Support NeoGAF

[AndyD]

I disagree with using any of those methods except a background check. Having poor credit, using drugs when not working, or making questionable posts on facebook should have no relevance to the workplace. Qualifications and experience should ultimately determine workplace suitability; discriminating against a qualified person because of smoking, drug use, credit or partying is misguided.

A background check makes sense because if an employee has an established history of theft, fraud, or violent crime that has a direct effect on their suitability in the workplace.

Except when people post work related stuff on facebook. An employer likes to see if their private info will be safe by seeing a potential employee's track record at their previous job.

There have been cases where people working in health industries learn a friend/acquaintance has some disease or another and post it on facebook for the world.

 

[poppabk]

That's definitely true, but why take the chance if you are allowed to discriminate? Why would you hire someone who may be statistically less significant than a non-smoker to begin with?

It costs thousands of dollars to hire a worker so it makes sense (If the company's opinion is correct) that you get more bang for your buck going with the non-smoker to begin with.

Because after spending thousands of dollars you should be evaluating your employees a little better than marginal statistical likelihoods, which I find hard to believe have even been proven and are, at best, extrapolations.

 

[caramac]

Smokers are fairly ignorant about how much they impose themselves on people around them.

Same could be said of car drivers.

 

[MjFrancis]

But the other 4 or so people from work that he hands out with when smoking, fit the worst possible stereotype and are indeed, legitimate slobs.

The type of person who is drawn to smoking is usually a disgusting slob. Not all slobs are smokers, but most smokers are slobs. This is coming from an ex-smoker who never littered his butts all over the place, threw it out his car windows, took more breaks than given at work, or even smoked inside or around children. I've watched smokers (that's plural - it's happened more than once) bitch about environmental issues and then flick their cigarette butt in a stream with an endangered salmon run. And they wonder why no one respects them and/or their habits.

As far as policy goes, I'm all for a company setting up a no-smoking policy, but I'm against the urine test as an intrusion to privacy. As far as the government is concerned, I would rather it's not banned, but I'm enjoying the restrictions policies most States have in place now. I'm all for taxing the shit out of cigarettes. It's discouraging the behavior. And if it's not, thanks for helping support your local government more, they're going to need the money later when you're in and out of the hospital the last ten years of your life.

At least when you're a teenager it's almost a sure thing a girl is willing to go all the way if she's a smoker.

That, and it looks cool in any and every film noir. But those are the only cool things about smoking.

 

[JGS]

Smokers stink. It isn't about hygiene, the smoke permeates skin and clothes. When someone comes in after smoking you can smell them a good twenty feet away.

Nicotine tests are over the line.



That is so fucking annoying. Try to get into a restaurant and have to walk through smoke and a huddled mass of smokers right at the entrance.

Smokers are fairly ignorant about how much they impose themselves on people around them.

Agreed except I don't think ignorance has much to do with it. I think they know exactly what they're doing huddled around the only door into a restaurant.

 

[Drewsky]

God I love smoking threads on GAF.

 

[JGS]

Because after spending thousands of dollars you should be evaluating your employees a little better than marginal statistical likelihoods, which I find hard to believe have even been proven and are, at best, extrapolations.

Again, why bother if you don't have to? Employers have to hire people they don't want to all the time for legal reasons, so if they have a legitimate out to not be around an alleged smelly person leaving every couple of hours to take a puff, then why not take it?

It's all personal and anecdotal evidence is fine for hiring purposes. A smoker has never been better than a non-smoker outside of sales where they seem to excel at in the desperate attempts to afford their pack a day habit. Even my salespeople are tough to be around because they stink.

Even without the anecdotal evidence, on paper, they have no idea whether the smoker or the non-smoker is the better candidate, so they should go with the one that contributes to the environment better. If it's a non-smoking environment, then the non-smoker would get it. They save money to boot. If the hiring manager is a smoker, then it's a moot point.

 

[captive]

What about other self-destructive behaviors that some people feel compelled to engage in, like anorexics? Should places be allowed to discriminate hiring based on people with eating disorders?

eating disorders aren't a choice. Smoking is. Pretty simple.

 

[ameratsu]

Except when people post work related stuff on facebook. An employer likes to see if their private info will be safe by seeing a potential employee's track record at their previous job.

There have been cases where people working in health industries learn a friend/acquaintance has some disease or another and post it on facebook for the world.

Which sounds like a great trojan horse for additional spying. I find it hard to believe that an employer who checks out a potential employee's facebook under that pretext isn't going to have a look around and pass judgment on things that in all likeliness are none of their business.

 

[AndyD]

Which sounds like a great trojan horse for additional spying. I find it hard to believe that an employer who checks out a potential employee's facebook under that pretext isn't going to have a look around and pass judgment on things that in all likeliness are none of their business.

