# Employers hiring only non-smokers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 18, 2003, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846 "2003-12-18T20:57:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/21 "2003-12-19T11:35:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Voodoochile \* > \*\*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. \*\* Given that almost all, if not all, developed countries other than the US have some form of natioanlized healthcare, yet none that I am aware of has banned smoking across the board, how can you back up your and **Mace’s** extroardinary claim? If anything, the US has more widespread bans on smoking than other countries. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/22 "2003-12-19T12:06:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xayoz306 \* > \*\* 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). > > \*\* That is a very good law, and it seems fair. The company is free to adopt whatever rules they wish to adopt, and those hired under the old rules, are not hurt. I think the people of Regina SK have found the solution. Why is still so hard to find for others? ---
**Author:** ![nicky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f0a364/32.png) [@nicky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nicky)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/23 "2003-12-19T12:35:25Z")
Why not allow companies to have “discriminatory” insurance? The company will pay for x$ of insurance, but what that x$ will get you depends on your health. Also, arent smokers better from a pensions point of view? ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2003, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/24 "2003-12-19T12:39:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nicky \* > \*\*Also, arent smokers better from a pensions point of view? \*\* Not many companies provide pension schemes any more - the 401(k) is taking over. With a 401(k), it makes no difference to the employer that the smokers are popping off early. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/25 "2003-12-26T17:16:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by amarone \* > \*\*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. > > \*\* I agree with you 110%. And as a consumer, I should be able to organize a boycott of your business if I don’t like your policies. Freedom is a beautiful woman if you don’t cheat on her. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/26 "2003-12-26T17:51:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrDeth \* > \*\*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! 😃 > \*\* So you’re a (small “l”) libertarian, and presumably don’t want Big Government telling you how to live your life. Yet you apparently have no problem with Big Boss running your life after hours. Some libertarian you are. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2003, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/27 "2003-12-26T17:55:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xayoz306 \* > **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).** Would you mind giving an example of what you mean by a work place policy change that resulted in people being dismissed, **xayoz306**? When smoke-free workplaces started up here, I don’t recall any sort of “grandfathering”, nor do I recall any lawsuits. It was a change in policy that all employees had to comply with; if they didn’t like it and chose to leave, that was their business. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xayoz306 \* > \*\*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. \*\* Which is why those workplaces are heavily regulated by Occupational Health and Safety and Workers’ Comp, much more heavily than requirements for smoke-free workplaces. I’m not sure what your point is. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/28 "2003-12-27T00:37:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lightingtool \* > What about someone who has a dangerous hobby? Will they not get hired? I have run into two managers at the company I work for who have stated to my face that if THEY had been the one hiring me and had known about my dangerous hobby they absolutely would have refused to hire me. In fact, at one point one of them used the fact I have a dangerous hobby as a pre-text to bring in an “industrial psychologist” to declare me unstable as part of her campaign to find a way to fire me. (Stupid sow - she honestly thought she could intimidate me. How? I have hobbies more dangerous than _her!_…) I can only presume that for every person who has told me they wouldn’t hire me because of my dangerous hobby - presumably it shows some sort of mental instability, recklessness, and/or irresponsibility - there are probably a couple more who feel that way but have not said so to my face. I have also had a manager state she would never recommend me for promotion because she wants people she can count on to be there on Monday, whereas she felt in my case she’d have to spend every weekend wondering if I was dead yet. I would also like to point out that, with the exception of the piece of trash who tried to get me fired, I have never worked directly for any of the above. (The piece of crap who tried to get me fired? She was fired for harassing employees and blatant discrimination of various folks against both company policy and state and fedearl labor laws. Nasty piece of work, she was) So yes, having a dangerous hobby can work against you in the employment arena. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/29 "2003-12-27T14:18:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xayoz306 \* > 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. You do not have a right to smoke under either the US or the Canadian consitution AFAIK, and asserting it under “pursue of happiness” is disingenuous at best. Suppose I were a pychopath and I could only be happy if I kill little kids, should that be allowed? ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/30 "2003-12-27T17:47:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Urban Ranger \* > \*\*You do not have a right to smoke under either the US or the Canadian consitution AFAIK, and asserting it under “pursue of happiness” is disingenuous at best. Suppose I were a pychopath and I could only be happy if I kill little kids, should that be allowed? \*\* I have two problems with this. First, you can’t equate smoking with psychopathic violence, and your argument is based on the worst kind of strawman. Second, I disavow the notion that employers should have far reaching rights to enforce moral, healthful, and safe behavior off hours. Do you also dismiss or deny employment to people who go dirt biking, surfing, or horseback riding (which is how Christopher Reeve became disabled)? The Constitution doesn’t give you the right to do those things, but that does not give employers the right to forbid it. In a generation or two we will probably look on this period as the time when we became totally subservient to corporate business. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/5f8ce5/32.png) [@The\_Peyote\_Coyote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Peyote_Coyote)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/31 "2003-12-27T21:30:01Z")
