My Job will no longer hire smokers. Thoughts?

[KevShmev]

Because the OP clearly stated:

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.

[Jaffa]

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. 

[Chino]

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.

[Prog Snob]

Because the OP clearly stated:

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. 

[Chino]

Because the OP clearly stated:

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?

[Prog Snob]

Because the OP clearly stated:

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?   

[Dark Castle]

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.

[jammindude]

Because the OP clearly stated:

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.

[jammindude]

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. 

[Prog Snob]

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. 

[Ben_Jamin]

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.

[Dark Castle]

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.

[jammindude]

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.   

[bosk1]

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?

[Dark Castle]

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.

[bosk1]

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?

[jammindude]

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

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

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.   

[Dark Castle]

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.

[Jaffa]

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?

[bosk1]

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.     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."

[Dark Castle]

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.

[Jaffa]

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? 

[Dark Castle]

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.

[Jaffa]

So what you're saying is you need the company more than they need you?

That's why they dictate the terms.

[Dark Castle]

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.

[jammindude]

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.

[Shadow Ninja 2.0]

I got access to this forum just say I agree with Jaffa.

I should probably just add it to my signature.

[KevShmev]

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.   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 ).

[Cool Chris]

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.

[theseoafs]

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

[Dark Castle]

I think I made it pretty damn clear I'm not talking about clothing. I said multiple times uniforms are A-fucking-okay.

[theseoafs]

Sure, the mohawk, and the beard, and the piercings.  Still not slavery, or even anything vaguely resembling slavery.

[KevShmev]

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. 

[jammindude]

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

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.