The LA Times had this story in its California section this morning. (Warning: The LA Times requires you to register for free before reading any articles.) Some quotes:
My question is how far can (or should) this go? It seems that the SCOTUS has allowed this practice to be carried over to employees who don’t carry the extra insurance and disability payments of firefighters and police officers. Can my employer fire me because I smoke? Should they be able to? If so, will they then be able to fire my obese co-worker for the same reasons?
Although as an employer I do not enforce such a policy, I think that an employer should be allowed to hire only non-smokers. It affects the health costs for the employer (and the employees, if they have to pay a portion of their group plan costs). I have a bit more difficulty with firing someone who already works there, if they were known to be a smoker at the time of hire.
If I (the employer) am paying, I should be allowed to exercise some control over my costs by using hiring practices that exclude the expensive people. This includes both smokers and obese people. However, I agree that it is not as simple as that. One could certainly argue that disabled people have higher costs and we have the ADA to protect them, which to me does not seem to be a bad thing. There again, you do not choose to be disabled, but you do choose to smoke. And to a large extent, people choose to be obese. Anyone disagreeing with that last sentence can start a separate thread.
even sven: Nationalized health care would make it less likely that an employer would want to discriminate against smokers as the state system will pick up the tab.
While I think that we can all agree that smoking is bad for you and that it contributes to driving up the cost of healthcare, I really don’t think that we want to go here.
The fact remains that tobacco is a legal substance. I could see a business owner forbidding smoking while at work or on company property, but outside of work I just don’t see.
Also, I think that this opens the door for a lot of other issues that also drive up the cost of healthcare being grounds for denying someone a job. I get where they are going with this, but on balance think it is a pretty bad idea.
Employers are free to not hire anyone based upon any legal reason. Thus, yes, they may choose to not hire smokers- but not blacks. They may choose to not hire convicted felons- but not Jews. Etc.
They also could choose to not hire someone for being obese. Indeed, many jobs have such a requirement- cops, Airline attentants, models, etc.
However, the question arises if the worker becomes fat after hiring- they they have to show a “cause & effect” in most cases.
Of course- smokers DO “smoke at work” even when forbidden. Hell dudes- it’s a stronger additction than herion in some ways- most dudes can’t stop for even a couple of hours. Thus, they’ll smoke in secret- which causes a fire risk, or SHS dangers- or many “extra smoking breaks”. :rolleyes:
DrDerth, you make some good points about smokers at work, but that isn’t really the point here. I agree that someone should be let go who takes extra breaks or smokes inside the workplace, but my habit does not interfere with my work. I get my scheduled “coffee” breaks, and that’s it.
As you said, these are job-related requirements. I could not be a model because I’m not attractive enough, and I’m fine with that. Saying that I can’t have a desk job because I have a dangerous addiction seems to be stretching things. What about someone who has a dangerous hobby? Will they not get hired?
I kind of agree with you. But I guarantee someone is going to make the “HIV argument”
Speaking of which: HIV was recently deemed a disability even for those who show no symptoms.
The ADA is very sketchy. Though there are exemptions for “illegal use of drugs, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders, other sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania, homosexuality or bisexuality” there is no itemized list of what disabilities are protected under the ADA. Unfortunately, the Federal Courts are defining what’s a disability - and quite often there are contradictions between different circuits. For example: Some employers have been forced to consider nicotine addiction as a disability. Some estimates place the # of disabled people between 36-40 million.
The Federal Fair Housing Act requires the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority to make the following accomodations to Carmen Bowen’d publicly subsidized apartment:
Taking out doors and walls to accomodate her extra-wide wheelchair,
Installing an automatic door operator and a panic device,
Demolishing the existing bathroom and installing a special shower,
Putting in a sidewalk leading to a front doorway
Because the 44-year-old weighs nearly 800 pounds and is immobile.
Let’s say she was able to lose enough weight to become mobile. Would you hire her? If the answer’s no, you just might find the EEOC swooping down on you.
Oh, I admit Lightningtool, that I am not sure that this is a good way to go. But it is legal. And, I hate to add add’l laws, being a (small “l”) libertarian at heart. Thus, as long as it isn’t illegal discrimination, I feel that we shouldn’t do anything about a companies LEGAL right to choose not to hire someone for smoking. Other than bitch about it on a MB, that is!
It’s like the arguement about a “living wage”. Now, I concede a “minimum wage” (with reluctance). And, I prefer to shop at stores where they treat their employees like humans. But I don’t like local laws that try & FORCE such companies to pay more than the mandated minimum wage. If I choose to, I will make MY OWN moral call to shop there, etc.
Seems like a can of worms… you can discriminate against Gays because you think they can more easily get AIDS, Women because they can get pregnant, etc…
Though I agree smoking is bad for everyone involved… including co-workers.
