSouls on March 08, 2014, 07:49:35 PM
Oh man, what a relief, you meant cigarettes. 

(http://i.imgur.com/B2P7xBO.jpg)
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: millahh on March 08, 2014, 08:03:09 PM
There are some smokers that absolutely reek of smoke, and that can be a respiratory irritant.  I've stepped into in an empty elevator in a non-smoking building, and the smoke odor from whoever had been in there prior was overpowering.  So it's not like the smell stays confined to the designated smoking areas.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: El Barto on March 08, 2014, 08:14:41 PM
A private employer has the ability to hire who they want, particularly if their policy is clearly against the mission of their institution.  Working in the health care industry, it sounds like they want you to take care of yourself.  Putting it on paper and making it public helps protect them against protected types of discrimination (say hiring no black people).
God dammit, Doc, quit being right.

I will say that while I agree that a company should be able to hire or not hire anybody they want, it's not currently the case. Private companies do have to offer equal opportunities to candidates of certain classes, and while smokers aren't really considered a class it does seem like a lousy precedent. Being a fat-fuck is an unhealthy lifestyle, so should they also not hire them? Could they refuse to hire an NRA member because guns are bad? Drinkers? People with points on their driver's record? Vegetarians (or meat-eaters) depending on which one they think is better?

My bigger concern is that they're taking a somewhat narrow minded approach. What about e-cig smokers? Nicotine patches? By relying on drug screens to look for nicotine they're effecting people who aren't putting themselves at a significant health risk.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: rumborak on March 08, 2014, 08:39:50 PM
I think a hospital has several justifiable reasons to not hire smokers. One is, if the whole campus is non-smoking, a regular smoker needs to go to extraordinary lengths to get his fix. In a profession where attendance can be crucial, you can't have somebody who disappears for 15 minutes every hour because it takes a while to get off the premises.
Another is, while e-cigs exist, most smokers don't use them, and as millahh pointed out, you don't magically stop being a smoker once you put down the cigarette. You reek of that stuff for about an hour or so.

BTW, I'm pretty sure the hospital doesn't care about the party smokers or the guy who lights a cigar at the end of the day. They try to avoid people whose habit will negatively impact their work.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: El Barto on March 08, 2014, 08:48:39 PM
I think a hospital has several justifiable reasons to not hire smokers. One is, if the whole campus is non-smoking, a regular smoker needs to go to extraordinary lengths to get his fix. In a profession where attendance can be crucial, you can't have somebody who disappears for 15 minutes every hour because it takes a while to get off the premises.
Another is, while e-cigs exist, most smokers don't use them, and as millahh pointed out, you don't magically stop being a smoker once you put down the cigarette. You reek of that stuff for about an hour or so.
If somebody's smoking habit effects their work then you have perfectly valid grounds to sack him. "He couldn't do his job to our satisfaction." End of story. If somebody has no problem only smoking during designated breaks then he's not a liability. Also, I've seen e-cig usage increase dramatically over the last couple of years. Far more than I expected. They actually do seem to be catching on.

And just to throw a different wrinkle out there, isn't addiction considered a disease now?
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: rumborak on March 08, 2014, 08:59:18 PM
Yeah, but just because it's a hospital doesn't mean they have to hire diseased people.

Regarding your other point, it all comes down to essentially "profiling". Will there be a subset of regular smokers who are able to completely have their work unaffected by their habit? Sure. But is it wrong for a hospital to generalize when the vast majority of people with that behavior *have* been a problem? It's the same thing as with racial profiling with the TSA. It's a walk on a political minefield. On the one hand they're trying to optimize their chances of success, on the other they're singling out people.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: MinistryOfLostSouls on March 08, 2014, 09:06:51 PM
That policy won't last.  Someone will sue. They will argue that nicotine is an addiction, and that addition is a disease, and that the hospital doesn't have the right to discriminate against people with diseases. Or someone will get fired for a false positive because they live in a house with a smoker.  They'll win like $800,000 like the woman who sued for the false positive for the poppy seed. 

Though, I think it's amusing that people make a such a big deal about smoking but don't make any fuss at all about the 1,300 leaking EPA Superfund toxic waste dumps in this country. 

"How dare you smoke within my personal boundaries, sir.  Why, how am I supposed to smell the TCE wafting up through the soil from the polluted aquifer under my house?!"

EPA Superfund site map.
(http://i.imgur.com/OAYm7BH.png)
Smoking is bad!!
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: rumborak on March 08, 2014, 09:14:50 PM
That policy won't last.  Someone will sue. They will argue that nicotine is an addiction, and that addition is a disease, and that the hospital doesn't have the right to discriminate against people with diseases.

I think of all places, a hospital would have the most justifiable right of shunning people with diseases. Pretty sure no hospital will hire a person with hepatitis.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: MinistryOfLostSouls on March 08, 2014, 09:32:33 PM
That policy won't last.  Someone will sue. They will argue that nicotine is an addiction, and that addition is a disease, and that the hospital doesn't have the right to discriminate against people with diseases.

I think of all places, a hospital would have the most justifiable right of shunning people with diseases. Pretty sure no hospital will hire a person with hepatitis.

Medical records are off limits to employers because of HIPPA.  I have a friend who is a pharmacist who keeps getting fired from retail pharmacies for smoking weed.  When this happens he just moves to another state because a positive drug screen is protected medical information.  I'm pretty sure after Walgreen's, Rite Aid, and Fruth, he's working in an emergency room somewhere, stoned out of his mind, listening to DT in his head phones.  :lol

If you did happen to get caught smoking, and get fired, your next employer would never know about it because the hospital wouldn't be able to share things from your medical records to a future employer. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: black_biff_stadler on March 08, 2014, 09:44:41 PM
That post is just fantastic :lol
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: ReaPsTA on March 08, 2014, 10:11:04 PM
Businesses shouldn't have the legal right to do this.

What you do on your time is your business.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: orcus116 on March 08, 2014, 10:14:58 PM
Businesses have to pay insurance costs too. Perhaps that is coming into play as well?
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: rumborak on March 08, 2014, 10:16:02 PM
Medical records might be off limits, but blood tests aren't. Quite a few companies have their prospective employees do drug tests beforehand. I would be *very* surprised if a hospital didn't order blood work on their employees so they don't have some idiot with hepatitis spreading it to people with already compromised immune systems.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: orcus116 on March 08, 2014, 10:19:47 PM
I was a maintenance worker at a hospital one summer and didn't get tested at all.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: KevShmev on March 08, 2014, 10:39:16 PM
I think a hospital has several justifiable reasons to not hire smokers. One is, if the whole campus is non-smoking, a regular smoker needs to go to extraordinary lengths to get his fix. In a profession where attendance can be crucial, you can't have somebody who disappears for 15 minutes every hour because it takes a while to get off the premises.
Another is, while e-cigs exist, most smokers don't use them, and as millahh pointed out, you don't magically stop being a smoker once you put down the cigarette. You reek of that stuff for about an hour or so.

 

Not only that, but then you'll have the smokers puffing away in a stall in the bathroom.  I've seen it happen at various places over many years of working.  So basically, the smokers bring that crap into the building, in a sneaky way.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: ReaPsTA on March 08, 2014, 10:55:31 PM
You seem to really dislike smokers.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: KevShmev on March 08, 2014, 11:01:05 PM
That doesn't even make sense, since I have a bunch of friends who smoke.

I dislike smoking.  I think it is a disgusting habit, and the smell it brings is just awful.  Happily, the tide is slowly turning against smoking in this country.  Granted, we still have a long way to go, as many still insist on sticking with their cancer sticks, but the laws that banned smoking in restaurants and many bars were a great start. :tup :tup
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: ReaPsTA on March 08, 2014, 11:18:57 PM
Do you think it's worth it for businesses to intrude in what people do off the clock in order to get rid of smoking though?

(Note, I could be radical here.  I don't think businesses should be able to drug test at all except for extreme circumstances.)
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: KevShmev on March 08, 2014, 11:24:32 PM
It's not intruding.  If they don't want to hire people who regularly smoke a harmful substance, they have that right, especially since they are a hospital and that kind of unhealthy lifestyle might not be something they want their employees promoting (imagine going to a hospital and the doctor you get is the guy you saw outside puffing away on a cigarette).  Now, I agree with b_f that bad eating habits and drinking alcohol can be even more harmful, but those are much harder to track. And they can't exactly say, "We aren't gonna hire overweight people because they look unhealthy," unless they want to get reamed by society and sued out the ass.  Smoking is the easiest thing to go after, regarding them trying to hire people who they see as healthy.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: El Barto on March 08, 2014, 11:39:57 PM
It's not intruding.  If they don't want to hire people who regularly smoke a harmful substance, they have that right, especially since they are a hospital and that kind of unhealthy lifestyle might not be something they want their employees promoting (imagine going to a hospital and the doctor you get is the guy you saw outside puffing away on a cigarette).  Now, I agree with b_f that bad eating habits and drinking alcohol can be even more harmful, but those are much harder to track. And they can't exactly say, "We aren't gonna hire overweight people because they look unhealthy," unless they want to get reamed by society and sued out the ass.  Smoking is the easiest thing to go after, regarding them trying to hire people who they see as healthy.
All of this is why I basically think this whole thing is a bullshit PC statement on the hospital's part. I have no problem with private companies not employing people for whatever reason they choose. However, this really is pretty silly. They're picking out one lifestyle activity to go after because it's currently unpopular and ignoring all others that share the same characteristic they supposedly object to.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: MinistryOfLostSouls on March 08, 2014, 11:42:56 PM
That doesn't even make sense, since I have a bunch of friends who smoke.

I dislike smoking.  I think it is a disgusting habit, and the smell it brings is just awful.  Happily, the tide is slowly turning against smoking in this country.  Granted, we still have a long way to go, as many still insist on sticking with their cancer sticks, but the laws that banned smoking in restaurants and many bars were a great start. :tup :tup

I'd be willing to bet the exhaust on your automobile puts out more carcinogens, at a much larger volume, than my cigarette.  I mean, I smoke, but don't drive meaning I emit less pollution than you do, also establishing a lower carbon foot print, while giving me a greener lifestyle than people who choose to drive.  Turns out smoking, over driving is the real winning choice.  The power is YOURS!

Driving is a disgusting habit, too.  People who drive shouldn't be allowed to be employed because they are yucky.  They come into work smelling like gas, exhaust fumes, and pent up early morning taco bell/Miller light farts because the windows were frozen shut from the polar vortex.  People who drive are just gross.  Let 'em starve and add to our unemployment numbers.  That's what I say.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: KevShmev on March 08, 2014, 11:47:27 PM
It's not intruding.  If they don't want to hire people who regularly smoke a harmful substance, they have that right, especially since they are a hospital and that kind of unhealthy lifestyle might not be something they want their employees promoting (imagine going to a hospital and the doctor you get is the guy you saw outside puffing away on a cigarette).  Now, I agree with b_f that bad eating habits and drinking alcohol can be even more harmful, but those are much harder to track. And they can't exactly say, "We aren't gonna hire overweight people because they look unhealthy," unless they want to get reamed by society and sued out the ass.  Smoking is the easiest thing to go after, regarding them trying to hire people who they see as healthy.
All of this is why I basically think this whole thing is a bullshit PC statement on the hospital's part. I have no problem with private companies not employing people for whatever reason they choose. However, this really is pretty silly. They're picking out one lifestyle activity to go after because it's currently unpopular and ignoring all others that share the same characteristic they supposedly object to.

Fundamentally, I agree with you.  They are picking and choosing, for sure.  And like I said before, smoking is becoming more and more frowned upon by society, so it is easier to go after. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: ReaPsTA on March 09, 2014, 12:00:18 AM
It's not intruding.  If they don't want to hire people who regularly smoke a harmful substance, they have that right, especially since they are a hospital and that kind of unhealthy lifestyle might not be something they want their employees promoting (imagine going to a hospital and the doctor you get is the guy you saw outside puffing away on a cigarette).

If the hospital doesn't want them smoking on their property, that's their right.  But by saying you can't smoke at all, they're now controlling what you can't do off the clock.  Does smoking impair your ability to be a doctor?  If not, then what right does the hospital have to tell you you can't.  I get that, under current law, it's probably legal.  But why should we be okay with that?
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: TempusVox on March 09, 2014, 12:01:52 AM
A couple of legal points. First, yes, medical records are protected, but the Privacy Rule does not protect you from having your employer gain access for purposes of workers comp, health insurance, sick leave, or wellness programs. Second, more and more employers are basing healthcare costs on employee wellness. Healthcare costs for employees is one of the largest drivers of expense for employers, and they're getting more and more creative to curb those costs. Some employers are now putting penalties on employees who have a high BMI for example, or other co-morbidities if the affected employee refuses to participate in a weight loss program, or smoking cessation class, or diabetes management, etc. All perfectly legal. As for hospitals, having practiced employment law in healthcare in my previous life I can tell you that having a positive tb test will keep you from getting hired in most cases, and if the hospital receives any funds ftom the goverment they're bound by federal law to have a drug free workplace policy in effect with random testing.
And the no nicotine thing is nothing new. So long as its consistent in its application the rule is perfectly legal. For example, you cant say managements excluded. Same goes with pre-employment testing. Overall, in the grand scheme of things employees in the U.S. dont really have too many rights when you get right down to it. Especially when compared to some European countries.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: ReaPsTA on March 09, 2014, 12:05:32 AM
A couple of legal points. First, yes, medical records are protected, but the Privacy Rule does not protect you from having your employer gain access for purposes of workers comp, health insurance, sick leave, or wellness programs. Second, more and more employers are basing healthcare costs on employee wellness. Healthcare costs for employees is one of the largest drivers of expense for employees. Some employers are now putting penalties on employees who have a high BMI for example, or other co-morbidities if the affected employee refuses to participate in a weight loss program, or smoking cessation class, etc. All perfectly legal. As for hospitals, having practiced employment law in healthcare in my previous life I can tell you that having a positive tb test will keep you from getting hired in most cases. And the no nicotine thing is nothing new. So long as its consistent in its application the rule is perfectly legal. For example, you cant say managements excluded. Same goes with pre-employment testing. Overall, in the grand scheme of things employees in the U.S. dont really have too many rights when you get right down to it. Especially when compared to some European countries.

The money thing I can accept.  Spending money has real consequences.  Having employees not smoke to reduce healthcare costs isn't social engineering by proxy.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 09, 2014, 12:06:41 AM
It's not intruding.  If they don't want to hire people who regularly smoke a harmful substance, they have that right, especially since they are a hospital and that kind of unhealthy lifestyle might not be something they want their employees promoting (imagine going to a hospital and the doctor you get is the guy you saw outside puffing away on a cigarette).

If the hospital doesn't want them smoking on their property, that's their right.  But by saying you can't smoke at all, they're now controlling what you can't do off the clock.  Does smoking impair your ability to be a doctor?  If not, then what right does the hospital have to tell you you can't.  I get that, under current law, it's probably legal.  But why should we be okay with that?

Because, as an employer, it does in fact cost you more money in insurance costs.    Just look at TV's post.   I'm sure BMI enforcement could be right around the corner...BUT, I imagine that they will have to offer an alternative.   I wouldn't be surprised to see health spa stipends....it would be cheaper than the inflated insurance.


EDIT:  Looks like you beat me to the punch.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: TempusVox on March 09, 2014, 12:12:51 AM
BMI is already here. You take a health assessment and your BMI is over a certain threshold, then your employer can tell you you have to participate in a weight loss program of some kind. Your refusal will result in your paying much higher premiums. Its already happening more and more. Your employers renewal on healthcare is based on the companies previous years experience. The carrier is NOT gonna take a loss, so they pass on the renewal. Used to be a long time ago 3-5% on average. Now it's nearly double digits every year. Companies cant afford it. Our healthcare system is FUBAR.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 09, 2014, 12:22:13 AM
I believe you.   I only meant that it's coming in the sense that it's going to become the standard.   I don't believe that to be the case currently. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: MinistryOfLostSouls on March 09, 2014, 12:50:41 AM
A couple of legal points. First, yes, medical records are protected, but the Privacy Rule does not protect you from having your employer gain access for purposes of workers comp, health insurance, sick leave, or wellness programs. Second, more and more employers are basing healthcare costs on employee wellness. Healthcare costs for employees is one of the largest drivers of expense for employers, and they're getting more and more creative to curb those costs. Some employers are now putting penalties on employees who have a high BMI for example, or other co-morbidities if the affected employee refuses to participate in a weight loss program, or smoking cessation class, or diabetes management, etc. All perfectly legal. As for hospitals, having practiced employment law in healthcare in my previous life I can tell you that having a positive tb test will keep you from getting hired in most cases, and if the hospital receives any funds from the goverment they're bound by federal law to have a drug free workplace policy in effect with random testing.
And the no nicotine thing is nothing new. So long as its consistent in its application the rule is perfectly legal. For example, you cant say managements excluded. Same goes with pre-employment testing. Overall, in the grand scheme of things employees in the U.S. dont really have too many rights when you get right down to it. Especially when compared to some European countries.