I don't disagree. But I think to some companies it makes a huge difference, as they would rather know everything than take the risk of you being loose with patient info or whatever. HIPPA laws are very strict and they face huge fines over stuff like that.

 

[poppabk]

If it's a non-smoking environment, then the non-smoker would get it. They save money to boot. If the hiring manager is a smoker, then it's a moot point.

Interesting point. Should companies be allowed to not hire people because they don't smoke? Smokers could get their smoky bars back, you don't have to worry about second hand smoke harming employees if smoking is a requirement of being employed.

 

[AndyD]

Interesting point. Should companies be allowed to not hire people because they don't smoke? Smokers could get their smoky bars back, you don't have to worry about second hand smoke harming employees if smoking is a requirement of being employed.

Sure. If a cigar shop wants to hire only people who smoke cigars then more power to them. If a tattoo parlor only wants to hire people with tattoos, so be it. Or any business for that matter. Its a private business and it can hire/disriminate based on allowed criteria all it wants.

I dont know about bars, as that is a public business though.

 

[Zoe]

Sure. If a cigar shop wants to hire only people who smoke cigars then more power to them. If a tattoo parlor only wants to hire people with tattoos, so be it.

I dont know about bars, as that is a public business though.

No different from a cigar store. I know I wouldn't hire a bartender who never drinks.

 

[AndyD]

No different from a cigar store. I know I wouldn't hire a bartender who never drinks.

I thought he meant smoking in a bar. Maybe I read it wrong.

 

[coldvein]

wow, america.

 

[Zoe]

I thought he meant smoking in a bar. Maybe I read it wrong.

Ah, I was just going along with your cigar shop->cigar smoker, tattoo parlour->tattooed worker

 

[Nostalgic Nightmare]

Smokers really do smell like shit. I almost had to vomit sitting next to someone who just finished smoking on the bus for an hour. The nausea was killing me, it's ridiculous that people think they have the "right" to make other people sick.

Wow, it's a miracle you're still here with us. It's obvious after seeing most of the responses in this thread who would wither off and die if they had to work any labor intensive or industry related professions/trades. Well..maybe only if they couldn't run home to live with mommy and daddy again, ....if they aren't already because they still have no idea what to do with their life, still hoping to meet some hot slizz on the interwebz.

Yeah smokers smell like shit, but so does some metro wearing ten times too much cologne/perfume. It's not something you can just ever hope to attain, people will always smell like shit.

 

[Seth C]

Wow, it's a miracle you're still here with us. It's obvious after seeing most of the responses in this thread who would wither off and die if they had to work any labor intensive or industry related professions/trades. Well..maybe only if they couldn't run home to live with mommy and daddy again, ....if they aren't already because they still have no idea what to do with their life, still hoping to meet some hot slizz on the interwebz.

Yeah smokers smell like shit, but so does some metro wearing ten times too much cologne/perfume. It's not something you can just ever hope to attain, people will always smell like shit.

I've had workplaces implement non-perfume polices because some people weren't capable of using a reasonable amount of it. Anyone who came in with perfume just got sent home.

 

[AndyD]

I've had workplaces implement non-perfume polices because some people weren't capable of using a reasonable amount of it. Anyone who came in with perfume just got sent home.

Same here.

 

[Buckethead]

The obesity points are certainly fair, but one could argue the other costs associated with smoking beyond health that affect a company.

 

[Lard]

I have no problem with not hiring smokers, but urine tests are too far.

 

[Seth C]

I have no problem with not hiring smokers, but urine tests are too far.

That I agree with. I don't think there are many jobs that should drug test, period. Yet almost everyone these days does. If my work behavior suggests I'm under the influence, then test me. Otherwise the only thing it is affecting is your easily offended moral compass. Same with this. If there are no signs I'm smoking (you can't smell it, etc.) then it doesn't matter if I am doing it.

 

[Phoenix]

That I agree with. I don't think there are many jobs that should drug test, period. Yet almost everyone these days does. If my work behavior suggests I'm under the influence, then test me. Otherwise the only thing it is affecting is your easily offended moral compass. Same with this. If there are no signs I'm smoking (you can't smell it, etc.) then it doesn't matter if I am doing it.

Becomes an issue under a mandatory insurance system as employers will say that you're driving up their costs.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

ya the reason i'm against nicotine urine tests...

There's another big reason: there's nothing stopping the company from running a full panel on those urine samples (while telling you they're just looking for nicotine).

BAM!

Anyone using illegal drugs gets busted too.

 

[Mr.Squirrel]

Employers should have the right to discriminate. I'm not sure that it will be able to continue this policy under the current law but that should absolutely be within their rights.

