Baylor bans hiring smokers, apparently other companies do this as well

[Kershaw]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-01-29/not-hiring-smokers-privacy/52874348/1

at will employment means just that, but the article raises some interesting points? how far can that grey area be pushed? is this "slippery slope" simply hyperbole? smoking is proven to have adverse health affects and there is no arguing that, so a surcharge to a smoker's healthcare sounds fair. but not hiring? seems a bit overreaching.

discuss.

[mrsleeve]

Not all states are "at will" states. At will means you can be shit caned if you have a purple shirt on and your boss just does not like purple that day.

Yeah this kinda thing pushes into the gray area of what and how much control you employer can have over your life and what you do on your own time.

[z31maniac]

Yeah, it sucks. The next thing will be going after overweight, people who are on chronic meds, those who drink too much...........

I know at our work they are going to start charging smokers more for healthcare starting next year. I'm torn because it helps to keep my premiums lower, but I also don't like imposing that type of control on others behavior.

[evandael]

my view.. do you smoke? then quit or apply for another job.


smoking is BAD. smoking is a CHOICE. smoking is not the same as any biological condition, religious view, socioeconomic standing, issue of sexuality, color, race, or creed, so stuff it if you're going to counter my opinion with things like 'well first it's smoking, and then it's banning white protestants from idaho from getting hired'..

[cale]

It's a LEGAL choice. I agree companies should be able to charge higher rates due to increased health care expenses, I agree with making smoke free work places and properties but what employees choose to do on their own time within the confines of the law is their fucking choice.

[BraveUlysses]

Yeah, this is yet another negative consequence of our country's healthcare is being tied to employment.

[z31maniac]

but what employees choose to do on their own time within the confines of the law is their fucking choice.

Even if what they do on their own time ends up costing YOU money?

[cale]

Even if what they do on their own time ends up costing YOU money?

Which is why I stated that I agree with charging them increased rates, cover their own costs. Even if they're not working for your company, the health care insurers will be covering a wider group than just your workplace. You'll still be paying inscreased rates for the sake of smokers whether or not there are smokers at your particular place of work.

[z31maniac]

Which is why I stated that I agree with charging them increased rates, cover their own costs. Even if they're not working for your company, the health care insurers will be covering a wider group than just your workplace. You'll still be paying inscreased rates for the sake of smokers whether or not there are smokers at your particular place of work.

Very true.

Are there similar things up there in Canada?

[Stanley Rockafella]

No...that's a US thing

[mrsleeve]

Yeah, this is yet another negative consequence of our country's healthcare is being tied to employment.

Then why are we just starting too see this happening now? I think you mean govt.

[cale]

Very true.

Are there similar things up there in Canada?

Something I pulled up with a quick google search as I wasn't sure.

Employers have the right to choose who they hire provided those choices are not made on the basis of discrimination against age, race, disability, gender, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Being a cigarette smoker is not one of these, and employers can therefore choose not to hire smokers.

I know many hospitals are completely smoke free properties, rightly so.

[BraveUlysses]

Then why are we just starting too see this happening now? I think you mean govt.

Well government plays a part in it, sure, but healthcare and employment have been married for a long time.

If employers were not in the business of providing healthcare they wouldn't care about employees smoking (except for excessive smoke breaks).

[evandael]

It's a LEGAL choice. I agree companies should be able to charge higher rates due to increased health care expenses, I agree with making smoke free work places and properties but what employees choose to do on their own time within the confines of the law is their fucking choice.

Employers have the right to choose who they hire provided those choices are not made on the basis of discrimination against age, race, disability, gender, religious beliefs or sexual orientation. Being a cigarette smoker is not one of these, and employers can therefore choose not to hire smokers.

i'm confused about where you stand on the issue. i'm not saying this with animosity, i just agree with what you quoted because it seems logical and, more importantly, legal.

[cale]

It's legal yes, but it was also once legal to discriminate based on all of those things. They're only able to do so because smoking has not been acknowledged as something one can possibly be discriminated against.

Z31 has it bang on, shall we start refusing to hire based on other things? Shit like affirmative action is acceptable, but refusing to hire based on a legal choice is acceptable too? Cake and eat it too IMO.