If this employer is barring future employees from smoking, but not stating that it is releasing all smokers from employment would that grandfather in existing employees? That would mean part of the staff would be allowed to smoke and the other wouldn't.  How would any of this pertain to contractors like IT and doctors?  "Employment" at a hospital means a lot of different things, as you already know.  In another lifetime, in the late 90's I was an IT contractor for a hospital in Ohio.  They tested us contractors for not a single thing.  I wonder if it's still the same.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: lonestar on March 09, 2014, 01:30:09 AM
And we inch closer and closer to the Great Nicotine Riots of 2017.....
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: wolfking on March 09, 2014, 05:06:30 AM
From March 1st forward an applicant would have to take a drug test and if any trace of nicotine was found in their system, their application would be rejected, and even if hired they would be subject to random drug testing in the future, which if nicotine was found in their system they would be terminated.

I have absolutely no problem with this at all.  In fact, I wish this sort of thing happened everywhere.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Modah on March 09, 2014, 05:21:52 AM
I don't smoke anything anymore... I don't drink anymore... I don't do any sort of drugs anymore...

...but does anyone else think we're gradually moving toward a society where every aspect of everyone's lives is being micromanaged and controlled?

If so, is anyone else generally OK with that? Maybe the government and big business know better than we do. *shrug* This is the kind of thing that would have once been considered extremely intrusive, but now everyone's just like "Please don't fire me. Please give me my paycheck."

Is that because, in general, the world seems to be getting better and better? We have smartphones, guys can marry guys, women can marry women, religion is playing less and less of a role in day-to-day life, Linux Mint exists, McDonald's probably has a veggie burger (I wouldn't know though)... so things seem pretty good. The fleeting glimpses that many of us "milennials" have had of more primitive lives over in other countries... whether we went to China, India, Iraq or wherever... make us feel like "Please don't ever put me there again." If we don't smoke, that's a bonus.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: KevShmev on March 09, 2014, 06:37:09 AM
BMI is already here. You take a health assessment and your BMI is over a certain threshold, then your employer can tell you you have to participate in a weight loss program of some kind. Your refusal will result in your paying much higher premiums. Its already happening more and more. Your employers renewal on healthcare is based on the companies previous years experience. The carrier is NOT gonna take a loss, so they pass on the renewal. Used to be a long time ago 3-5% on average. Now it's nearly double digits every year. Companies cant afford it. Our healthcare system is FUBAR.

Especially since BMI is total crap, since it is calculated off of just your height and weight.  You could be 5'10", 220 lbs, and totally packed with muscle, but the BMI would say you are overweight.  I get employers wanting health risks to pay higher premiums, but using the BMI is not the way to go.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 09, 2014, 08:27:10 AM
I'd like to share a little story about my mom.  She quit smoking just a couple years ago, after having maintained the habit for about 45 years - she started when she was 12 years old.  Anyway, since quitting, the smell of cigarettes has been literally nauseating for her.  There have actually been times when she's been tempted to start smoking again, not because of any cravings, but simply in the hope that the smell wouldn't bother her as much anymore if she picked the habit back up herself. 

Now, last year, she was in the hospital with a broken leg.  There was no smoking allowed anywhere on the premises, and that rule was pretty strictly enforced.  Still, a nurse came in one morning stinking of cigarettes, and the smell literally made my mom sick.  Of course, when she threw up, the nurse came closer to help, which only made matters worse for my mom.  This incident didn't cause any lasting damage or anything, as my mom was fine once she got another nurse, but here's the kicker: the offending nurse hadn't even been smoking on the premises.  Her shift had just started, and she had smoked in her car on the way to work.

I'd say that's a pretty good example of why cigarette smoking is different than, say, being fat.  No matter how fat a nurse is, that's not going to hurt a patient.  The smell of cigarette smoke legitimately can. 

Granted, my mom was a special case, and not a very common one, I'm sure.  And I'm not necessarily saying I support this hospital's policy of refusing to hire smokers, because it is slippery ground to walk on, and the precedent is a little shady.  I'm just saying, there are reasons to treat smoking a little differently than other health issues like obesity and alcoholism. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: rumborak on March 09, 2014, 08:36:03 AM
@Kev: Yes and no. Yes, the correlation factor of BMI is not nearly as good as it should be. But, at the level at which those companies/healthcare providers will set the cutoff over which they require the employee to take action, you would essentially have to be a linebacker, I.e. someone who makes a living out of being fat and fast at the same time, to be treated unjustly.

That said, I'm surprised they would really use BMI. I can't remember the name of it, but there's one that additionally takes waist circumference into account and is orders of magnitude more accurate.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 09, 2014, 10:42:37 AM
I'm concerned about that being a Native American and Tobacco is a real important plant in our way of life.

Also, if people are concerned about smell. The employee could get there early, change clothes, and wash your hands and chew gum. Or bring mints and perfume.

Basically,  how much will you take of your personal freedom being stripped for a paycheck.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Nick on March 09, 2014, 10:49:29 AM
I hate smoking, but think this is rather ridiculous. While I see what they want to do, until they also refuse to hire heavy drinkers and overweight people they have no moral grounds to stand on. Smoking is easy to go after, and that's the only reason we're seeing this.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 09, 2014, 10:57:06 AM
I hate smoking, but think this is rather ridiculous. While I see what they want to do, until they also refuse to hire heavy drinkers and overweight people they have no moral grounds to stand on. Smoking is easy to go after, and that's the only reason we're seeing this.

Pretty much.

Also, aren't hospital staff usually smokers?

I think its more an issue of respect from the employee to their patients.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 09, 2014, 11:27:44 AM
Also, if people are concerned about smell. The employee could get there early, change clothes, and wash your hands and chew gum. Or bring mints and perfume.

True, but how do you enforce that?  Have someone on staff who is sensitive to the smell of cigarette smoke and pay them to sniff every employee to make sure they're good?
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: El Barto on March 09, 2014, 11:32:23 AM
Also, if people are concerned about smell. The employee could get there early, change clothes, and wash your hands and chew gum. Or bring mints and perfume.

True, but how do you enforce that?  Have someone on staff who is sensitive to the smell of cigarette smoke and pay them to sniff every employee to make sure they're good?
I gotta be honest. While I'm sympathetic to your mom's situation, and I mean absolutely no disrespect by this, the world doesn't revolve around her. The smell of jerry-curl makes me pretty damned nauseous, and sometimes I'm subjected to it in large doses. I also have issues with cheap perfume, and I've actually quit frequenting a restaurant because one of the waitresses drenched herself in the nasty shit. Honestly, I have a hard time rationalizing how my right to not smell anything offensive trumps somebody else's right to stink.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 09, 2014, 11:43:08 AM
Also, if people are concerned about smell. The employee could get there early, change clothes, and wash your hands and chew gum. Or bring mints and perfume.

True, but how do you enforce that?  Have someone on staff who is sensitive to the smell of cigarette smoke and pay them to sniff every employee to make sure they're good?
I gotta be honest. While I'm sympathetic to your mom's situation, and I mean absolutely no disrespect by this, the world doesn't revolve around her. The smell of jerry-curl makes me pretty damned nauseous, and sometimes I'm subjected to it in large doses. I also have issues with cheap perfume, and I've actually quit frequenting a restaurant because one of the waitresses drenched herself in the nasty shit. Honestly, I have a hard time rationalizing how my right to not smell anything offensive trumps somebody else's right to stink.

Exactly my point.

Its up to the person who's working as a hospital employee to at least be respectful, by covering up their cigarette smell,  at least. Which I'm sure most of them switched to using E-cigs.

Perfume is another story.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: The King in Crimson on March 09, 2014, 11:49:55 AM
And we inch closer and closer to the Great Nicotine Riots of 2017.....
I wouldn't be worried. The riots will last only a block or two, then everyone will be out of breath.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 09, 2014, 11:51:57 AM
I also have issues with cheap perfume, and I've actually quit frequenting a restaurant because one of the waitresses drenched herself in the nasty shit.

Perfume is actually a very good example.  I go to an allergy clinic where the staff aren't allowed to wear perfume because some patients will be extra sensitive or allergic.  Same principle as what I'm talking about. 

I know the world doesn't revolve around my mom, but I also know she's not the only one who is sensitive to the smell of cigarette smoke.  Bottom line: isn't it reasonable for a hospital or other medical facility to take measures to prevent their staff from making the patients sicker?
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 09, 2014, 11:58:48 AM
I also have issues with cheap perfume, and I've actually quit frequenting a restaurant because one of the waitresses drenched herself in the nasty shit.

Perfume is actually a very good example.  I go to an allergy clinic where the staff aren't allowed to wear perfume because some patients will be extra sensitive or allergic.  Same principle as what I'm talking about. 

I know the world doesn't revolve around my mom, but I also know she's not the only one who is sensitive to the smell of cigarette smoke.  Bottom line: isn't it reasonable for a hospital or other medical facility to take measures to prevent their staff from making the patients sicker?

Can you ask for a different nurse, or politely tell them not to see you because they reak of cigarettes or whatever smell?
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: KevShmev on March 09, 2014, 11:59:16 AM
I've gone out to eat at restaurants before where you can tell the server or bartender recently had smoked.  That is so freaking gross. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 09, 2014, 12:01:29 PM
Don't really see why that's gross, seeing as they most certainly have to wash their hands like every other worker there frequently.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: black_biff_stadler on March 09, 2014, 12:05:41 PM
It's gross because the stench is nauseating and lingers for a long time. Smokers become immune to the smell so they just assume nonsmokers are exaggerating.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 09, 2014, 12:06:10 PM
It's gross because the stench is nauseating and lingers for a long time. Smokers become immune to the smell so they just assume nonsmokers are exaggerating.

All of this!

EDIT:  After I quit, I could not believe the night and day difference in my sense of smell.   I think I found an old jacket of mine several months later and almost vomited....and I used to WEAR IT!
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: KevShmev on March 09, 2014, 12:16:25 PM
  Smokers become immune to the smell so they just assume nonsmokers are exaggerating.

This is so true.

I went to a bar to play darts and pool with a few friends about a month ago, it being a bar where you could still smoke, and when I walked in, it was like being punched in the face.  The friends I was with who were smokers didn't even notice.  Suffice it to say, I wimped out and only stayed for about a half hour cause the smell was too disgusting.  And when I got home, my clothes, my hair, everything, just reeked of smoke. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: carl320 on March 09, 2014, 12:18:56 PM
Third hand smoke:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-third-hand-smoke/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-third-hand-smoke/)
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Shadow Ninja 2.0 on March 09, 2014, 12:24:21 PM
I actually like the smell of smoke, but I can see why it would bother people.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Implode on March 09, 2014, 12:32:07 PM
I think it's okay for this to be legal, but personally, I wouldn't refuse to hire someone based nicotine consumption. I can understand not wanting the smell of smoke and all that, but if someone is incredible at hygiene or is on patches or something, I wouldn't hold it against them in hiring them. I wouldn't equate this to refusing to hire overweight people really. Some people are indeed just born fat. It happens. Of course it all depends on to what degree we are talking here.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 09, 2014, 12:34:08 PM
I actually like the smell of smoke, but I can see why it would bother people.

FRESH smoke can be very pleasant at times.   It depends.   Stale smoke is *always* nasty....and fresh smoke always becomes stale smoke in skin, clothing, walls of homes, furniture...etc...etc...
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: El Barto on March 09, 2014, 12:35:53 PM
I've gone out to eat at restaurants before where you can tell the server or bartender recently had smoked.  That is so freaking gross.
That's an interesting example. I know some restaurants around here don't permit smoking on breaks for that reason. That doesn't bother me. If they told their employees they couldn't smoke at all I'd be offended.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Big Hath on March 09, 2014, 12:45:56 PM
And we inch closer and closer to the Great Nicotine Riots of 2017.....
I wouldn't be worried. The riots will last only a block or two, then everyone will be out of breath.

HA!
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: TempusVox on March 09, 2014, 12:59:00 PM
I hate smoking, but think this is rather ridiculous. While I see what they want to do, until they also refuse to hire heavy drinkers and overweight people they have no moral grounds to stand on. Smoking is easy to go after, and that's the only reason we're seeing this.


It's not ridiculous at all. First of all, your argument is sort of ridiculous, no offense. Why? Define "heavy drinker". You cant test someone for that. And as for the obese or overweight analogy employers are moving towards more of a wellness component and forcing employees to address their weight issues. Even then, there are legitimate reasons why someone is overweight sometimes. But drinking in moderation isn't an issue. Smoking is. There is NO smoking in moderation. One puff or a carton is bad for you period.

But to give more of a reason for the smoking issue is this, call it Fact One; It has been proven over and over again that smokers are less productive. The empirical evidence that smokers have lower productivity over working years is fairly strong. They are less productive because they miss work more frequently (absenteeism) and because their smoking-related health conditions (shortness of breath, cardiovascular conditions, cancer, COPD, etc, etc) may affect their ability to perform certain kinds of jobs (presenteeism). Even if the company does not pay sick leave, the disruptive effects of more frequent absences in jobs that require teamwork (such as hospital nursing) will probably lead to increased costs to employers. Not to mention, you can see smokers huddled up all over the place at any given time taking their "smoke break'' outside. I once knew a company who fired a smoker for lack of productivity over this. The employee sued, and we had it tossed easily because the employee used the argument that they only went out for a smoke when they took their restroom break. So the employee didn't think it was a "big deal", and they were being denied their restroom break rights (I kid you not). Other employees went only to the restroom, thereby taking much shorter breaks on total than the smoker did. Not to mention it was an at-will state, and smokers (thank God) are NOT a protected class under federal law.  :lol

Fact Two, smokers have higher medical costs. Smokers have higher average health care costs than non-smokers, other things being equal. (They may have higher life insurance costs as well.) Almost all job-related insurance in hospitals and most other places is experience-rated or self-insured. Even if employee premiums for health and life insurance are not adjusted for smoking status, the fact that medical costs will increase for firms or occupations with larger shares of smokers means that there will be offsetting reductions in wages. Companies have less and less to spend on wages as a result.

Consumers and coworkers may prefer non-smokers. In face-to-face interaction with workers, buyers or consumers of health care may have preferences about behaviors or appearance of workers; attributes that buyers regard as negative will depress total compensation and wages, because it will adversely impact the companies sales overall. In contrast, for occupations and industries where consumers see only the final product (a manufactured good, a piloted airplane) there should be no such negative effects. In hospitals especially, this is important because healthcare overall is getting extremely competitive across the country. Insurance companies are forcing their members to become much more savvy about how they spend their healthcare dollars. Imagine the impact on a cancer patient who is being told by their doctor to absolutely refrain from smoking, and they show up and the girl/guy who pushes the poison into their arm reeks of cigarette smoke. I personally would probably feel like, "How can I trust THIS place to save my life, when they can't even get their own employees to stop smoking." People notice these things. It's not just about curing people. Hospital systems recognize they need to lead by example to capture those dollars more and more.