Just out of curiousity, Broomstick, what is your dangerous hobby? ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/32 "2003-12-27T21:53:18Z")
I fly airplanes. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/33 "2003-12-29T05:51:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus \* > \*\*So you’re a (small “l”) libertarian, and presumably don’t want Big Government telling you how to live your life. Yet you apparently have no problem with Big Boss running your life after hours. Some libertarian you are. \*\* Actually, if I understand libertarian beliefs, DrDeth would simply reply, “if I didn’t like it, I’d quit, or not apply to work there in the first place. No one is forcing me to work there; I’d just go work somewhere else.” Whether you agree or not, I hardly think it’s inconsistent. ---
**Author:** ![Urban\_Ranger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Urban\_Ranger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urban_Ranger)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/34 "2003-12-29T07:22:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus \* > I have two problems with this. First, you can’t equate smoking with psychopathic violence, and your argument is based on the worst kind of strawman. Where is the strawman? The original point of the poster is he should be allowed to do something if that enables him to “pursue happniess.” I saw no qualifiers in his post at all. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus \* > Second, I disavow the notion that employers should have far reaching rights to enforce moral, healthful, and safe behavior off hours. Do you also dismiss or deny employment to people who go dirt biking, surfing, or horseback riding (which is how Christopher Reeve became disabled)? The Constitution doesn’t give you the right to do those things, but that does not give employers the right to forbid it. I see that I did not make any remarks either for or against any such positions. Thus, your objection to my post is truly a strawman. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/35 "2003-12-29T07:28:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Broomstick \* > \*\*I fly airplanes. \*\* These airplanes would not happen to have an X , in front of them would they ? Declan ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/36 "2003-12-29T07:33:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nicky \* > \*\*Why not allow companies to have “discriminatory” insurance? > > The company will pay for x$ of insurance, but what that x$ will get you depends on your health. > > Also, arent smokers better from a pensions point of view? \*\* Cause I doubt that companies pay out more for smokers ,than they would for an employee with several children under the drug and dental plan. It probably works out that they pay in cycles depending on whats going around come cold and flu season. But ultimately it comes down to sometimes its an employers market and others its an employees market. Generally companies can apply all sorts of filters when they have the luxury of doing so , but when they need people, then they will probably take who comes through the front door. Most of us will have some variation on that ,by the time its retirement time. Declan ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/37 "2003-12-29T12:27:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xayoz306 \* > **An employer, IMO, should not be punishing employees for their conduct outside the workplace, unless it has a direct influence on their job performance.** Unfortunately, some studies would suggest it does have a direct influence on job performance: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1524684.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1524684.stm) > [@](#): > > A study by American scientists of 300 staff in an airline ticket office found that smokers had more than two extra days off sick each year compared to their non-smoking colleagues. > > Smokers were found to be absent from work for 6.16 days a year, compared to 4.53 for ex-smokers and 3.86 for non-smokers. > > They were also found to be considerably less productive than their non-smoking counterparts, completing tasks such as booking flights more slowly. Now when presented with this sort of claim, isn’t it inevitable that employers will start to screen out smokers at the interview stage? ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/38 "2003-12-29T19:18:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gary Kumquat \* > \*\*Unfortunately, some studies would suggest it does have a direct influence on job performance: > > [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1524684.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1524684.stm) > Now when presented with this sort of claim, isn’t it inevitable that employers will start to screen out smokers at the interview stage? \*\* When they have the luxury of doing so , yes they will screen out smokers, obese people , blondes , older type folks. Its an employers market Declan ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/39 "2003-12-30T00:56:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus \* > \*\*So you’re a (small “l”) libertarian, and presumably don’t want Big Government telling you how to live your life. Yet you apparently have no problem with Big Boss running your life after hours. Some libertarian you are. \*\* That is _precisely_ in line with libertarian views. The business owner has every right to demand such, and you have every right to go elsewhere. I think **Libertarian** is back, maybe he’d like to weigh in on that. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846/40 "2003-12-30T17:58:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Leaper \* > \*\*Actually, if I understand libertarian beliefs, DrDeth would simply reply, “if I didn’t like it, I’d quit, or not apply to work there in the first place. No one is forcing me to work there; I’d just go work somewhere else.” > > Whether you agree or not, I hardly think it’s inconsistent. \*\* My understanding of libertarianism (and I might be off base) is that within reason, the rights of the individual are paramount. This requires not only that the government keep its hands out of one’s private lives, but that private entities such as employers are also prevented from doing so. With regard to smoking, I think the decision to do so should be in the hands of the individual, as long as satisfactory accommodation is made for nonsmokers, and as long as the financial burden arising from the use of tobacco is shifted to the smoker, or to smokers generally. If the Acme Corporation can take a quasi governmental role in enforcing such things as drug laws, or if it can go farther than the state in prohibiting off hours behaviors, then how does that achieve a libertarian ideal? You just have the bully on the block running people’s lives. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/employers-hiring-only-non-smokers/219846.md?page=3)