Damn nonsmokers

[98Camaro3.8]

Companies should be able to hire whoever the hell they want. I don't need the government telling me who I can or cannot hire. If I'm gonna pay someone it'll be by my choice, not the government's.

[MTMike]

I can't stand to be around people when they're smoking, and I commend you for being one of the few curteous smokers.

That ad is blatent descrimination, as you state, and good job catching it and bringing it to their attn.

[Dan M]

At the gas station where I work, most of my coworkers are smokers. I work the whole time I'm on the clock - if I want to eat, I still have to put down my food to help customers. Smokers have to go outside where there's no work to be done in order to smoke. Why should they get paid for taking smoke breaks?

Anyway, whats wrong with not wanting to hire smokers? I would certainly want to get my money out of my employees. I would at least start them at a lower wage if it were within my power.

[TMGSIX]

That's no different from chewing gum or using make-up

Last time I checked chewing gum or wearing make-up didnt expose people to 40 carcinogens known to cause cancer such as: arsenic. nickel, chromium, cadmium, lead, polonium-210, vinyl chloride, formaldehyde, benz(a)anthracene, benzo[b]fouoranthene, benzo[j]fluoranthene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, chrysene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, dibenzo[a,I]pyrene, dibenzo[a,l]pyrene, indeno [1,2,3-c,d]pyrene, 5-methylchrysene, quinoline, dibenz[a,h]acridine, dibenz[a,j]acridine, 7H-dibenzo[c,g]carbazole, N-nitrosodimethylamine, N-nitrosoethylmethylamine, N-nitrosodiethylamine, N-snitrosopyrrolidine, N-nitrosodimethylamine, N’-nitrosonornicotine, 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone, N’-nitrosoanabasine, N-nitrosomorpholine, 2-toluidine, 2-naphthylamine, 4-aminobiphenyl, acetaldehyde, crotonaldehyde, benzene, acrylonitrile, 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, 2-nitropropane, ethylcarbamate, hydrazine.

Smokers are pathetic addicts who put fellow humans at risk because of their inability to control their own body and resist the urge to smoke. On top of that, they smell like comlete ***! That seems like reason enough for me to not hire someone.

[HAZ-Matt]

"Quitting smoking is easy, I've done it hundreds of times." -- Mark Twain

[mjparme]

That ad is blatent descrimination, as you state, and good job catching it and bringing it to their attn.

It is not blatent discrimination because smoking is a choice.

Not hiring someone because they are black is discrimination since being black is who you are and is unchangeable. Not to mention there is no sound reason to discriminate on the basis of race.

However, a smoker costs me more money as an employer.

First, as has been noted above, smokers take more breaks to feed their addiction and therefore are less productive.

Secondly, studies have shown that smokers miss more work due to illness which makes them less productive.

Finally, smokers have more health problems which cause them to make more medical claims which raise a companies insurance premiums which get transferred to the other employees through their payroll deductions for insurance premiums. As a non-smoker I don't want more money coming out of my check because I have to pay for a smokers medical problems.

It is a companies right to not hire you because you smoke.

One could also lead into a discussion why one might think it is illegal to not hire someone when they smoke tobacco but it is perfectly legal to not hire someone if they smoke marijauna.

Before you would say well tobacco is legal and marijauna is not. You might want to ask yourself is it ok to not hire someone because they routinely drive over the speed limit? Speeding is illegal.

[ABH]

www.courttv.com/legalcafe/health/ smoking/smoking_

Some states protect both smokers and nonsmokers by insisting that employers provide a smoke-free environment for nonsmokers and by prohibiting discrimination against an employee who smokes -- either while off the job or at limited places and times in keeping with a worksite smoking policy.
Protection for smokers may be couched in laws that prohibit discrimination against employees who use "lawful products" outside the workplace before or after workhours. Wisconsin law goes an extra step and forbids employers from discriminating against both workers who use and workers who do not use lawful products.

Several of the state laws that prohibit discrimination against smoking employees do not apply if not smoking is truly a part and parcel of the job. The exception is written into the laws in a number of states -- including Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming. In these states it is likely, for example, that a worker in the front office of the American Cancer Society -- a group outspoken in its disdain of tobacco -- could be fired for lighting up on the job.

And even in those states that offer some protection to smokers -- such as Minnesota, Montana, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming -- employers are free to charge smokers higher health insurance premiums than nonsmoking employees must pay.

[majeskyb]

Originally posted by viper04af:
I can't stand smoke i am allergic to it, my mom cant even go bowling or any thing unless she wants to sick for next week. I hope all the states do what CA. and NY. did.

Florida passed a law I think two years ago making it illegal to smoke inside of a public building, or any establishment

[shock_core]

^^^ yeah, some parts of Ga recently did that

[Turbo V6 Camaro]

Originally posted by majeskyb:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by viper04af:
I can't stand smoke i am allergic to it, my mom cant even go bowling or any thing unless she wants to sick for next week. I hope all the states do what CA. and NY. did.

Florida passed a law I think two years ago making it illegal to smoke inside of a public building, or any establishment </font>[/QUOTE]sweet i can bowling without killing myself now

[Ian]

Definately NOT discrimination.

Like was said before, smoking is a choice. Being a certain race, or etc., is not. (Sexual orientation is, but i dunno how that works)

There are many bars in PA here that are smoke free. Malls are smoke free. Gas stations are smoke free (lol). Plenty of restraunts are not smoking/nonsmoking anymore, they are all just smoke free.

Its a choice. There are consequences, beyond your health.

How is that any different than saying "Non-alcoholics only"

[V6Maniac]

Originally posted by majeskyb:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by viper04af:
I can't stand smoke i am allergic to it, my mom cant even go bowling or any thing unless she wants to sick for next week. I hope all the states do what CA. and NY. did.

Florida passed a law I think two years ago making it illegal to smoke inside of a public building, or any establishment </font>[/QUOTE]Same thing for Lexington. Not all of Kentucky does it but the major cities are starting to. It's so nice to go into public places and not have to deal with smoke.

[Everglades W68]

As far as I know, there is no federal prohibition against an employer discriminating against smokers.

"Discrimination" as it is used in employment practices prohibits discrimiation against certain "protected classes" of individuals. Those protected classes are:

· race
· color
· sex
· national origin or ancestry
· religion
· veteran status
· age (over 40)
· race
· sexual orientation
· pregnancy
· handicap or disability

Smokers are not a protected class; therefore, under federal law, employers may discriminate against smokers.

HOWEVER, state laws may add protections that federal law does not. I believe that over half of the states prohibit employers from making "adverse employment decisions" based upon an employee's off-duty smoking. Virginia and D.C were two of those states/areas at one time for some, but perhaps not all types of employees. I don't know if they have enacted any recent laws. Maryland allowed discrimination against smoking, as far I know, at least until relatively recently.

Having said all that, regardless of whether an employer is allowed to discriminate or not, they should carefully consider what they are trying achieve by delving too deeply into employees' legal off-duty activities.

[speedracer95v6]

All i will say is smoking is a nasty habit. Sure, it is your choice to smoke and increase risk of cancer, etc., but I am allergic to the stuff. It makes my day miserable.

I personally would be less likely to buy from someone or something that wreaked of smoke, and also the stench of smoker breath is offensive.

Discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, something like that, totally no cool.

Discrimination based on bad CHOSEN habits, no problem with it. I can't see how it is against the law.

[epic]

Totally agree with speedracer95v6 on this whole ordeal.

You weren't born a smoker. Nuff said.