Personally, I think we should ban cigarette smoking. While I'm in favor of medical marijuana, I abhor tobacco use of any kind. I smoked for nearly 21 years. Worst thing I've ever done. I quit on St. Paddys day while waiting in line to see DT at the Riv in Chicago. That was in '02 I believe. I still worry about walking into my doctors office someday and needing a chest x-ray and they tell me I have cancer. I wish someone had kicked my ass when I started smoking. Like rats, or Ebola, there is NO value to smoking (except for the people in tobacco, and treatment of smoking related disease).  And yeah, I know we ex-smokers are the worst anti-smoking advocates most of the time. There is a reason for that.  :lol

EDIT: I'll also add this. I own part of a restaurant, and we don't allow smoking there. We don't allow workers to meander outside and smoke either. In fact, we even have policies about strong odors, or colognes/perfumes. We don't want any strong odor impacting or effecting our guests in any way. Our service should be excellent, but an otherwise neutral experience for our customers. It does make a difference.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: rumborak on March 09, 2014, 01:02:28 PM
It's gross because the stench is nauseating and lingers for a long time. Smokers become immune to the smell so they just assume nonsmokers are exaggerating.

All of this!

EDIT:  After I quit, I could not believe the night and day difference in my sense of smell.   I think I found an old jacket of mine several months later and almost vomited....and I used to WEAR IT!

Same here. I used to smoke, and when I quit I didn't tell anyone because I had been trying for quite a while unsuccessfully. Well, the second day in a coworker asked me "did you stop smoking?". Go figure.
And I also remember how after 5 days my sense of smell was rebooting. And yeah, some of my clothes were gross, and I had never noticed.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: TempusVox on March 09, 2014, 01:07:18 PM
It's gross because the stench is nauseating and lingers for a long time. Smokers become immune to the smell so they just assume nonsmokers are exaggerating.

All of this!

EDIT:  After I quit, I could not believe the night and day difference in my sense of smell.   I think I found an old jacket of mine several months later and almost vomited....and I used to WEAR IT!

Same here. I used to smoke, and when I quit I didn't tell anyone because I had been trying for quite a while unsuccessfully. Well, the second day in a coworker asked me "did you stop smoking?". Go figure.
And I also remember how after 5 days my sense of smell was rebooting. And yeah, some of my clothes were gross, and I had never noticed.

I quit in March, so late that fall, I put on a coat I hadn't worn since the previous winter. I too almost vomited. It held that cigarette stench that entire time. I HATE the smell of smokers now. Nastiest thing ever. I almost think I'd rather walk through a fart cloud. Almost.  :lol
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: black_biff_stadler on March 09, 2014, 01:18:48 PM
You literally work 140 out of the 168 hours of the week every week?
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: TempusVox on March 09, 2014, 01:36:06 PM
I hate smoking, but think this is rather ridiculous. While I see what they want to do, until they also refuse to hire heavy drinkers and overweight people they have no moral grounds to stand on. Smoking is easy to go after, and that's the only reason we're seeing this.

...Fact One; It has been proven over and over again that smokers are less productive. The empirical evidence that smokers have lower productivity over working years is fairly strong...


That's a very generalized statement.  I smoke cigarettes and weed.  My resume, and list of acomplishments, and client list (2013 Prime Time Emmy winners, 2014 Grammy Nominees, legendary comic book artists, journalists, and major record labels and cable networks) speak for themselves.  I work about 20 hours a day, seven days a week, and have been doing so for about four years.  Smoking effects my "ability to produce" exactly zero percent.  I can understand disliking smoking but to lump everyone who smokes into some under achiever catagory is vasty judgemental, and not entirely accurate.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1747570/pdf/v010p00233.pdf

http://www.tcyh.org/employers/downloads/Effect%2520of%2520Smoking%2520on%2520Productivity%2520Loss.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17033509

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/2013/06/04/US-businesses-pay-about-6000-extra-for-workers-who-smoke/UPI-75141370325465/

http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/r050630.htm

Dude, really?? Congrats on your resume, and more importantly how you're able to post here while cutting into your 4 hour a night sleeping time :biggrin: . But facts are facts. It's not a generalization. You want me to keep going?  There are many, many more.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Shadow Ninja 2.0 on March 09, 2014, 01:53:49 PM
No need to be so aggressive, bro.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: rumborak on March 09, 2014, 01:53:59 PM
Ministry, the problem here is that you have no comparison point of how productive you would be if you stopped smoking. Given the research above, it is likely you would be more productive if you didn't smoke. And btw, no, working hard is not the same as being productive.
Not that I'm suggesting that this is the case with you, but a coworker of mine works insane hours, not because he's productive but rather the opposite, he is unproductive and thus needs to work longer to get the same amount of work done.  Again, just as an illustration that work load is no indicator of productivity.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: rumborak on March 09, 2014, 02:16:46 PM
I'm not sure you read my post. Otherwise I can't see how you would write that last sentence.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: MinistryOfLostSouls on March 09, 2014, 03:01:08 PM
Honestly, I'm not going to attempt to contribute anything more to this conversation.  I'm really excited for being see this absurdly bizarre, and completely random piece of concert film I have created.  You sit and watch it, and you are just mesmerized by 'Electric Sheep.'  Scott Draves is a genius, and so is Jordan Rudess.  The combinations of their brains is absurd. 

I'm here because I am a Dream Theater fan, and I have a whole shit ton of one-of-a-kind unreleased footage that I would like to share with people.  I'm commenting because I was enjoying the particpation.  It's fun to meet and get to know new people.  It's awesome to find other people who share my passion for DT. 

That is all.   :metal
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Cable on March 09, 2014, 03:58:08 PM


He is making very insulting generalizations about smokers.  My own life, and what I do all day every day, proves he is not stating facts, that not all smokers are underachievers.


Tempus cited research in one of his posts, which nicely makes generalizations basically all the time. I think maybe he should have put "most, majority, a lot of" and so on. I think most people know all smokers aren't underachievers, much like not all smokers will develop cancer, obese people will develop diabetes, opium users developing deadly tolerances and so on. But the research is bountiful that says you are much or more likely, or -- times likely to develop X, Y and Z. Sure, it's not a silver bullet, but to deny that people are impacted by its influence, and a lot of traditional workers not creating as much product is missing the mark.


Quote
However, I do have a comparision for when I didn't smoke vs. now.  I quit smoking, and didn't smoke for the first year of my film career, and then after Adult Swim didn't purchase the show I had developed for them I started smoking again because that shit was stressful.  It's never effected my productivity.  In fact, I work more now than I did when I wasn't smoking.


Sounds like that rejection was hard for you. I can see why you wanted to work harder. Clearly the smoking is a coping mechanism.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: MinistryOfLostSouls on March 09, 2014, 04:47:32 PM


He is making very insulting generalizations about smokers.  My own life, and what I do all day every day, proves he is not stating facts, that not all smokers are underachievers.


Tempus cited research in one of his posts, which nicely makes generalizations basically all the time. I think maybe he should have put "most, majority, a lot of" and so on. I think most people know all smokers aren't underachievers, much like not all smokers will develop cancer, obese people will develop diabetes, opium users developing deadly tolerances and so on. But the research is bountiful that says you are much or more likely, or -- times likely to develop X, Y and Z. Sure, it's not a silver bullet, but to deny that people are impacted by its influence, and a lot of traditional workers not creating as much product is missing the mark.


Quote
However, I do have a comparision for when I didn't smoke vs. now.  I quit smoking, and didn't smoke for the first year of my film career, and then after Adult Swim didn't purchase the show I had developed for them I started smoking again because that shit was stressful.  It's never effected my productivity.  In fact, I work more now than I did when I wasn't smoking.


Sounds like that rejection was hard for you. I can see why you wanted to work harder. Clearly the smoking is a coping mechanism.

It's interesting, right after they passed onmy show, I was crushed and viewed it as a failure.  But, the experience, and content guidance from the development director still shaped my career and challenges me to be original every day.  For some reason, right after they passed I was talking with Charlie Dominici a lot. Talking with him helped me understand that I wasn't alone in my artistic struggles.  Even though we had a falling out over a feature film project we were working on togerther, I still appreciate his advice, and wisdom, and support he showed me through that time.  Considering what he gets paid for being a former member of Dream Theater, and the shit he has taken, he's a good sport about things.  I can respect that.

On the research, in terms of the anti-smoking and smoking lobbies both have produced enough studies for use to quote meaningless, biased, research all day.  Whe you start dropping studies, because of all the misinformation, they have no value unless they have been by truly autonomous organizations with no agenda.  you have to look at reality and see what it really true. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: rumborak on March 09, 2014, 04:50:28 PM
Pretty sure that once you disregard CDC and NIH studies (and by extension, all public agencies worldwide, who are all agreeing), all you have left are studies made by cigarette companies.
I'm not even sure what is being argued here. Subjecting a body regularly to a substance that causes myriad health problems and eventually cancer, won't affect its functioning in the medium term at all? That's a peculiar argument, to say the least.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Nick on March 09, 2014, 06:05:57 PM
And just because product X reduced Y by 50% in a population, that doesn't mean everyone who uses X will be reduced by 50%. Some will reduce by 75%, some by 25%, some by 0%, and hell, some might even increase. The issue, ministry, is that you're taking a personal (and as such almost inherently biased) experience, and putting it up against studies done by professionals in the field held up to strict standards. Many of these studies from independent sources. And I would say your personal bias is quite easily deciding what studies to believe and what not to.

And realize this is coming from someone who is on the same side of the argument as you. And realize it's a common thing to do. I'm sure I've done it, and Tempus I'm pretty sure doesn't "buy in" to global warming, and so I'd say he does the same.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: rumborak on March 09, 2014, 06:21:28 PM
As a former smoker myself, I definitely also am familiar with rationalizations of why I personally should not be harmed by it.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: El Barto on March 09, 2014, 06:23:59 PM
And just because product X reduced Y by 50% in a population, that doesn't mean everyone who uses X will be reduced by 50%. Some will reduce by 75%, some by 25%, some by 0%, and hell, some might even increase. The issue, ministry, is that you're taking a personal (and as such almost inherently biased) experience, and putting it up against studies done by professionals in the field held up to strict standards. Many of these studies from independent sources. And I would say your personal bias is quite easily deciding what studies to believe and what not to.
But at the same time Tempus is making generalizations based on the research. He's making assumptions about individuals based on studies that point to trends and averages. Because smokers tend to be less productive doesn't mean that a smoker is less productive. My point is that if you're going to justify a decision based on performance issues, being lazy or stinking, then you should base it on the specific person. Is Smoker A lazy and/or does he stink? Just because he's part of a group that tends to doesn't mean that he is/does.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: rumborak on March 09, 2014, 06:28:49 PM
BTW, I actually don't think the performance thing is enough reason for a regular business to shun smokers. I think hospitals are special in their mission,  clientele and requirements on their staff that it makes sense for them.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Nick on March 09, 2014, 06:42:42 PM
And just because product X reduced Y by 50% in a population, that doesn't mean everyone who uses X will be reduced by 50%. Some will reduce by 75%, some by 25%, some by 0%, and hell, some might even increase. The issue, ministry, is that you're taking a personal (and as such almost inherently biased) experience, and putting it up against studies done by professionals in the field held up to strict standards. Many of these studies from independent sources. And I would say your personal bias is quite easily deciding what studies to believe and what not to.
But at the same time Tempus is making generalizations based on the research. He's making assumptions about individuals based on studies that point to trends and averages. Because smokers tend to be less productive doesn't mean that a smoker is less productive. My point is that if you're going to justify a decision based on performance issues, being lazy or stinking, then you should base it on the specific person. Is Smoker A lazy and/or does he stink? Just because he's part of a group that tends to doesn't mean that he is/does.

Oh, I completely agree. I was just mainly dealing with what I thought were errors in reasoning in Ministries side of things. And like I already said, I think it's morally objectionable to only single out smokers, and you're right, to do so as a group is an issue. Of course some of the things brought up (like healthcare costs), can only be tackled as a group, but past those sorts of things it should be a case by case basis.

And just because product X reduced Y by 50% in a population, that doesn't mean everyone who uses X will be reduced by 50%. Some will reduce by 75%, some by 25%, some by 0%, and hell, some might even increase. The issue, ministry, is that you're taking a personal (and as such almost inherently biased) experience, and putting it up against studies done by professionals in the field held up to strict standards. Many of these studies from independent sources. And I would say your personal bias is quite easily deciding what studies to believe and what not to.

And realize this is coming from someone who is on the same side of the argument as you. And realize it's a common thing to do. I'm sure I've done it, and Tempus I'm pretty sure doesn't "buy in" to global warming, and so I'd say he does the same.


Again, I joined this forum to have fun, and meeting other Dream Theater fans and share these awesome pieces of film that I have.  You can debate this subject all you want.  Leave me out of it.  Please. 

I will going forward only discuss the points already brought up in this thread, and only in this thread. Actually, I will go further and say I personally will not discuss your case any further, but as you've already put it out there please don't be offended if others continue to discuss your points. As for what you came here to do, tons of threads out there to do it, enjoy!

Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: MinistryOfLostSouls on March 09, 2014, 07:24:36 PM
Quote
I will going forward only discuss the points already brought up in this thread, and only in this thread. Actually, I will go further and say I personally will not discuss your case any further, but as you've already put it out there please don't be offended if others continue to discuss your points. As for what you came here to do, tons of threads out there to do it, enjoy!

I'm not offended by politcal discussion.  The insults, however, are entirely unecessary. I am not lazy.  That being said, I am, in fact, having a great time here, and I thank you guys for having me!   :smiley:
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Prog Snob on March 09, 2014, 07:34:24 PM
I'm not sure how it could be legal to refuse someone a job because they smoke.  There must be some law against that.  I don't care what kind of institution it is. What someone does outside the job and in their personal life, as long as it is in the confines of the law, should have no relevancy in the hiring process.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Nick on March 09, 2014, 07:38:42 PM
I'm not sure how it could be legal to refuse someone a job because they smoke.  There must be some law against that.  I don't care what kind of institution it is. What someone does outside the job and in their personal life, as long as it is in the confines of the law, should have no relevancy in the hiring process.

As is so often the case, what you do in your personal life often overlaps with your job much more than most people realize. With health care costs as one example, smells another, there are things about smoking that will carry over to public areas of your life, even if you only do them in private.

And there are already places that do this, so if there are laws possibly against it, smokers obviously haven't won over their case in court yet.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: orcus116 on March 09, 2014, 08:00:56 PM
I'm not sure how it could be legal to refuse someone a job because they smoke.  There must be some law against that.  I don't care what kind of institution it is. What someone does outside the job and in their personal life, as long as it is in the confines of the law, should have no relevancy in the hiring process.

"Outside the job" is questionable. Every cigarette smoker I've worked with goes outside to smoke at least a half dozen times during an 8 hour day.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: rumborak on March 09, 2014, 08:01:01 PM
Yeah, even with e-cigs, you still got a throng of people standing in front of the main entrance of a hospital, sucking on something that still looks like a cigarette.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Prog Snob on March 09, 2014, 08:07:19 PM
I'm not sure how it could be legal to refuse someone a job because they smoke.  There must be some law against that.  I don't care what kind of institution it is. What someone does outside the job and in their personal life, as long as it is in the confines of the law, should have no relevancy in the hiring process.

As is so often the case, what you do in your personal life often overlaps with your job much more than most people realize. With health care costs as one example, smells another, there are things about smoking that will carry over to public areas of your life, even if you only do them in private.

And there are already places that do this, so if there are laws possibly against it, smokers obviously haven't won over their case in court yet.

I am not a fan of the smell of cigarettes myself.  However, I wouldn't dismiss a person because of it and I find it discriminatory to do so.  Actually what irritates me more is when someone wears too much perfume or cologne in a working environment.  People actually have severe allergies to that.  However, have you ever heard of someone not getting hired because they wear cologne or perfume?  I'm sure it has happened before but again, it's not right.

I get that personal and work life overlap. However, I don't find that a justifiable reason to refuse someone a job.  I think the problem is everyone wants the law to cater to their own personal needs.  Some kid chokes on a piece of candy and the next thing you know, the company is forced to put warning labels on the candy.  Cases like this are become more and more ubiquitous.  Whatever happened to people doing what it's their right to do and everyone else minding their own business?  Forcing one's will upon another is fascist.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: El Barto on March 09, 2014, 08:54:33 PM
I think the problem is everyone wants the law to cater to their own personal needs.
Hear, hear.

Now, to address your earlier point, as TV stated being a smoker is not a protected class. Those would be your homos, your Bible thumpers, your non-white people or your cripples. Most other people are on their own. That wouldn't necessarily stop them from filing suit, but I doubt they'd get too far. Sadly*, what the hospital is doing is likely quite legal.