Really bad precedent.....

 

[Nostalgic Nightmare]

"We're sorry Albert, you're just not employable here in our soulless empire of cubicles"

"Sir, sir you're being flighted for life to the nearest hospital, but dont worry, they have the best surgeon in the country" Is he a smoker? "well yes he does but"..IS HE A SMOKER??
"yes he is but what does that matte...." NOOOOO set me down right now! WTF the pilot is smoking!!! FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU"

 

[Seth C]

Becomes an issue under a mandatory insurance system as employers will say that you're driving up their costs.

Which is fine. What about temporary, by the hour employment with no benefits of any kind?

 

[AndyD]

Which is fine. What about temporary, by the hour employment with no benefits of any kind?

It depends. Are you talking about the smoking non hire or the urine tests?

If the temp workers are going to be in the same office as permanents, then the same rules should probably apply in terms of non smoking.

But I don't think urine tests should be used for permanent or temporary for smoking, only for illegal drugs, if it makes a difference to the job.

 

[JzeroT1437]

I was unemployed for a year and a half and spent most of my time just wandering around New York City, exploring. During that time, my health was fucking excellent. Not sick a single day.

I've now been employed 5 months. In that time I've had 2 colds, 1 lower back injury, and some kidney issues. I'm not directly blaming work, but the 9-5 bullshit doesn't help one maintain a healthy life.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I think people have conditioned themselves to get mad when they smell someone who has been smoking rather than the odor itself being so bad it actually affects their ability to do something. I think it is more rooted in frusteration that someone is doing something they don't want them to do because they find it so irritatingly unfashionable. The daily odor of popcorn or onions at lunchtime carry farther and lingre longer than the guy in his cube after a cigarette. And outdoors, I worry more about the constant odor of oil based materials either from road work, cars, or gasoline killing me than some guy smoking. People who step out of a gas station stink to me, like the smell of someone who has been working in a fast food kitchen, but it is just one of countless other offensive sights, sounds, and odors that are part of everyday life outside your house. It sucks having to smell the cocktail of ten different people's shits and coffee piss everytime I go to the restroom at work, but such is life. Quit being such a delicate flower, it no worse than people who smell like patchouli.

Nah I just hate the disgusting smell that sticks to smokers like the plague. Because then when I have to work next to one or sit next to one in class, the stink sticks to me as well. It's like stepping in dog shit. You can clean it off the bottom of your shoe but once that smell sticks to you, it's there.

Also, as someone who has never smoked a cigarette, I have always thought it was bullshit that smokers have a free pass to get a break multiple times a day while people who don't smoke are not afforded that same luxury. Thankfully I work somewhere now where this isn't an issue and smokers are SOL.

I don't see an issue with a place of employment denying people who live a lifestyle that costs the employer more money. It's no different than what insurance companies do.

 

[Rapstah]

"We're sorry Albert, you're just not employable here in our soulless empire of cubicles"

"Sir, sir you're being flighted for life to the nearest hospital, but dont worry, they have the best surgeon in the country" Is he a smoker? "well yes he does but"..IS HE A SMOKER??
"yes he is but what does that matte...." NOOOOO set me down right now! WTF the pilot is smoking!!! FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU"

Oh man, you have a point, smoking is secretly healthy. I should start smoking right now because of this post.

 

[ahoyhoy]

God I love smoking threads on GAF.

Your avatar smells bad. Get it out of my thread!

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I'm cool with workplaces banning any substance they want as long as they are clear about it to the point of annoyance about what exactly is not allowed

 

[Gameboy415]

I wish this were true when I was working in Japan.

I'd get admonished for reading a book during my free time (after I had finished grading 200 papers and prepared everything for the next day's lessons) but when the other teachers went out for a 5 minute smoke break after EVERY CLASS that was A-okay.

 

[JzeroT1437]

I will also say to everyone acting as if people overreact to smoking, cigarette smoke legitimately irritates my sinuses and prolonged exposure to large amounts like in some bars tends to cause sinus infections and severe throat pain the day afterwards. That shit is legitimately toxic.

Do it outside, do it where it's not smothering me, fine. Do it in my face and you can fuck off.

 

[JGS]

Interesting point. Should companies be allowed to not hire people because they don't smoke? Smokers could get their smoky bars back, you don't have to worry about second hand smoke harming employees if smoking is a requirement of being employed.

Valid point and theoretically the answer is yes. In fact, I imagine that tobacco companies would only want smokers. I remember Phillip Morris or some other tobacco place made the horrible mistake of hiring a non-smoker as CEO.