ES was being facetious. But, for what it’s worth, nationalized health system is more likely to add government intrusion into the lives of citizens wrt lifestyle choices. It’s the “mandatory motorcycle helmet” law reasoning writ large. It may or may not affect what private companies do, but the issue here is actions taken by the government, not a private company.
This is the problem with employer provided health insurance. Because health insurance is seen as a necessity and because we’ve allowed the insurance industry to make it next to impossible for individuals to procure their own insurance in a cost-efficient fashion, employers are being forced to make choices about hiring that put them in the role of judging potential workers’ private lives and personal choices to engage in behaviors which may (or may not) be injurious to them or may simply be that which is bound to cost the company money.
In addition to the smoking and obesity issues, there are more than a few companies, typically smaller companies that have just enough employees to bring them within local or state mandates to provide insurance benefits, where you won’t find many women of child-bearing age if you find any at all. This is because providing insurance that doesn’t cover maternity costs is much cheaper, and the companies, by design or because of the lack of that coverage, simply do not have younger women on staff.
As the workforce continues to age and as personal liberties become more important to a larger part of our society (in the wake of issues like general smoking bans and in reaction to things like the Patriot Act) this problem is going to continue to rear its head.
The solution is obvious – separate health insurance (and personal liability insurance) from the workplace and eliminate the nonsense notion that it must be purchased from within a qualifying group in order to be affordably priced or eliminate the nonsense notion that the only qualifying groups are either government-sponsored individuals (aka Medicaid recepients) or groups directly related to people’s work. Why couldn’t a community be a qualifying group? Or the congregation of a place of worship? Members of a credit union? Or better yet, why can’t the qualifying group simply be entire body of individuals who are able to buy the coverage, just like life, homeowners or auto policies?
Health insurers love the way things are currently run because they’re getting very wealthy by selling their one-size-has-to-it-all, pre-packaged, take it or leave it, only game in town coverage to companies at exorbitant prices which don’t reflect the reality of health care costs at all. The industry has a massive lobby which is bound and determined to make sure that legislation and public policy favors health insurance coverage for all and under the model which they are prepared to offer, not a model that adequately serves the needs of the population. Getting around that lobby and moving for massive reforms – which don’t involve the publicization of something which is inherently private and needs to stay that way – is going to take a lot of effort, but its an effort well worth undertaking now beore the situation worsens.
TeaElle:
I agree 100%. We don’t purchase our car insurance thru work. Seperate health insurance from the workplace (and the tax deductible status that allows) and you’ll have portable insurance that you buy just as you buy the necessities of life: food, clothing and shelter.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to start this kind of non-hiring practice. However, if insurance costs are higher for smokers, then I do think the smoking employees should have to field the extra costs above what the non-smokers pay.
what sort of government intrusion into lifestyle choices that at least some of your states don’t already have? I seem to recall that there are mandatory helmet laws in some of the states.
Obesity, alcohol use, being over 45 years old, having bad genes, contributes to/causes lots and lots of health problems, any one of which, in my opinion, causes more health problems than smoking.
If I wanted mostly healthy employees, I wouldnt hire anyone of these.
If I choose to smoke, then I will. If someone prevents me from smoking, then technically they are interfereing with my right to “pursue happiness”. It isn’t a discrimination case, but rather, a case of someone interfering with my rights as a citizen.
If I liked wearing pink ribbons in my hair, and they dismissed me because of that, then they would be hit with a violation of my right of the freedom of expression. As well, for those employees who are let go as a result of the company adopting the policy, they could turn around, and sue the company. Why, you ask? Adopting a new policy for a work place, knowing that there will be people dismissed as a result, without proper compensation, is extremely illegal (at least it is here in Regina, SK).
An employer, IMO, should not be punishing employees for their conduct outside the workplace, unless it has a direct influence on their job performance. If the employer is concerned about costs of health insurance, hammer out a deal that states that as smokers do cost more due to insurance, and will no longer be covered.
And for those who say that the toxins from the cigarettes in the workplace makes for an unhealthy workplace, do bear in mind that working in many other environments creates a much higher risk of death and illness without smoking.
I very much agree with TeaElle, the insurance industry has been dictating the ways in which insurance can be bought, and not the consumers. This needs to be changed, the log jam free’d. Rather than consumers adapting themselves to the ways in whcih the insurance industry wants to package things, the industry should be adapting to the ways in which consumers want to buy it.
And all Mace was pointing out by the reference to helmet laws is that, in a national healthcare system, smoking (as well as many other forms of unhealthy behavior) more than likely would be illegal across the board, using much the same legal justifications as mandatory helmet laws.