*This whole thing is baffling to me as I can't quite put my finger on where I stand. I was fundamentally against this until DTVT accidentally pointed out that I'm completely in favor of it. Simply put, I think private companies or institutions should be able to hire or fire anybody they damn well chose, and yes that includes the aforementioned protected classes. If I want to run my 7-11 like Menudo and hire only hot 17-19 year olds (girls in this case) then that should be my right. The market will force me to change my ways and such is the order of things. I therefore have to support the hospital's right to do this. That said, I think they're acting like pompous, self-righteous assholes with their decision in this matter.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Prog Snob on March 09, 2014, 08:59:33 PM
At least we can disagree in this topic in a respectful manner.   :lol    I definitely agree with your last sentence. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: TempusVox on March 09, 2014, 09:02:06 PM
Everybody needs to chill the fuck out. Jesus.  :lol  I never singled anybody out, nor did I personally call anyone lazy. What I did say was "smokers", meaning by and large the group known as "smokers", are less productive for a number of factors overall. I didn't do the research. But there are countless studies that have been done to support this. I'm sure Ministry is the hardest working guy in town. But I wasn't talking about Ministry. I was talking about "smokers" in the general sense. Now if Ministry, or anyone else doesn't like being labeled with the majority of "smokers' who have proven to be less productive...then don't smoke. There are exceptions all the time. Wow!
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 09, 2014, 09:06:11 PM
I think the problem is everyone wants the law to cater to their own personal needs.

For example, smokers thinking that it shouldn't be legal to refuse to hire them based on their smoking. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Prog Snob on March 09, 2014, 09:23:00 PM
I think the problem is everyone wants the law to cater to their own personal needs.

For example, smokers thinking that it shouldn't be legal to refuse to hire them based on their smoking.

 :lol  You have everything all bass ackwards.  You think it should be alright to segregate based on something that is completely legal to do?  Refusing to hire someone because they have a criminal past is something I could easily more understand - of course that is depending on the crime.  However, extending that to a legal activity is ludicrous. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: black_biff_stadler on March 09, 2014, 09:24:38 PM
Bart, just let me know when and where you open your 7-11.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 09, 2014, 09:40:28 PM
You think it should be alright to segregate based on something that is completely legal to do? 

To me, this is not a matter of segregation at all.  This is a matter of picking people who will fit the job.  In the case of a hospital, people whose habits might make patients sick do not fit the job.  There's a reason hospitals are supposed to be sterile and sanitary. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: El Barto on March 09, 2014, 09:48:11 PM
You think it should be alright to segregate based on something that is completely legal to do? 

To me, this is not a matter of segregation at all.  This is a matter of picking people who will fit the job.  In the case of a hospital, people whose habits might make patients sick do not fit the job.  There's a reason hospitals are supposed to be sterile and sanitary.
OK, this is fine and dandy. Here's the problem though, and this is also a response to Tempus. If you're going to use that as a basis for hiring/firing, I can't consider it fair to do so based on averages or trends. You have to approach this on case by case basis or else you're just jerking off. How do you know that Smoker A is more of a risk to patients than Ms. Subway Rider B or Mr. Moonlighting As A Sewer Worker C? It's not that I'm opposed to them not hiring smokers for any number of reasons, but I think those reasons should exist, rather than being more likely because they smoke. Like I said before, "you fucking stink!" is a perfectly valid reason to fire somebody in my book. "You smoke so you might stink someday" is not.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Prog Snob on March 09, 2014, 09:50:01 PM
You think it should be alright to segregate based on something that is completely legal to do? 

To me, this is not a matter of segregation at all.  This is a matter of picking people who will fit the job.  In the case of a hospital, people whose habits might make patients sick do not fit the job.  There's a reason hospitals are supposed to be sterile and sanitary.

That is such a short-sighted excuse.    Someone smelling smoke on a person's clothes is not going to make them sick.   :lol
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: El Barto on March 09, 2014, 09:54:42 PM
You think it should be alright to segregate based on something that is completely legal to do? 

To me, this is not a matter of segregation at all.  This is a matter of picking people who will fit the job.  In the case of a hospital, people whose habits might make patients sick do not fit the job.  There's a reason hospitals are supposed to be sterile and sanitary.

That is such a short-sighted excuse.    Someone smelling smoke on a person's clothes is not going to make them sick.   :lol
To be fair there's already been one example cited here, and since I nearly hurled all over a Krogers because of some twat's Jerry-curl, I certainly wouldn't be one to argue with him. I also pointed out (and will save you from having to make your next post) that the world doesn't revolve around her or me and our aversions to sickening smells.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Prog Snob on March 09, 2014, 10:01:33 PM
You think it should be alright to segregate based on something that is completely legal to do? 

To me, this is not a matter of segregation at all.  This is a matter of picking people who will fit the job.  In the case of a hospital, people whose habits might make patients sick do not fit the job.  There's a reason hospitals are supposed to be sterile and sanitary.

That is such a short-sighted excuse.    Someone smelling smoke on a person's clothes is not going to make them sick.   :lol
To be fair there's already been one example cited here, and since I nearly hurled all over a Krogers because of some twat's Jerry-curl, I certainly wouldn't be one to argue with him. I also pointed out (and will save you from having to make your next post) that the world doesn't revolve around her or me and our aversions to sickening smells.

Exactly.  I think this country has turned into more about "me, me, me" than what better serves the country as a whole.  No one looks at the bigger picture anymore. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 09, 2014, 10:17:24 PM
OK, this is fine and dandy. Here's the problem though, and this is also a response to Tempus. If you're going to use that as a basis for hiring/firing, I can't consider it fair to do so based on averages or trends. You have to approach this on case by case basis or else you're just jerking off. How do you know that Smoker A is more of a risk to patients than Ms. Subway Rider B or Mr. Moonlighting As A Sewer Worker C? It's not that I'm opposed to them not hiring smokers for any number of reasons, but I think those reasons should exist, rather than being more likely because they smoke. Like I said before, "you fucking stink!" is a perfectly valid reason to fire somebody in my book. "You smoke so you might stink someday" is not.

Fair point.  I would argue that with something like this, though, preventative measures are worth considering.  True, you could just make it a hospital policy that nobody is allowed to smell like cigarette smoke, but again, I'm not sure how you enforce something like that.  Not everyone is equally sensitive to the smell, so an employee could come in stinking of it and people might not even notice until there was an incident. 

Though, again, for the record, I'm not necessarily sure about this policy.  My main goal here was to express that smoking can affect other people in a way that something like obesity really can't, so it makes sense to me to treat smoking differently than obesity. 

Someone smelling smoke on a person's clothes is not going to make them sick.   :lol

This simply isn't true.  It may be rare, but it does happen.  If you want to dismiss those rare cases as irrelevant aberrations, fair enough, but I take exception to the notion that they just don't happen at all.  In addition to the example of my mom, multiple people in this thread have talked about feeling nauseous when smelling smoke on their old clothes after quitting. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Prog Snob on March 09, 2014, 10:38:10 PM
Someone smelling smoke on a person's clothes is not going to make them sick.   :lol

This simply isn't true.  It may be rare, but it does happen.  If you want to dismiss those rare cases as irrelevant aberrations, fair enough, but I take exception to the notion that they just don't happen at all.  In addition to the example of my mom, multiple people in this thread have talked about feeling nauseous when smelling smoke on their old clothes after quitting.

I get extremely nauseous when I smell eggs cooking.  Should I stop the people in my household from eating them?  It also bothers me when my wife and step-daughter overdo it with perfume.   There are some things people just have to learn to deal with instead of making everyone else around them change. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 09, 2014, 10:47:07 PM
I get extremely nauseous when I smell eggs cooking.  Should I stop the people in my household from eating them? 

That depends.  Do they constantly smell like eggs being cooked?  If so, I'd say you'd have every right to not let them in your house. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Nick on March 09, 2014, 10:50:17 PM
Well, I'd say that this has certainly moved into P/R territory, and things are getting rather heated. So this is going to get moved, people will take some time, and then we can continue the discussion. And I ask everyone please watch their language and keep things respectful.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jonnybaxy on March 11, 2014, 07:24:55 AM
The way I see it is;

A: So should they not hire athletes because they may smell of BO?
B: Someone smelling of smoke doesn't mean they smoke so should they say anyone who knows anyone who smokes shouldn't be hired.
C: People don't like tuna so anyone who likes it can't work here.

This shouldn't be legal, all this talk of equality and diversity everywhere we look, but some only see what they want to see.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Chino on March 11, 2014, 07:59:02 AM
I figured this was more about the future healthcare costs of the employer.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: KevShmev on March 11, 2014, 08:15:44 AM
The way I see it is;

A: So should they not hire athletes because they may smell of BO?
B: Someone smelling of smoke doesn't mean they smoke so should they say anyone who knows anyone who smokes shouldn't be hired.
C: People don't like tuna so anyone who likes it can't work here.
 

With all due respect, those are three really poor examples.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: El Barto on March 11, 2014, 08:21:27 AM
I figured this was more about the future healthcare costs of the employer.
And to that end I don't see why they don't just attach a smoker surcharge to smoking employees. That could cover healthcare costs and give smokers yet another encouragement to quit on their own.

Furthermore, I'm still troubled by the e-cig aspect of this. A whole lot of people are using those as a stepping stone to quite smoking, and I think we should all see this as a good thing.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 08:24:10 AM
Buuuuuuut water vapor with a possible after hint of fruit or something sweet is just unbeeeeeeeearable.

I agree with everything in your post Barto. I find it incredibly ridiculous that people who are using e-digs are treated just as bad, when they're comparably light years better(barring possible negative health effects since enough studies haven't really been done yet)
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Chino on March 11, 2014, 08:39:26 AM
An e-cig helped me stop smoking. I originally started using it to save money/be able to smoke anywhere I wanted. Sort of a funny story about that. I used the e-cig for about 6 months. It got to the point where I believed I had gotten addicted to it. There were days where I'd bet I took 500+ drags. I'd sit in my cubicle with the thing in my hand all day. I smoked it in the car, while watching tv, when I was outside, on the shitter, literally everywhere. One day I accidentally put it through the wash, and it was no more. I chose not to buy a new one and was surprisingly not bothered by it at all. There was the awkwardness of not having the thing in my hand for a day or two, but I never felt the urge to go out and buy another. That's something I can't say about cigarettes. I've been without my e-cig now for about four months. So far in 2014, I've only bought one pack of smokes, and it was for a heavy night of drinking at the casino. Part of me thinks the e-cig should be being encouraged rather than frowned upon.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jonnybaxy on March 11, 2014, 09:02:50 AM
The way I see it is;

A: So should they not hire athletes because they may smell of BO?
B: Someone smelling of smoke doesn't mean they smoke so should they say anyone who knows anyone who smokes shouldn't be hired.
C: People don't like tuna so anyone who likes it can't work here.
 

A + C maybe, but how is B a poor example? people who live with smokers will sometimes smell of smoke, and that seems to be a big issue here...
With all due respect, those are three really poor examples.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: KevShmev on March 11, 2014, 09:17:26 AM
Because the OP clearly stated:

Quote
From March 1st forward an applicant would have to take a drug test and if any trace of nicotine was found in their system, their application would be rejected, and even if hired they would be subject to random drug testing in the future, which if nicotine was found in their system they would be terminated.

Living with a smoker doesn't mean you will have nicotine showing up in your system in a drug test.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 11, 2014, 09:25:26 AM
I think that's his point.  He's saying that even people who don't smoke might smell like smoke, so refusing to hire smokers wouldn't necessarily prevent the smell of smoke from getting into hospitals. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Chino on March 11, 2014, 09:30:46 AM
Fun story to lighten the mood:

A few winters years ago, my grandmother was in the hospital having suffered a stroke. The nurse walked into her room and she was missing. They couldn't find her and locked the floor down. After about 20 minutes, security found her outside sitting on a bench with her IV bag next to her. She was at the shuttle stop smoking a cigarette. She managed to get outside, bum a cigarette, and have someone light it for her without anyone noticing. 

Carry on.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Prog Snob on March 11, 2014, 09:43:05 AM
Because the OP clearly stated:

Quote
From March 1st forward an applicant would have to take a drug test and if any trace of nicotine was found in their system, their application would be rejected, and even if hired they would be subject to random drug testing in the future, which if nicotine was found in their system they would be terminated.

Living with a smoker doesn't mean you will have nicotine showing up in your system in a drug test.

If it was second hand smoke and nicotine somehow entered your body, it wouldn't be there long enough to show up in an eventual blood test. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Chino on March 11, 2014, 09:45:35 AM
Because the OP clearly stated:

Quote
From March 1st forward an applicant would have to take a drug test and if any trace of nicotine was found in their system, their application would be rejected, and even if hired they would be subject to random drug testing in the future, which if nicotine was found in their system they would be terminated.

Living with a smoker doesn't mean you will have nicotine showing up in your system in a drug test.

If it was second hand smoke and nicotine somehow entered your body, it wouldn't be there long enough to show up in an eventual blood test.

What about people who pack lips?
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Prog Snob on March 11, 2014, 09:53:54 AM
Because the OP clearly stated:

Quote
From March 1st forward an applicant would have to take a drug test and if any trace of nicotine was found in their system, their application would be rejected, and even if hired they would be subject to random drug testing in the future, which if nicotine was found in their system they would be terminated.

Living with a smoker doesn't mean you will have nicotine showing up in your system in a drug test.

If it was second hand smoke and nicotine somehow entered your body, it wouldn't be there long enough to show up in an eventual blood test.

What about people who pack lips?

Interesting question actually.  How can you fire somebody for having nicotine show up in their system if all they are doing is chewing tobacco?   
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 09:57:02 AM
Or somebody who's chewing nicotine gum to quit or has nicotine patches, would they make some special exception for that?
This is why you shouldn't be able to dictate something like this for a job.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 11, 2014, 09:58:37 AM
Because the OP clearly stated:

Quote
From March 1st forward an applicant would have to take a drug test and if any trace of nicotine was found in their system, their application would be rejected, and even if hired they would be subject to random drug testing in the future, which if nicotine was found in their system they would be terminated.

Living with a smoker doesn't mean you will have nicotine showing up in your system in a drug test.

If it was second hand smoke and nicotine somehow entered your body, it wouldn't be there long enough to show up in an eventual blood test.

What about people who pack lips?

Interesting question actually.  How can you fire somebody for having nicotine show up in their system if all they are doing is chewing tobacco?

Easy...you hand them their pink slip for violating the company policy that they agreed to when they were hired.

I don't know how people got hung up on the smell.   The smell of cigs is certainly disgusting, and is one of the factors that make passing this rule desirable...but the #1 driving force behind the rule is HEALTH CARE COSTS....not smell.   And chewing tobacco is still a health risk.    If you chew tobacco, you pay higher premiums.

Also...if you work in just about any job, you can own a Mac...but not if you work at Microsoft.    At a health care facility, it's simply viewed as a conflict of interests. 

Yes, they could also make that claim with body weight, but tobacco is simply the first step.  More "conflict of interests for a health care facility" rules could be forthcoming.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 11, 2014, 10:01:25 AM
Or somebody who's chewing nicotine gum to quit or has nicotine patches, would they make some special exception for that?
This is why you shouldn't be able to dictate something like this for a job.

I would think a "window" would be fine.   Like, if you were in the process of quitting and using gum or patches, the company could issue a "probationary" period that nicotine was allowed in.    But if you didn't test nicotine free in...say 6 months...it would be grounds for immediate termination. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Prog Snob on March 11, 2014, 10:03:25 AM
Or somebody who's chewing nicotine gum to quit or has nicotine patches, would they make some special exception for that?
This is why you shouldn't be able to dictate something like this for a job.

I agree, which is why I'm against this whole ridiculous notion to begin with. 

As if trying to get a job isn't hard enough these days, let's just add another obstacle. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Ben_Jamin on March 11, 2014, 10:04:28 AM
Or somebody who's chewing nicotine gum to quit or has nicotine patches, would they make some special exception for that?
This is why you shouldn't be able to dictate something like this for a job.

Exactly, its up to the person hired to be respectful and not smoke until after their shift ends. If they decide to smoke, you could as a patient complain to the head nurse, right?