It hardly happens because smokers have successfully failed at promoting the positives of smoking if there are any. They are one a a few stignmatized groups and that's not going to change anytime soon.

If it were common practiced, then people such as myself who hate smoke would simply not apply for the job.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Wow, it's a miracle you're still here with us. It's obvious after seeing most of the responses in this thread who would wither off and die if they had to work any labor intensive or industry related professions/trades. Well..maybe only if they couldn't run home to live with mommy and daddy again, ....if they aren't already because they still have no idea what to do with their life, still hoping to meet some hot slizz on the interwebz.

Yeah smokers smell like shit, but so does some metro wearing ten times too much cologne/perfume. It's not something you can just ever hope to attain, people will always smell like shit.

Or, SHOCK, some people react differently to smells than you do. I'm around actors all of the time and so am used to the smell of smoke, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't hate it and wish that people wouldn't do it; I can certainly conceive of being made nauseous by it. Heck, some of my very good friends are heavy smokers (God, sounds like the beginning of a racist argument), but I fucking hate the fact that they smell bad so often. Plus, making out with a smoker takes the experience down quite a bit.

 

[Nostalgic Nightmare]

Or, SHOCK, some people react differently to smells than you do. I'm around actors all of the time and so am used to the smell of smoke, but I'd be lying if I said that I didn't hate it and wish that people wouldn't do it; I can certainly conceive of being made nauseous by it. Heck, some of my very good friends are heavy smokers (God, sounds like the beginning of a racist argument), but I fucking hate the fact that they smell bad so often. Plus, making out with a smoker takes the experience down quite a bit.

Yes and while some people react differently, some people do what they wish with their own bodies. I don't smoke, but I won't begrudge someone who wants to do it at home. Of course some smokers abuse the right to smoke and spend way too much time not working, but there's plenty of chickenheads/coffee makers/watercooler people that do the same crap.
To deny someone work because of something they do at home that isn't illegal is just plain dumb. It's a waste of money for a company to test for it, there will be ways to circumvent it, and it's just a witch hunt. Of course there are some jobs where you need a sterile environment and I get that, but most of this will be realistic in office environments where if it wasn't the smell of someone it would be the next thing because lets face it, most office jobs are more clique-y than a high school, no one really does shit, and its almost always about who's in with the right people, not the performance of work.

 

[Carnby]

Also: to the person who said smoking helps you call down: its BS. There was a study a few months back, you only feel relaxed because your body is releasing from nicotine-tension. If you hadn't started smoking in the first place, you wouldn't feel the relaxation. It has no initial benefits until you're addicted.

and smoking increases a person's heart rate.

 

[water_wendi]

Is the lie that nicotine is one of the most addictive chemicals on the planet still thrown around?

 

[Cipherr]

I can understand a formal agreement not to smoke at work or during work hours, but urine tests?! That's absurd, they should be allowed to do whatever they want once they punch out for the day.

Yeah, as a non smokers who hates the shit. This is going to far, Ive thought its been creeping towards this for a long time. Having them smoke out on a small ass cramped patio in 0 degree weather and shit was pretty hardcore, but it kept them from smoking in the freaking lunchrooms and breakrooms so Im totally behind that lol.

But...urine tests? Nah. Smoking IS legal for crying out loud.

 

[Carnby]

No different from a cigar store. I know I wouldn't hire a bartender who never drinks.

even Sam Malone?

 

[teh_pwn]

Acutally there is. Smoke directly affects everyone around you, someone eating a burger doesn't shoot trans fat into my blood but smokers get their smoke into my blood because I can't avoid breathing it in.

Chronically treating type 2 diabetes and heart disease is bankrupting the healthcare system. So yes, eating foods high in sugar, n-6 linoleic acid, and trans fat does impact others around you. Not only by significantly increasing the cost of your healthcare, but there's also some evidence that some people get addicted to this food. The guy bringing cakes and pastries everyday is analogous to 2nd hand smoke. Same stampede of obese people going to get to food that are always on that diet they keep talking about.

The same can be said for the following:
1. Failing to get at least 7.5 hours of sleep per night.
2. Physical fitness/activity.
3. Safe sex.
4. Etc...

Controlling people's health habits within work is fine. But outside of work is a slippery slope of authoritarian bureaucracy. Intrinsically unamerican in my opinion.

If you are an employer and want to change stuff, you pay for classes, therapy, and educate. You don't mandate it, you try to nudge people into autonomously doing it themselves. For themselves.

 

[Dai Kaiju]

Employers should have the right to discriminate. I'm not sure that it will be able to continue this policy under the current law but that should absolutely be within their rights.

So you would be understanding if you were denied a job because of your sexual preference? Or did you mean employers should have the right to discriminate only against certain people?