Also, it seems this is a healthcare issue due to the health effects of smoking. If the employee uses the hospital healthcare plan then should their individual premiuns go up, if they're a smoker. Or why not put a rule saying if you're a heavy smoker they can't accept you under their healthplan.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 10:09:00 AM
This brings up something semi related, in the job sense. I find it incredibly wrong that employers get to dictate how you look. My friend applied for a job at a Canoe Outfitter recently, and unless he cuts his hair to be incredibly short, they won't hire him. He's well groomed, takes care of his appearance, so what right do they have to dictate "Cut all of your hair off or you can forget about being hired."

Unless your appearance is an untamed mess that you obviously don't take care of or keep clean, employers have no right to dictate such things. Now uniforms, such as clothing, sure go ahead with that, if you want me to wear a hat with a giant hotdog on it, sure whatever, but leave my appearance to myself.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 11, 2014, 10:13:45 AM
Or somebody who's chewing nicotine gum to quit or has nicotine patches, would they make some special exception for that?
This is why you shouldn't be able to dictate something like this for a job.

I agree, which is why I'm against this whole ridiculous notion to begin with. 

As if trying to get a job isn't hard enough these days, let's just add another obstacle.

Trying to find good employees is really hard as well.

I remember when I was an assistant at a video store.   The manager was a really great guy...and he was *THE* goto guy for the entire company.  Whenever a store wasn't doing well, they would have him travel to the store to "do housekeeping"...and the stores ALWAYS had a drastic improvement in sales when he was done with it.

He took me through his hiring process.   First, he would prefer to work short-staffed than hire poor employees.   Second, he would take a stack of about 50 applications, and not even read them.   Just call the 3 or 4 with the best penmanship.  (well...not *only* that...but he would look at the application to see if it was completely filled out and looked neat, clean and pleasant....but he didn't read anything but the name and phone number)   The others were never even considered.   

He *ALWAYS* had the best employees in the whole company.   The only problem he had was keeping them, and only because they were constantly in demand.  They either got a better job than working at the video store, or they were promoted at the video store within the company.

This is only to make the point that I have been on the other side of things, and I have been in situations where...even if a spot needs to be filled...80% of the applicants are never even considered.   Some people would rather work short staffed and hire no one than hire someone sloppy.   
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: bosk1 on March 11, 2014, 10:42:20 AM
Unless your appearance is an untamed mess that you obviously don't take care of or keep clean, employers have no right to dictate such things.

Why not?
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 11:14:57 AM
Unless your appearance is an untamed mess that you obviously don't take care of or keep clean, employers have no right to dictate such things.

Why not?
Because someone should be able be happy with their appearance and have a choice in it. Other people shouldn't be able to decide what you look like, it's your identity, not theirs.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: bosk1 on March 11, 2014, 11:18:32 AM
But your point is not about dictating identity.  It is about dictating appearance in a workplace.  Why do you believe an employer does not have the right to dictate their workplace?
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 11, 2014, 11:19:46 AM
I could not disagree more, because when you work for a company you represent that company. The company has a right to hire employees who will represent THEIR ideal, not the individuals
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on March 11, 2014, 11:22:16 AM
If you are the public face of a company, like a nurse in a hospital, for example, your identity IS their identity.  You represent them.  If you look like a homeless person, it will reflect poorly on the company.  The company clearly doesn't want that.

EDIT:  I see that's already been covered.   :lol
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 11:24:59 AM
I believe your appearance is part of your identity. I'm not talking about gender identity.
Like I said, uniforms, shit the employer can make you wear whatever, but how you look, that's your choice, not an employer.

One great inequality I noticed when I was a front desk clerk was that the girls I worked with could look how ever they pleased. Huge piercings, crazy hair and what not, but the moment I walked in with a small ear ring, and a shaped up and trim beard, my boss freaked the fuck out and demanded that I change completely how I looked. I refused, and kept coming in, and every time she pointed it out, I'd point out the girls and herself, asking why it was okay she got to wear ear rings but I wasn't allowed to, and how a lot of the other guys had facial hair, but suddenly I wasn't allowed to.
I've dealt with employers being complete hypocrites telling me how I have to look, and I just don't stand for it.

I'm not talking about walking in looking like a lumberjack, but to say that someone with a trim and neat beard looks homeless is absolutely insulting.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 11, 2014, 11:32:16 AM
But the point is, they aren't just dictating your appearance, they're dictating the appearance of their workplace.  They're not telling you how you have to look, they're telling you that the way you look doesn't fit with the appearance they want for their company.  Why shouldn't they have the right to do that?
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: bosk1 on March 11, 2014, 11:35:29 AM
But the point is, they aren't just dictating your appearance, they're dictating the appearance of their workplace.  They're not telling you how you have to look, they're telling you that the way you look doesn't fit with the appearance they want for their company.  Why shouldn't they have the right to do that?

Yeah, exactly.  You can look however you want.  Just not there.  And while you have the right to continue looking the way you look, a consequence is that they have the right to decide that you are no longer welcome there.

It's still somewhat shocking to me that employees somehow think they have a "right" to dictate terms to their employers.   :lol  Hence the "why?" question.  Not surprisingly, I have yet to ever get an answer that amounts to anything more than, "well, because I just think so."
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 11:39:30 AM
Usually because they're big fucking hypocrites who don't follow their own guidelines, but my past beef with old employers aside:

- They're most definitely wrong about how they assume people will react to you 99.9% of the time. My positive reviews and customer service can tell you that, along with the fact that the stores that let people look how they wanted to dominated big chain stores with all those strict guidelines in customer service and business (this is based off of my experience in Sioux Falls and in Tampa) (THIS IS VERY BIASED SO I DON'T BLAME YOU IF YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THIS POINT) I can't tell you how much customers never gave a shit about my mohawk or beard, and sometimes it brought up some fun, friendly conversation about it.


It's disgusting to assume how someone's appearance will affect the workplace or doesn't "belong" in their workplace IMO.

I don't think any of us are going to change our minds on this, so I guess I'll drop it. It's just something that I personally find disgusting.

EDIT: WHY SHOULDN'T EMPLOYEES GET TO DICTATE CERTAIN TERMS? Employers don't own you, they pay you for your work and time you provide them, not to own your appearance and identity.

And furthermore, if they won't hire certain people based on their appearance, why would you want to provide them money as a customer, it's completely sickening that we live in a world where Employers think they own their employees, and that their employees get no say in the matter.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 11, 2014, 11:49:00 AM
I just don't think any of that overrules the rights of the company.  Sure, maybe the appearance standards they want to uphold are stupid and unnecessary, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right to keep their workplace to those standards. 

Think of it this way: if this company is so stupid and hypocritical, why do you want to work there in the first place?  Why not find a job at a place more in tune with your own identity? 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 11:51:23 AM
Because without my degree which I'm working for, Studios and Touring companies mouths are just dripping with drool at the prospect to hire me.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 11, 2014, 11:58:44 AM
So what you're saying is you need the company more than they need you?

That's why they dictate the terms.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 12:05:23 PM
What I'm saying is that I can't get my dream job until I finish college, but that's not to say that I haven't enjoyed other jobs I've had(Target actually didn't care about my blue mohawk and beard, and the hotel grew to love em as well) I actually look for jobs in which I'd feel comfortable working in. And the fact that somehow the fact that I need to make money to live means that the employer suddenly owns my appearance is something I find ridiculous.

Now, I'm leaving this conversation, because you're most certainly not going to change my mind, and I'm obviously not going to change your guys' minds.

Peace.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 11, 2014, 12:07:07 PM
this is only my opinion, but I have been in the public workforce for 30 years and I can tell you right now that if you think you are not a slave to the system you are seriously deluding yourself.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Shadow Ninja 2.0 on March 11, 2014, 12:09:11 PM
I got access to this forum just say I agree with Jaffa.

I should probably just add it to my signature. :lol
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: KevShmev on March 11, 2014, 12:16:20 PM
Regarding physical appearance, I am someone who hates shaving, and I do it as infrequently as possible, and I will admit that various bosses over many years have often (mostly) nicely reminded me that I need to be better about that, usually when I have the 3-4 days worth of facial hair look (basically in between being clean shaven and having a full beard or goatee), and I have never been mad about it since I know they are right. 

In fact, I often plan when I shave around work. :lol  For example, if I work M-F and am off the weekend, I can shave on Thursday, since Friday's growth will barely be noticeable, and by the time Monday rolls around, it has been four days and it will look good when I shave just my neck (while keeping everything else).  I'll plan shaving around girlfriends, too, as I have had several over the years who didn't like how rough it was on their skin, so then I will shave every day (since the annoyance of shaving comes with the likelihood of more fun time, which far outweighs not shaving and no fun time :lol :lol).
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Cool Chris on March 11, 2014, 12:27:26 PM
Nice! I am the same way with my shaving schedule. Sunday night and Wednesday night keeps me good enough for my job.

And being married means I never have to shave otherwise, with the rare exception of a wedding, holiday, or other important family/social event.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: theseoafs on March 11, 2014, 12:37:39 PM
this is only my opinion, but I have been in the public workforce for 30 years and I can tell you right now that if you think you are not a slave to the system you are seriously deluding yourself.

I'd have to agree with this -- not getting to wear exactly what you want 40 hours a week is a far fucking cry from slavery.

EDIT:  Sorry, I don't agree with this :lol
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 12:40:57 PM
I think I made it pretty damn clear I'm not talking about clothing. I said multiple times uniforms are A-fucking-okay.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: theseoafs on March 11, 2014, 12:44:17 PM
Sure, the mohawk, and the beard, and the piercings.  Still not slavery, or even anything vaguely resembling slavery.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: KevShmev on March 11, 2014, 12:45:00 PM
On a somewhat related note, I have several facebook friends (more acquaintances/former co-workers than anything really) who love posting those pictures about how tattoos in the workplace are not a bad thing and how employers should not hold having tattoos against people applying for jobs.  While I generally agree, it goes back to physical appearance, and if a company doesn't want someone who has their entire arm or neck covered with some ridiculous tat, then that is their right. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 11, 2014, 12:54:46 PM
this is only my opinion, but I have been in the public workforce for 30 years and I can tell you right now that if you think you are not a slave to the system you are seriously deluding yourself.

I'd have to agree with this -- not getting to wear exactly what you want 40 hours a week is a far fucking cry from slavery.

EDIT:  Sorry, I don't agree with this :lol

But you do HAVE to work.  You NEED a job.    If you don't have a job, you absolutely (NOT an option) have to do whatever you have to to get one.    There is NO option...you HAVE to have a job.    You HAVE to work.  That is slavery.   

Two famous quotes from the character Red Foreman from That 70's Show that I happen to think are basic truths about work:

Work is work. You don't show up late. You don't make excuses. And you don't not work. If it wasn't work, they wouldn't call it work. They'd call it "superwonderful crazy fun time," or "skip-a-dee-doo."

Work is not about fun. It's about work. It's about seeing how much crap you can take from the boss-man. And then taking some more.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 11, 2014, 01:03:25 PM
I think I made it pretty damn clear I'm not talking about clothing. I said multiple times uniforms are A-fucking-okay.

Fair enough, but in my opinion, saying that actually hurts your case.  You seem to concede that employers do have some rights to dictate the appearance of their employees.  So why draw the line at facial hair?  What's the difference between dressing a certain way and grooming yourself a certain way? 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 01:15:25 PM
I am not drawing the line at facial hair, facial hair was just my personal example. I am drawing the line at physical appearance, not just for men, for every gender, for every single person. People should have the right to appear as they want, and when I say that as long as it it doesn't interfere with the job.(such as you wouldn't want a guy who spiked up their mohawk 2ft at a construction site because they couldn't wear a helmet, but if somebody wants to shave the sides of their head and keep the top long, they should have every right to do so and so forth.). Clothing is what helps identify someone who works at whatever job, which is why I find that okay. But the moment you're telling people how they have to appear, I don't find that okay.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Chino on March 11, 2014, 01:21:57 PM
On a somewhat related note, I have several facebook friends (more acquaintances/former co-workers than anything really) who love posting those pictures about how tattoos in the workplace are not a bad thing and how employers should not hold having tattoos against people applying for jobs.  While I generally agree, it goes back to physical appearance, and if a company doesn't want someone who has their entire arm or neck covered with some ridiculous tat, then that is their right.

All I know is, I work in a place that is very professional. There are 3000 people in my location. The only tattoos I see are on the women, and they are on their ankles. In my four months here, I haven't seen a single male with a tattoo. I'm sure guys here have them hidden, and I have nothing against people with sleeves tattoos. The only male employees with visible tattoos are the guys who work in the cafeteria, and they technically aren't employees of where I work. The cafeteria is its own company with its own employees.  I would love to have a sleeve, but I understand that I'd never have a job doing this kind of work if I had one (unless I wanted to wear long sleeves in the middle of summer).

We have execs walking around all the time, and clients in and out that are worth 8 figures, they don't want to see that kind of stuff. And not for nothing, for every person with sleeves that could handle the work in this environment, I bet there are a hundred (that's probably being nice) that can't.

Also, knowing that, why would you ever get a sleeve if your intention is to be a professional? I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the corporate attitude on tattoos, but that's the world we live in. I know very smart people who have been turned down because they have more tattoos than they can count, and some have huge holes in their face. Why would you sacrifice the ability to make serious money just to have some colors on your arm? Tattoos are really cool, I love them, but so are 3000+ square foot houses, vehicles that are still covered under warranty, kids that can have good Christmases and birthdays, the ability to indulge in high-end electronics, a nice retirement plan, and having a crapload of vacation time at work (I started with four weeks).  I understand it makes a statement, but not having to live paycheck to paycheck is pretty cool too. 

I'm not trying to put down anyone here. I'm just telling it how I see it.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Chino on March 11, 2014, 01:24:56 PM
People should have the right to appear as they want, and when I say that as long as it it doesn't interfere with the job.

It's not about whether or not they can do the job. It's whether or not it will effect the customer base. If a doctor has tattoos everywhere and gauge ear rings, odds are people won't want to go to that one. He/she may be perfectly capable, but it's the general public's perception dictates who gets hired, not the employer. The employer is looking to make money. If tattoos effect the bottom line, even if it's not performance related, the business can't have that.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 11, 2014, 01:25:19 PM
On a somewhat related note, I have several facebook friends (more acquaintances/former co-workers than anything really) who love posting those pictures about how tattoos in the workplace are not a bad thing and how employers should not hold having tattoos against people applying for jobs.  While I generally agree, it goes back to physical appearance, and if a company doesn't want someone who has their entire arm or neck covered with some ridiculous tat, then that is their right.

All I know is, I work in a place that is very professional. There are 3000 people in my location. The only tattoos I see are on the women, and they are on their ankles. In my four months here, I haven't seen a single male with a tattoo. I'm sure guys here have them hidden, and I have nothing against people with sleeves tattoos. The only male employees with visible tattoos are the guys who work in the cafeteria, and they technically aren't employees of where I work. The cafeteria is its own company with its own employees.  I would love to have a sleeve, but I understand that I'd never have a job doing this kind of work if I had one (unless I wanted to wear long sleeves in the middle of summer).

We have execs walking around all the time, and clients in and out that are worth 8 figures, they don't want to see that kind of stuff. And not for nothing, for every person with sleeves that could handle the work in this environment, I bet there are a hundred (that's probably being nice) that can't.

Also, knowing that, why would you ever get a sleeve if your intention is to be a professional? I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the corporate attitude on tattoos, but that's the world we live in. I know very smart people who have been turned down because they have more tattoos than they can count, and some have huge holes in their face. Why would you sacrifice the ability to make serious money just to have some colors on your arm? Tattoos are really cool, I love them, but are 3000+ square foot houses, vehicles that are still covered under warranty, kids that can have good Christmases and birthdays, the ability to indulge in high-end electronics, a nice retirement plan, and having a crapload of vacation time at work (I started with four weeks).  I understand it makes a statement, but not having to live paycheck to paycheck is pretty cool too. 

I'm not trying to put down anyone here. I'm just telling it how I see it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SO MUCH THIS!!!
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 11, 2014, 01:52:27 PM
I am not drawing the line at facial hair, facial hair was just my personal example. I am drawing the line at physical appearance, not just for men, for every gender, for every single person. People should have the right to appear as they want, and when I say that as long as it it doesn't interfere with the job.(such as you wouldn't want a guy who spiked up their mohawk 2ft at a construction site because they couldn't wear a helmet, but if somebody wants to shave the sides of their head and keep the top long, they should have every right to do so and so forth.). Clothing is what helps identify someone who works at whatever job, which is why I find that okay. But the moment you're telling people how they have to appear, I don't find that okay.

Some people consider their clothing part of their appearance and identity.  I'd say it's definitely part of their appearance, at least.  Bottom line, if employers are allowed to have some guidelines about appearances, I think any line you draw is going to be arbitrary.   
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Implode on March 11, 2014, 01:59:33 PM
Unfortunately that's the world we live in. On a personal level, I couldn't care less about how someone wears their hair or if they have tattoos are any of that. As long as it isn't a health hazard, it doesn't matter to me. If ran a company, I'd love to be able to make a statement where prospective employees weren't judged on appearance.

However, I do understand why some companies want to restrict that kind of stuff. I don't think it's right, but the world does make superficial judgments based on appearance. Businesses want to make their establishments as comfortable for their customers as possible. Some older customers might not feel comfortable being served by guys with tons of tattoos. It's not right, but it is a valid concern.

I think it'd be better overall if companies would stop perpetuating these conventions. Using the tattoo example again, more people would see people with tattoos in their everyday life, and therefore the conditioned fears and stereotypes surrounding them would go through extinction. I'm just not sure if implementing that through laws is the best way to go about it. I'd like to eventually live in a society where we  don't need that law. If people don't like how a company runs, simply don't support them. Of course that opens a whole pandora's box of problems in itself, but I'm just talking in hippie idealism here.  :lol That's where I'm coming from.

This all goes for tattoos, piercings, dyed hair, hair style, etc. As others have pointed out, uniforms are a bit different. They can also serve a practical purpose. For example, in a large department store, uniforms can help customers easily pick out employees to help them.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 02:03:13 PM
To Jaffa:
That's fine too, I wear band shirts all the time, it's sort of become a part of my daily wardrobe, but the difference with that is that uniforms are what define someone working at said job. Customers would have a hard time finding somebody to assist them at Target if employees didn't have to wear a plain red top and khaki pants, but could instead dress up in whatever outfit.

Whereas, I could still have my blue mohawk and beard at Target, and Jim could be clean shaven and short haired, but we were both identifiable as employees because of our common uniform.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 11, 2014, 02:16:15 PM
While that may be true, who do you think will get a promotion to manager when the time comes?
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 11, 2014, 02:18:46 PM
To Jaffa:
That's fine too, I wear band shirts all the time, it's sort of become a part of my daily wardrobe, but the difference with that is that uniforms are what define someone working at said job. Customers would have a hard time finding somebody to assist them at Target if employees didn't have to wear a plain red top and khaki pants, but could instead dress up in whatever outfit.

Whereas, I could still have my blue mohawk and beard at Target, and Jim could be clean shaven and short haired, but we were both identifiable as employees because of our common uniform.

Fair enough.  I have two questions, then.

1.  What about dress codes?  Some places don't have specific uniforms, but they do have standards about what their employees can wear.  I'm actually applying to work at a bookstore where the employees have a lot of freedom about what they wear.  The store has certain rules - no shorts, no hats, no obscene or obviously offensive designs - but it's not strict.  A lot of the employees just wear jeans and a t-shirt every day.  Now, you can't exactly identify an employee just by the fact that they're wearing jeans and a t-shirt, because lots of customers will be, too.  So this dress code doesn't necessarily serve the practical function you're talking about.  They aren't doing it to be able to identify their employees, they're doing it to set a basic standard.  Is that cool with you?

2. What if a store decides that all of its employees have to have blue mohawks?  Kind of an absurd hypothetical, granted, but how would you feel about it?  It's a regulation of physical appearance, but it does serve the practical purpose of employee identification.  Is it acceptable according to your principles?
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 02:23:58 PM
While that may be true, who do you think will get a promotion to manager when the time comes?
Probably him seeing I quit working there once I got back into school. But if you want the answer you're looking for, probably him, because yeah, people today do judge on appearance alone, but that doesn't mean we should just accept it and let things stay the way they are.

As for Jaffa:

1. Yeah it's cool with me, because while it's not a conventional and uncommon, it's still a uniform of sorts. You're asked to wear plain clothing, with nothing offensive, no hats, like most retail oriented jobs, and most likely you'll have a name tag identifying you as an employee.

2. No that's not acceptable, because whoever the employer is is dictating other's appearances, which isn't okay. Clothing is uniform enough. They could easily have employees wear Blue polos with dress pants or whatever, to identify the employees.

EDIT: Let's entertain the thought for number two that the blue mohawks were hats or wigs. That would be okay by me, as it'd be like wearing a costume, and it's not something the employee has to change about their own personal physical appearance.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 11, 2014, 02:28:22 PM
1. Yeah it's cool with me, because while it's not a conventional and uncommon, it's still a uniform of sorts. You're asked to wear plain clothing, with nothing offensive, no hats, like most retail oriented jobs, and most likely you'll have a name tag identifying you as an employee.

2. No that's not acceptable, because whoever the employer is is dictating other's appearances, which isn't okay. Clothing is uniform enough. They could easily have employees wear Blue polos with dress pants or whatever, to identify the employees.

EDIT: Let's entertain the thought for number two that the blue mohawks were hats or wigs. That would be okay by me, as it'd be like wearing a costume, and it's not something the employee has to change about their own personal physical appearance.

But we've already established that some people think of their clothing as part of their own personal physical appearance.  So you have no reason to treat it differently. 

If you are principally opposed to companies regulating the physical appearances of their employees, uniforms shouldn't be acceptable.  If, on the other hand, your primary concern is employee identification, then mandatory mohawks should be acceptable. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Chino on March 11, 2014, 02:29:34 PM
To Jaffa:
That's fine too, I wear band shirts all the time, it's sort of become a part of my daily wardrobe, but the difference with that is that uniforms are what define someone working at said job. Customers would have a hard time finding somebody to assist them at Target if employees didn't have to wear a plain red top and khaki pants, but could instead dress up in whatever outfit.

Whereas, I could still have my blue mohawk and beard at Target, and Jim could be clean shaven and short haired, but we were both identifiable as employees because of our common uniform.

2. What if a store decides that all of its employees have to have blue mohawks?  Kind of an absurd hypothetical, granted, but how would you feel about it?  It's a regulation of physical appearance, but it does serve the practical purpose of employee identification.  Is it acceptable according to your principles?

It's the company's choice and totally acceptable. Hooters requires a certain look, not just a particular uniform. I knew a guy who worked at  a laser tag place who was required to work with his haired died a neon color and spiked in a crazy fashion. The kids loved it, the business knew it, and it was made it a requirement. I see no problem with it.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Shadow Ninja 2.0 on March 11, 2014, 02:30:42 PM
Personally, I feel like a company has the right to tell me to tap dance in a tutu at the beginning of work each day if they want to, just as I have the right to tell them to suck it and hire some other sap.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 02:34:52 PM
1. Yeah it's cool with me, because while it's not a conventional and uncommon, it's still a uniform of sorts. You're asked to wear plain clothing, with nothing offensive, no hats, like most retail oriented jobs, and most likely you'll have a name tag identifying you as an employee.

2. No that's not acceptable, because whoever the employer is is dictating other's appearances, which isn't okay. Clothing is uniform enough. They could easily have employees wear Blue polos with dress pants or whatever, to identify the employees.

EDIT: Let's entertain the thought for number two that the blue mohawks were hats or wigs. That would be okay by me, as it'd be like wearing a costume, and it's not something the employee has to change about their own personal physical appearance.

But we've already established that some people think of their clothing as part of their own personal physical appearance.  So you have no reason to treat it differently. 

If you are principally opposed to companies regulating the physical appearances of their employees, uniforms shouldn't be acceptable.  If, on the other hand, your primary concern is employee identification, then mandatory mohawks should be acceptable.
Clothing is what helps define the employee, and something the employee can take off when done, they can put on an outfit that they consider part of their identity. Telling somebody "You MUST shave your head, and dye your hair blue is dictating how an employee should look." If an employee wants to do that, that's there choice, but it shouldn't be the choice of the employer.
As for Chino's thing, they could easily just buy wigs, shape those to be crazy with neon colors, and just have employees wear that. And I'm also getting the feeling that the dye is wash out, so even then, that's something the employee can take "off" when done. If not, then the wig thing I mentioned about would work just as well.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: El Barto on March 11, 2014, 03:46:54 PM
DC: After about 3 posts I thought to myself, uh 22? Turns out you're 21.  :lol  I felt the exact same as you at that age, and within a couple of years I learned exactly what Bosk and others haven't pointed out. Employment isn't about fairness. You'll be subjected to all sorts of asinine or arbitrary decisions, and there's nothing you can do but quit or roll with it, and truth be told, your employers couldn't care less which you choose. Being right doesn't matter. Doing what they want you to does.

Kev: Do what I did. Go on vacation (or transplant recovery leave) and show back up with a full beard. In my case my employer doesn't care what I look like, but it's still a decent way to forsake shaving.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dr. DTVT on March 11, 2014, 04:53:41 PM
As someone said, it's more about how a companies customers see the company.  If you are working big box retail, they tend to be more lax because they know in most cases they are hiring someone who is just waiting for a better opportunity / school to be over.  You don't go to Target or Wal-Mart looking for prim and proper.  Is the cereal in the cereal aisle and the baby vomit on aisle 5 cleaned up promptly is all I really care about other than are there enough people at the registers.  Most able bodied people can do that job, and if someone sucks at their job it is going to have no down the road effect on the service.  Sucky employer replaced, rinse and repeat.

But when your job depends on long term commitment and interaction, you need to show your customer that you have your act together.  Like it or not, people who get lots of tats and piercings tend to have impulsive or thrill seeking personalities, and it shows that they live in the moment and do not take the future into account when making decisions.  If I'm going to make a long term commitment to a company, I don't want them being prone to rash decisions.

It's funny that this thread came up because we are currently on Spring Break, so rather than the normal khakis and polo I've been dressing down and wore an Iron Maiden shirt and jeans today and happened to cross paths with the Dean, who said, "I always figured you as Mozart type of person" and gave a good chuckle. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: MinistryOfLostSouls on March 11, 2014, 05:10:42 PM
DC: After about 3 posts I thought to myself, uh 22? Turns out you're 21.  :lol  I felt the exact same as you at that age, and within a couple of years I learned exactly what Bosk and others haven't pointed out. Employment isn't about fairness. You'll be subjected to all sorts of asinine or arbitrary decisions, and there's nothing you can do but quit or roll with it, and truth be told, your employers couldn't care less which you choose. Being right doesn't matter. Doing what they want you to does.

Kev: Do what I did. Go on vacation (or transplant recovery leave) and show back up with a full beard. In my case my employer doesn't care what I look like, but it's still a decent way to forsake shaving.

I'm self employed and let me add that my position is not any easier.  I'm subject to my own arbitrary and sometimes asinine decisions.  I don't have anyone to get mad at but myself when I fuck up.  When things do fuck up it costs me three to six months worth of income.  I work my ass of to keep myself employed.  I do this because it allows me the freedom of not having to participate in some Orwellian nightmare of a corporate job that requires me to be something I am not. 

The lesson here is that if you like the relative comfort of having a permanent paid position as long as you do your job in a moderately effective manner for as long as you want with a continued paycheck then you are going to have to deal with the bullshit.  If bending to the rules isn't your thing then go out and actually do you own thing. You'll get all the personal freedom you want and you'll probably starve for a couple of years if you do it correctly and then have success after you've already given up on your dreams and don't give a shit anymore. 

Those are your only two choices. 

Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on March 11, 2014, 08:04:20 PM
Employment isn't about fairness. You'll be subjected to all sorts of asinine or arbitrary decisions, and there's nothing you can do but quit or roll with it, and truth be told, your employers couldn't care less which you choose. Being right doesn't matter. Doing what they want you to does.
Here endeth the lesson.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dark Castle on March 11, 2014, 10:59:46 PM
What I don't get is why as a society we let that happen.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 11, 2014, 11:07:23 PM
What I don't get is why as a society we let that happen.

Because it is not possible to control *everybody* without a dictatorship.    So there are two choices.   The free market, which must cater to a contingent of society that will always demand a certain standard of what they consider to be "professionalism"...or have a central figure to *dictate* to everyone what his standards are.   And if he agrees with you, he will dictate your standards to the masses.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Dr. DTVT on March 11, 2014, 11:10:56 PM
What I don't get is why as a society we let that happen.

Because people need jobs more than they need to exercise the need to appear the way they want to.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: TempusVox on March 12, 2014, 12:14:42 AM
I dont know why this is so hard to comprehend here. We form first impressions and overall judgments about people by the way they dress, and look. If the way someone dresses, or wears their hair, etc affects the perception of your company's customers or business partners, it is important to maintain a standard of dress that creates a positive impression. No standard or casual dress standards may make employees comfortable, but the point of professionalism and etiquette is to make others comfortable. Your company makes it's money (Including the money it pays you to do your job), by pleasing and retaining and attracting its customers. Without those customers, there is NO job. Now depending on what industry you work in, it might not matter. And if it comes down to making "you'' the individual happy with blue hair, or a facial tattoo; or attracting and retaining customers for the good of the company overall, guess which one is going to win out? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. I'll wait for your answer....

Using the, "Why can't I wear blue hair?" analogy is short-sighted in many instances. You might as well ask, "Why can't I walk around with my schlong hanging out of my fly?" (Extreme example? Of course it is) Being illegal not-withstanding, because the majority of the customers in certain industries would not feel it appropriate. So it ain't gonna happen. That is NOT the companies fault. The company has stated, in order to work here, these are our rules. If you can't abide by these rules, then don't bother to apply. Keep on truckin' on down the road with you facial tat, or your pierced lip and best of luck to you.

U.S. law strongly supports the rights of an employer to establish a dress code that aligns with their business activities. It's part of the free market system and competition. It's just the nature of the beast. If you don't understand that the majority of people (young and old) might have preconceived notions about outrageous dress or looks, then you're being naive.

Try applying for a job at Disney. They are very upfront about appearance as a "cast" member in any of their business units. If you can't adhere to their policies, then you don't work there.

Is all of this stuff about appearance "fair" to the individual?  Not to some obviously. But to most people it is. Life is about choices. There are other ways to express yourself while also not limiting your opportunites to succeed or get ahead in this world.

Some people might think with all these rules, "The MAN, is keeping them down". I like to think, with these rules, "the man" is trying to lift you up. You want to make more money, or work in this industry, or have this career? Wear this suit, have natural hair color, don't tattoo 666 across your forehead, don't use nicotine, etc, etc.

I'll add that this is coming from someone who when he was an undergrad playing football, had a Mohawk that was dyed purple and gold (blonde).  :metal
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 12, 2014, 12:28:30 AM
 :hefdaddy
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: MinistryOfLostSouls on March 12, 2014, 01:07:00 AM
I dont know why this is so hard to comprehend here. We form first impressions and overall judgments about people by the way they dress, and look. If the way someone dresses, or wears their hair, etc affects the perception of your company's customers or business partners, it is important to maintain a standard of dress that creates a positive impression. No standard or casual dress standards may make employees comfortable, but the point of professionalism and etiquette is to make others comfortable. Your company makes it's money (Including the money it pays you to do your job), by pleasing and retaining and attracting its customers. Without those customers, there is NO job. Now depending on what industry you work in, it might not matter. And if it comes down to making "you'' the individual happy with blue hair, or a facial tattoo; or attracting and retaining customers for the good of the company overall, guess which one is going to win out? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. I'll wait for your answer....

Using the, "Why can't I wear blue hair?" analogy is short-sighted in many instances. You might as well ask, "Why can't I walk around with my schlong hanging out of my fly?" (Extreme example? Of course it is) Being illegal not-withstanding, because the majority of the customers in certain industries would not feel it appropriate. So it ain't gonna happen. That is NOT the companies fault. The company has stated, in order to work here, these are our rules. If you can't abide by these rules, then don't bother to apply. Keep on truckin' on down the road with you facial tat, or your pierced lip and best of luck to you.

U.S. law strongly supports the rights of an employer to establish a dress code that aligns with their business activities. It's part of the free market system and competition. It's just the nature of the beast. If you don't understand that the majority of people (young and old) might have preconceived notions about outrageous dress or looks, then you're being naive.

Try applying for a job at Disney. They are very upfront about appearance as a "cast" member in any of their business units. If you can't adhere to their policies, then you don't work there.

Is all of this stuff about appearance "fair" to the individual?  Not to some obviously. But to most people it is. Life is about choices. There are other ways to express yourself while also not limiting your opportunites to succeed or get ahead in this world.

Some people might think with all these rules, "The MAN, is keeping them down". I like to think, with these rules, "the man" is trying to lift you up. You want to make more money, or work in this industry, or have this career? Wear this suit, have natural hair color, don't tattoo 666 across your forehead, don't use nicotine, etc, etc.

I'll add that this is coming from someone who when he was an undergrad playing football, had a Mohawk that was dyed purple and gold (blonde).  :metal

Unless you work at Google.  From April 2012 until about six weeks ago I shared an apartment in Mountain View, California with my friend Alex who is a Google programmer.  I've been on that campus many times and the pride of Google is expressions of individuality.  There are people who work there who skate across the campus with blue Mohawks, and have sleeve tattoos, and smoke cigarettes, and make around 200k a year doing so. 

Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jonnybaxy on March 12, 2014, 06:37:12 AM
I smoke, I work.

I smoke in my designated lunch hour and wander round for a bit so the smell wears off a bit, no-one knew in my office until someone saw me.

So how can you say that all smokers stink and it affects their work?

Edit: and on the visual note, people have a right to be independant and look the way they want, but obviously there's a boundary, like you can't work with customers with a big dick tattoo on their forehead.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Chino on March 12, 2014, 06:47:00 AM
Unless you work at Google.  From April 2012 until about six weeks ago I shared an apartment in Mountain View, California with my friend Alex who is a Google programmer.  I've been on that campus many times and the pride of Google is expressions of individuality.  There are people who work there who skate across the campus with blue Mohawks, and have sleeve tattoos, and smoke cigarettes, and make around 200k a year doing so.

Google is a rare exception. Google is one of a kind. Google also has massage parlors, spas, and arcades that the employees are free to go use whenever they'd like. In some instances, when a skill set is worth $200k per year, the employee does have a slight upper hand. But Google also has a business model like no other company out there.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Chino on March 12, 2014, 06:51:10 AM
What I don't get is why as a society we let that happen.

Because there are a lot of bad apples in our society. There are plenty of people with tattoos that are completely decent. However, go to a prison, and you see something in common. The vast majority of people are tatted up, kind of the opposite of a well functioning society. Bikers, wife beaters, gang members, meat heads at bars, the hot heads at the gym, people that are likely to inflict serious bodily harm on others,  etc... all sport tattoos. You can't blame society for having the initial reaction of being hesitant when someone comes in all tatted up.

See.

(http://s29.postimg.org/75ncguk92/Gang.jpg)

(http://s29.postimg.org/qc0jk10qu/Business.jpg)
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 12, 2014, 08:35:42 AM
I smoke, I work.

I smoke in my designated lunch hour and wander round for a bit so the smell wears off a bit, no-one knew in my office until someone saw me.

So how can you say that all smokers stink and it affects their work?


Actually, no one said that.   What they did say is that studies have shown that AS A GROUP "smokers" very commonly have those issues.   If you are a smoker, you have chosen to include yourself in a certain subset of society that TENDS to have those issues....therefore society in general will label you as such.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Jaffa on March 12, 2014, 08:41:36 AM
Well, when it comes to the issue of smell, I'm not sure how an individual smoker would really avoid that.  I'm sorry to generalize, but to me, it kinda makes sense that a person who uses a product with a distinct smell will carry that smell with them.  We've seen people in this thread talk about how the smell of stale smoke lingered in their clothing for months or years.  It's not something that totally disappears if you just wander around a bit during a lunch break. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 12, 2014, 08:42:42 AM
Well, when it comes to the issue of smell, I'm not sure how an individual smoker would really avoid that.  I'm sorry to generalize, but to me, it kinda makes sense that a person who uses a product with a distinct smell will carry that smell with them.  We've seen people in this thread talk about how the smell of stale smoke lingered in their clothing for months or years.  It's not something that totally disappears if you just wander around a bit during a lunch break.

Agreed.   And when I smoked, I absolutely DID NOT think I or anyone else could smell it on me.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Chino on March 12, 2014, 08:45:38 AM
Well, when it comes to the issue of smell, I'm not sure how an individual smoker would really avoid that.  I'm sorry to generalize, but to me, it kinda makes sense that a person who uses a product with a distinct smell will carry that smell with them.  We've seen people in this thread talk about how the smell of stale smoke lingered in their clothing for months or years.  It's not something that totally disappears if you just wander around a bit during a lunch break.

Agreed.   And when I smoked, I absolutely DID NOT think I or anyone else could smell it on me.

I didn't notice until after I stopped smoking, just how long the smell hangs around.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Nick on March 12, 2014, 08:55:13 AM
My dad is the worst with that. He complains about cigar smokers all while never realize how much he reeks of smoke. Of course he also believes that because he's able to hunt and do a physically demanding job that decades of smoking research is of course wrong and it hasn't had any effect on him at all. When people are addicted and happy, there is always a way to justify what they're doing.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: TempusVox on March 12, 2014, 10:53:04 AM
I dont know why this is so hard to comprehend here. We form first impressions and overall judgments about people by the way they dress, and look. If the way someone dresses, or wears their hair, etc affects the perception of your company's customers or business partners, it is important to maintain a standard of dress that creates a positive impression. No standard or casual dress standards may make employees comfortable, but the point of professionalism and etiquette is to make others comfortable. Your company makes it's money (Including the money it pays you to do your job), by pleasing and retaining and attracting its customers. Without those customers, there is NO job. Now depending on what industry you work in, it might not matter. And if it comes down to making "you'' the individual happy with blue hair, or a facial tattoo; or attracting and retaining customers for the good of the company overall, guess which one is going to win out? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. I'll wait for your answer....

Using the, "Why can't I wear blue hair?" analogy is short-sighted in many instances. You might as well ask, "Why can't I walk around with my schlong hanging out of my fly?" (Extreme example? Of course it is) Being illegal not-withstanding, because the majority of the customers in certain industries would not feel it appropriate. So it ain't gonna happen. That is NOT the companies fault. The company has stated, in order to work here, these are our rules. If you can't abide by these rules, then don't bother to apply. Keep on truckin' on down the road with you facial tat, or your pierced lip and best of luck to you.

U.S. law strongly supports the rights of an employer to establish a dress code that aligns with their business activities. It's part of the free market system and competition. It's just the nature of the beast. If you don't understand that the majority of people (young and old) might have preconceived notions about outrageous dress or looks, then you're being naive.

Try applying for a job at Disney. They are very upfront about appearance as a "cast" member in any of their business units. If you can't adhere to their policies, then you don't work there.

Is all of this stuff about appearance "fair" to the individual?  Not to some obviously. But to most people it is. Life is about choices. There are other ways to express yourself while also not limiting your opportunites to succeed or get ahead in this world.

Some people might think with all these rules, "The MAN, is keeping them down". I like to think, with these rules, "the man" is trying to lift you up. You want to make more money, or work in this industry, or have this career? Wear this suit, have natural hair color, don't tattoo 666 across your forehead, don't use nicotine, etc, etc.

I'll add that this is coming from someone who when he was an undergrad playing football, had a Mohawk that was dyed purple and gold (blonde).  :metal

Unless you work at Google.  From April 2012 until about six weeks ago I shared an apartment in Mountain View, California with my friend Alex who is a Google programmer.  I've been on that campus many times and the pride of Google is expressions of individuality.  There are people who work there who skate across the campus with blue Mohawks, and have sleeve tattoos, and smoke cigarettes, and make around 200k a year doing so.

Since you quoted my post, did you read it? Seventh sentence, first paragraph.

"Now depending on what industry you work in, it might not matter."

I promise you, if Google worked in an industry where ALL of their employees came into constant physical contact with their customers, that wouldn't be the case. I'll give you an example, when I was an attorney, one of my clients was an agency in DC that put on events and shows. They were the company that did things like develop the Super Bowl half-time show, the Oscars, Grammys, NYC marathon. They did massive event planning and coordination around the world, with offices in DC, LA, Chicago, ATL, NYC, Toronto, London, Paris, Munich, etc...you get the picture. As you might imagine, they had a number of very talented and creative people there. Artists, programmers, conceptual designers. I'm talking VERY talented people. Nearly all of these people rarely interacted with the customer one on one though. Why? They were typically more free spirited thinkers. Their creativity was inspired by letting them do their own thing so to speak. I recall one whole section of their building was where most of these people worked; and usually most of the lights were out. It was like being in a damn cave, but they liked it that way, so the area was kept very dark visually, and also very quiet. It was almost surreal. Walking into that section of the building was like falling into the ''rabbit hole''.

 Now they had project managers who worked with them and the clients, and who did most interactions with the client. They also had sales staff, who had VERY strict standards for dress and appearance. If one of their top designers came in with a mohawk, so be it. They were there for their creative ability. But if you wanted to work in sales, then that was not allowed.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: MinistryOfLostSouls on March 12, 2014, 11:04:06 AM
I dont know why this is so hard to comprehend here. We form first impressions and overall judgments about people by the way they dress, and look. If the way someone dresses, or wears their hair, etc affects the perception of your company's customers or business partners, it is important to maintain a standard of dress that creates a positive impression. No standard or casual dress standards may make employees comfortable, but the point of professionalism and etiquette is to make others comfortable. Your company makes it's money (Including the money it pays you to do your job), by pleasing and retaining and attracting its customers. Without those customers, there is NO job. Now depending on what industry you work in, it might not matter. And if it comes down to making "you'' the individual happy with blue hair, or a facial tattoo; or attracting and retaining customers for the good of the company overall, guess which one is going to win out? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count. I'll wait for your answer....

Using the, "Why can't I wear blue hair?" analogy is short-sighted in many instances. You might as well ask, "Why can't I walk around with my schlong hanging out of my fly?" (Extreme example? Of course it is) Being illegal not-withstanding, because the majority of the customers in certain industries would not feel it appropriate. So it ain't gonna happen. That is NOT the companies fault. The company has stated, in order to work here, these are our rules. If you can't abide by these rules, then don't bother to apply. Keep on truckin' on down the road with you facial tat, or your pierced lip and best of luck to you.

U.S. law strongly supports the rights of an employer to establish a dress code that aligns with their business activities. It's part of the free market system and competition. It's just the nature of the beast. If you don't understand that the majority of people (young and old) might have preconceived notions about outrageous dress or looks, then you're being naive.

Try applying for a job at Disney. They are very upfront about appearance as a "cast" member in any of their business units. If you can't adhere to their policies, then you don't work there.

Is all of this stuff about appearance "fair" to the individual?  Not to some obviously. But to most people it is. Life is about choices. There are other ways to express yourself while also not limiting your opportunites to succeed or get ahead in this world.

Some people might think with all these rules, "The MAN, is keeping them down". I like to think, with these rules, "the man" is trying to lift you up. You want to make more money, or work in this industry, or have this career? Wear this suit, have natural hair color, don't tattoo 666 across your forehead, don't use nicotine, etc, etc.

I'll add that this is coming from someone who when he was an undergrad playing football, had a Mohawk that was dyed purple and gold (blonde).  :metal

Unless you work at Google.  From April 2012 until about six weeks ago I shared an apartment in Mountain View, California with my friend Alex who is a Google programmer.  I've been on that campus many times and the pride of Google is expressions of individuality.  There are people who work there who skate across the campus with blue Mohawks, and have sleeve tattoos, and smoke cigarettes, and make around 200k a year doing so.

Since you quoted my post, did you read it? Seventh sentence, first paragraph.

"Now depending on what industry you work in, it might not matter."

I promise you, if Google worked in an industry where ALL of their employees came into constant physical contact with their customers, that wouldn't be the case. I'll give you an example, when I was an attorney, one of my clients was an agency in DC that put on events and shows. They were the company that did things like develop the Super Bowl half-time show, the Oscars, Grammys, NYC marathon. They did massive event planning and coordination around the world, with offices in DC, LA, Chicago, ATL, NYC, Toronto, London, Paris, Munich, etc...you get the picture. As you might imagine, they had a number of very talented and creative people there. Artists, programmers, conceptual designers. I'm talking VERY talented people. Nearly all of these people rarely interacted with the customer one on one though. Why? They were typically more free spirited thinkers. Their creativity was inspired by letting them do their own thing so to speak. I recall one whole section of their building was where most of these people worked; and usually most of the lights were out. It was like being in a damn cave, but they liked it that way, so the area was kept very dark visually, and also very quiet. It was almost surreal. Walking into that section of the building was like falling into the ''rabbit hole''.

 Now they had project managers who worked with them and the clients, and who did most interactions with the client. They also had sales staff, who had VERY strict standards for dress and appearance. If one of their top designers came in with a mohawk, so be it. They were there for their creative ability. But if you wanted to work in sales, then that was not allowed.

Ha. He buries one sentence in his statement which negates the rest of his statement, which is stated as if it were fact, and then uses that one statement to negate anyone who disagrees with him.   :lol
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: TempusVox on March 12, 2014, 11:07:43 AM
Dude, what are you talking about??? It doesn't "negate" anything. If you work in an environment, where your physical apperance doesn't have much if any bearing on your companies image, it doesn't matter. But in most cases it does. Simply pointing out that Google is different doesn't dispell anything about ANY of my previous statements. As others have pointed out, Google is an extreme exception for a number of reasons. I've heard people actually ask, "Why can't more companies be like Google with the way they treat their employees?" It's because they can't afford it.

And don't use words like "he" or "him" if you dispute my point. Instead of trying to "gain followers" use the words "you" or "your" when discussing MY posts.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: MinistryOfLostSouls on March 12, 2014, 11:25:57 AM
Dude, what are you talking about??? It doesn't "negate" anything. If you work in an environment, where your physical apperance doesn't have much if any bearing on your companies image, it doesn't matter. But in most cases it does. Simply pointing out that Google is different doesn't dispell anything about ANY of my previous statements. As others have pointed out, Google is an extreme exception for a number of reasons. I've heard people actually ask, "Why can't more companies be like Google with the way they treat their employees?" It's because they can't afford it.

They still allow smokers to work and smoke on the campus just like every other employer in the country.  As for negating me, stating that Google is an extreme exception is the literal definition of negating someone. There are thousands of companies out there emulating Google.  It doesn't cost money to allow your employees to dress how they wish to dress.  When I worked for FedEx in the computer department we had like 500 employees in our building and only about 50 of them actually came into contact with the customer.  Simple solution, take an internal position.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: TempusVox on March 12, 2014, 11:36:05 AM
Dude, what are you talking about??? It doesn't "negate" anything. If you work in an environment, where your physical apperance doesn't have much if any bearing on your companies image, it doesn't matter. But in most cases it does. Simply pointing out that Google is different doesn't dispell anything about ANY of my previous statements. As others have pointed out, Google is an extreme exception for a number of reasons. I've heard people actually ask, "Why can't more companies be like Google with the way they treat their employees?" It's because they can't afford it.

They still allow smokers to work and smoke on the campus just like every other employer in the country.  As for negating me, stating that Google is an extreme exception is the literal definition of negating someone. There are thousands of companies out there emulating Google.  It doesn't cost money to allow your employees to dress how they wish to dress.  When I worked for FedEx in the computer department we had like 500 employees in our building and only about 50 of them actually came into contact with the customer.  Simple solution, take an internal position.

Couple of points, "every other employer in the country" is false. Not every employer allows smoking. And as far as thousands of companies emulating Google, also false. While nearly every company would like to emulate Google and their success (and excess), they simply cannot do that. They cannot afford hair salons, free daycare, massages, nap pods, free food, etc, etc. These are benefits and are separate from dress code. But since you brought up Google as the gold standard, it all comes into play. As for your Fed Ex example, not sure what you're referring to there. That proves my point right? Take an internal position. Many companies, depending on industry allow that. Which is what I "affirmed" (not negated) in my post. As for the no smoking thing, I would be willing to bet that Google, like nearly all other companies will be edging toward a "no nicotine" policy. As has been beaten to death already, health care costs are a major issue for employers, so they are fighting back. But as also been established over and over again, there are exceptions.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: MinistryOfLostSouls on March 12, 2014, 12:04:40 PM
Dude, what are you talking about??? It doesn't "negate" anything. If you work in an environment, where your physical apperance doesn't have much if any bearing on your companies image, it doesn't matter. But in most cases it does. Simply pointing out that Google is different doesn't dispell anything about ANY of my previous statements. As others have pointed out, Google is an extreme exception for a number of reasons. I've heard people actually ask, "Why can't more companies be like Google with the way they treat their employees?" It's because they can't afford it.

They still allow smokers to work and smoke on the campus just like every other employer in the country.  As for negating me, stating that Google is an extreme exception is the literal definition of negating someone. There are thousands of companies out there emulating Google.  It doesn't cost money to allow your employees to dress how they wish to dress.  When I worked for FedEx in the computer department we had like 500 employees in our building and only about 50 of them actually came into contact with the customer.  Simple solution, take an internal position.

Couple of points, "every other employer in the country" is false. Not every employer allows smoking. And as far as thousands of companies emulating Google, also false. While nearly every company would like to emulate Google and their success (and excess), they simply cannot do that. They cannot afford hair salons, free daycare, massages, nap pods, free food, etc, etc. These are benefits and are separate from dress code. But since you brought up Google as the gold standard, it all comes into play. As for your Fed Ex example, not sure what you're referring to there. That proves my point right? Take an internal position. Many companies, depending on industry allow that. Which is what I "affirmed" (not negated) in my post. As for the no smoking thing, I would be willing to bet that Google, like nearly all other companies will be edging toward a "no nicotine" policy. As has been beaten to death already, health care costs are a major issue for employers, so they are fighting back. But as also been established over and over again, there are exceptions.

You are so full of shit it stinks worse than any cigarette.  You argue in convoluted circles.  Your "facts" are made up.  Wow. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Shadow Ninja 2.0 on March 12, 2014, 12:06:47 PM
Well, that didn't last long...
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: yeshaberto on March 12, 2014, 12:09:07 PM
Dude, what are you talking about??? It doesn't "negate" anything. If you work in an environment, where your physical apperance doesn't have much if any bearing on your companies image, it doesn't matter. But in most cases it does. Simply pointing out that Google is different doesn't dispell anything about ANY of my previous statements. As others have pointed out, Google is an extreme exception for a number of reasons. I've heard people actually ask, "Why can't more companies be like Google with the way they treat their employees?" It's because they can't afford it.

They still allow smokers to work and smoke on the campus just like every other employer in the country.  As for negating me, stating that Google is an extreme exception is the literal definition of negating someone. There are thousands of companies out there emulating Google.  It doesn't cost money to allow your employees to dress how they wish to dress.  When I worked for FedEx in the computer department we had like 500 employees in our building and only about 50 of them actually came into contact with the customer.  Simple solution, take an internal position.

Couple of points, "every other employer in the country" is false. Not every employer allows smoking. And as far as thousands of companies emulating Google, also false. While nearly every company would like to emulate Google and their success (and excess), they simply cannot do that. They cannot afford hair salons, free daycare, massages, nap pods, free food, etc, etc. These are benefits and are separate from dress code. But since you brought up Google as the gold standard, it all comes into play. As for your Fed Ex example, not sure what you're referring to there. That proves my point right? Take an internal position. Many companies, depending on industry allow that. Which is what I "affirmed" (not negated) in my post. As for the no smoking thing, I would be willing to bet that Google, like nearly all other companies will be edging toward a "no nicotine" policy. As has been beaten to death already, health care costs are a major issue for employers, so they are fighting back. But as also been established over and over again, there are exceptions.

You are so full of shit it stinks worse than any cigarette.  You argue in convoluted circles.  Your "facts" are made up.  Wow.

enjoy your week off.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 12, 2014, 12:40:09 PM
See ya on 5/8!!!   :xbones
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Chino on March 12, 2014, 12:52:13 PM
(http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120921164818/dragonage/images/2/2a/Anchorman-well-that-escalated-quickly.jpg)
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: TempusVox on March 12, 2014, 12:55:26 PM
Alrighty then...
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: hefdaddy42 on March 12, 2014, 01:43:44 PM
WTF
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 13, 2014, 01:47:32 PM
So, anyway...


I think my company is fairly average with regard to smoking and dress code.  The simple fact of the matter is that it is 100% legal for companies to establish (and enforce) a dress code.  In fact, in my experience, employers have fairly broad rights when it comes to things like dress code.  Many companies also have established and enforced morality clauses as part of their employee policies.  And you'd be surprised at some of the mundane stuff I've seen stipulated in some morality clauses.  Whether or not we agree with these policies is, frankly, irrelevant from the employer's perspective.


Example: I have a few technicians that are always in front of customers.  Our dress code is quite strict and routinely enforced.  When you are going to be in front of customers, you wear a company-branded shirt.   I had to visit a customer site today, so:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55966936/pics/2014-03-13%2015.41.27%20HDR.jpg)


I wore the branded shirt.  Per policy.  The company is completely within their legal rights to require this.


I'm not so sure about banning employees from having nicotine in their system, though.


I've emailed a lawyer friend of mine to ask his opinion, I'll post it here when he replies.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: bosk1 on March 13, 2014, 02:10:34 PM
I'm not so sure about banning employees from having nicotine in their system, though.


I've emailed a lawyer friend of mine to ask his opinion, I'll post it here when he replies.

It is going to vary state by state.  And I'm not sure there is a clear answer in most places.  I tend to think it would likely pass muster here in CA.  And given how strict and whacky our employment laws are here, if it is okay here, it is probably okay in the vast majority of states.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: TempusVox on March 13, 2014, 02:11:39 PM
I'll save you the trouble. Companies can and do have no nicotine policies and it's perfectly legal under federal law. Some states prohibit smoking discrimination and companies bound by a collective bargaining agreement may be effected. But this is nothing new. A company called OPW has had a very strict no nicotine policy for decades. They make gas pumps and components.

EDIT: Beaten again...by Bosk!
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jammindude on March 13, 2014, 02:15:20 PM
Re: What Barry just posted about morality clauses...those can get really interesting REALLY fast.

Because the most common one is "no fraternizing"...which means "no office romances allowed".    But what that usually *really* means is..."no drama".   Because if two people are having an office romance, and are being discreet, it is typically not enforced.   Even if the people who have the power to do something about it know about it.   It's only when there's an ugly breakup that everyone gets taken into the backroom and told, "Ya know, we *DO* have a 'no fraternizing' policy."  :justjen
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: JayOctavarium on March 13, 2014, 02:19:36 PM
(Chiming in mainly just for the sake of getting notifications)


It states very clearly in the post orders / company policy where I work that tobacco use is STRICTLY prohibited. It's never been enforced. Ever. No testing... nothing. Out of the 15 or so employees at the account I work at, only 3 of us DON'T smoke. That includes the 2 supervisors. The owner of the company doesn't enforce it. I wish he did. . . so tired of that office stinking of stale smoke.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 13, 2014, 02:23:56 PM
I'm not so sure about banning employees from having nicotine in their system, though.


I've emailed a lawyer friend of mine to ask his opinion, I'll post it here when he replies.

It is going to vary state by state.  And I'm not sure there is a clear answer in most places.  I tend to think it would likely pass muster here in CA.  And given how strict and whacky our employment laws are here, if it is okay here, it is probably okay in the vast majority of states.


Yeah, I know, I can only find out what the rules are here in MA
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 13, 2014, 02:27:59 PM
We have a STRICT no fraternization policy here that in 14 years I have seen executed twice.  In both cases it was a man who was in middle management, dating a female administrative worker and the female admin was let go.  Those two later got married and now she comes to all of the company functions with him.    I don't know much about the other case but two women were let go over that one.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: KevShmev on March 13, 2014, 02:31:15 PM
That's kind of funny that the lower persons on the totem pole got let go, as you would think management would be held to the higher standard and thus catch the brunt of the storm once the shit hit the fan, but I guess not. 
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 14, 2014, 08:59:54 AM
It has more to do with how valuable the parties involved happen to be.  Project Managers in the Automatic Temperature Control Systems business are difficult to find, especially LEED Certified Managers and they command salaries starting in the $80k range and up. 


I won't belittle anyone who is an administrative office worker, but facts are facts and people who can type, file, email and field telephone calls make less than half of that and for every admin who leaves the company, there are 100 or more of them lined up to take that vacated position.  That's not the case with Project Managers.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Chino on March 14, 2014, 10:02:15 AM
It has more to do with how valuable the parties involved happen to be.  Project Managers in the Automatic Temperature Control Systems business are difficult to find, especially LEED Certified Managers and they command salaries starting in the $80k range and up. 


I won't belittle anyone who is an administrative office worker, but facts are facts and people who can type, file, email and field telephone calls make less than half of that and for every admin who leaves the company, there are 100 or more of them lined up to take that vacated position.  That's not the case with Project Managers.

Yep. The more disposable you are, and the higher the turnover rate of your position, the more likely you are to have the rules enforced.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 14, 2014, 11:10:28 AM
It has more to do with how valuable the parties involved happen to be.  Project Managers in the Automatic Temperature Control Systems business are difficult to find, especially LEED Certified Managers and they command salaries starting in the $80k range and up. 


I won't belittle anyone who is an administrative office worker, but facts are facts and people who can type, file, email and field telephone calls make less than half of that and for every admin who leaves the company, there are 100 or more of them lined up to take that vacated position.  That's not the case with Project Managers.

Yep. The more disposable you are, and the higher the turnover rate of your position, the more likely you are to have the rules enforced.


mmmm....that's not what was trying to convey, though.  That's probably my fault, rereading what I wrote.  One of two solutions is reached in cases like this.  One solution is punitive a the other is administrative. 


They don't just "screw the little guy" here.  It's not like that at all.   They make a carefully considered decision once they have all of the facts.  The official policy (which every employee must acknowledge in writing that they've read beginning to end) is if two people who are in the same department as supervisor/subordinate are known to be in a relationship, that's not allowed.  So the possible solutions to that are A) One of them changes departments or B) One of them is laid off.  It's not a "disciplinary solution" it's considered an "administrative solution."  And that's not a minor consideration, given that collecting unemployment insurance would be put off by a few months or longer if you are forced out by a disciplinary issue.


Which of the employees is laid off is a function of the relative value they bring to the company.  Project Managers actually earn huge sums of money in this business because they are the ones that negotiate all of the change orders with our General Contractors and those can often exceed the actual bid.  They get paid -in part- on how profitable their projects end up being.  Most of the guys working here are bringing in $5M+ in change orders a year.  That's a huge part of the company's bread and butter.  One the other hand, an administrative worker, say, the accounts receivable clerk for example, brings in...$0.00.  And some of these admins have been around for 20+ years here, so they're all making between $50k and $75k.  Who do you think a CEO is going to want to keep?  The admin that costs the company $75k a year and can be easily replaced with a fresh, young, eager to please kid just out of college for half the money?  Or the Project Manager who makes $125k a year in salary and another $30k to $50k in "incentives" but brings in $5M a year?  Loyalty is cool and honorable and everything, but sometimes it ain't worth Jack Schitt  :-\



Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: kirksnosehair on March 14, 2014, 02:27:15 PM
Quick update.   I got a response from the attorney I sent the question to:


Quote

Iím not an expert in employment law. (I** B****** of the ********** firm is, and so Iím copying her.)


But Iím quite sure that itís lawful for an employer to mandate a smoke-free workplace. Itís a bit of a more complicated question, I would think, whether an employer may refuse to hire someone who smokes at home and outside, on his own time. Can an employer dictate any and all ďlifestyleĒ issues?


The attorney I asked is a nationally well-known criminal defense attorney.  The other attorney he CC'd (who is another client/acquaintance of mine) is one of the leading employment law experts in the country.  She's admitted to The Bar in multiple states and often appears on television as an "expert" so they're not just some random schmucks. 


When she replies I'll post it here.

Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: El Barto on March 14, 2014, 02:42:33 PM
Quote from: I** B****** of the ********** firm
Can an employer dictate any and all ďlifestyleĒ issues?
And this is where I run into issues here. While I personally think they should be able to, I think it's a sticky wicket in our current society where there are plenty of factors at work in when you can discriminate against perspective employees. I think the current arguments as to why this is just dandy are all pretty weak and flimsy, so that really only leaves the lifestyle aspect, and I think that's going to be a path that's not worth the nuisance to travel.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: cramx3 on March 27, 2014, 10:06:59 AM
Unless you work at Google.  From April 2012 until about six weeks ago I shared an apartment in Mountain View, California with my friend Alex who is a Google programmer.  I've been on that campus many times and the pride of Google is expressions of individuality.  There are people who work there who skate across the campus with blue Mohawks, and have sleeve tattoos, and smoke cigarettes, and make around 200k a year doing so.

Google is a rare exception. Google is one of a kind. Google also has massage parlors, spas, and arcades that the employees are free to go use whenever they'd like. In some instances, when a skill set is worth $200k per year, the employee does have a slight upper hand. But Google also has a business model like no other company out there.

I work at a company that is ran like Google (and we work with google a lot) and it's really nice to be able to have the freedom of wearing what you want. We have a basketball court in the office and couches to work at instead of your desk and tons of other weird things that aren't normal for work environments.  The downside is you have to essentially devote your life to the job. They make it comfortable for you because they know you are going to be working like crazy.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: jonnybaxy on March 27, 2014, 12:34:37 PM
Unless you work at Google.  From April 2012 until about six weeks ago I shared an apartment in Mountain View, California with my friend Alex who is a Google programmer.  I've been on that campus many times and the pride of Google is expressions of individuality.  There are people who work there who skate across the campus with blue Mohawks, and have sleeve tattoos, and smoke cigarettes, and make around 200k a year doing so.

Google is a rare exception. Google is one of a kind. Google also has massage parlors, spas, and arcades that the employees are free to go use whenever they'd like. In some instances, when a skill set is worth $200k per year, the employee does have a slight upper hand. But Google also has a business model like no other company out there.

I work at a company that is ran like Google (and we work with google a lot) and it's really nice to be able to have the freedom of wearing what you want. We have a basketball court in the office and couches to work at instead of your desk and tons of other weird things that aren't normal for work environments.  The downside is you have to essentially devote your life to the job. They make it comfortable for you because they know you are going to be working like crazy.

That sound sweeeeeeet
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: ZirconBlue on May 02, 2014, 12:44:28 PM
I am not drawing the line at facial hair, facial hair was just my personal example. I am drawing the line at physical appearance, not just for men, for every gender, for every single person. People should have the right to appear as they want, and when I say that as long as it it doesn't interfere with the job.(such as you wouldn't want a guy who spiked up their mohawk 2ft at a construction site because they couldn't wear a helmet, but if somebody wants to shave the sides of their head and keep the top long, they should have every right to do so and so forth.). Clothing is what helps identify someone who works at whatever job, which is why I find that okay. But the moment you're telling people how they have to appear, I don't find that okay.

Some people consider their clothing part of their appearance and identity.  I'd say it's definitely part of their appearance, at least.  Bottom line, if employers are allowed to have some guidelines about appearances, I think any line you draw is going to be arbitrary.

But, when you're not on the clock, you can change clothes immediately.  If you've cut all your hair off for the job, you can't grow it back out for the weekend.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: El Barto on May 02, 2014, 12:54:36 PM
I think the simple question to address this (and all of the issues in this thread) is do you have a right to a job? The answer is that you don't. You should have equal opportunity for a job in the public sector (and unfortunately the law says in the private sector as well), but you still work at the pleasure of your employer.
Title: Re: My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?
Post by: Scheavo on May 02, 2014, 11:37:13 PM
I don't think there is a "right" answer to the question if you have a right to a job. Do you mean legally? Then ya, you're accurate. But seeing as how it's a question, it means we can ask "should it be a legal right," with it. Which just highlights the fact that it's an answer that depends upon your perspective, and moral codes.