New Policies for Smokers in 2009!

I saw a friend over new years eve and he told me about these new rules his office is setting up for smokers. Being a small business owner myself, I thought they were interesting enough to share.

1. His company is not going to hire anyone who smokes. Period. The feeling is that smoking is an addiction and hiring addicts goes against company policy when the addict is prone to harm himself (or others around him with second hand smoke). It’s really no secret smoking is physically harmful to others when they have to inhale it, let alone to oneself. It’s also a psychological matter of self-concept, that is continuing to engage in an activity that is self-destructive. The idea of hiring someone with this form of low self-concept is really not what any company wants. Any employer (and fellow employees) would want the best person, all around intellectually, physically and emotionally, for the job.

2. When salary increase time comes around for each employee, smokers will have small or no raises so their base salary is adjusted so that it will be less than non-smokers. Here’s the reasoning:

Let’s say the average smoker takes 2-4 smoking breaks during the day. For this example, lets go easy and say 2 breaks. It takes anywhere from 10-20 minutes for a smoker to take his/her break. They need to put their coat on, take the elevator down, go through the lobby, go outside around the corner to the designated smoking area, light up and enjoy their cigarette, chat for a bit with fellow smokers, and then go back inside, up the elevator, hang up their coat and get back to their desk. It doesn’t happen in less than 15 minutes; usually more. But lets say 15 minutes per smoking break. 2 breaks per day at 15 minutes is a half-hour every day. A half-hour per day is 2-1/2 hours of smoking breaks every week. 2-1/2 hours per week x 50 weeks (52 weeks – about 2 weeks vacation) is 125 hours or 15-1/2 8-hour days or more than 3 weeks of standing around smoking and chatting per year! And that’s for just 2 breaks a day. 4 breaks a day would be about 6 weeks of breaks while others are working.

When it comes time for their reviews, the smoker’s raise will either be reduced or eliminated (based on their work performance) and the non-smokers will have larger salary increases.

At first, I was appalled by this new policy, but on thinking about it more, it began to really make some real sense. I’m wondering if others have adopted similar policies.

So basically this company is declaring smoking is to the likes of a drug addict or an alcoholic that can cause as much harm thus is not eligible for hire?

Suppose a potential applicant for a position with far more experience in a line of work comes along and they are not hired beasue of this rediculous policy and the company hires some nutcraker with hardly any experience and blows up the entire place or likes to party all the time and shows up to work all hung over or even drunk or spun out on drugs or not show up at all?

The smoker can simply not smoke at all when at the job, and some even do that, not smoke at all when at work.

The company can have a simple no smoking policy during work hours. To have a no-hire smokers policy is a form of discrimination IMO.

Well lets hope that company doesnt regret such a bad decision. Plenty of experienced workers out there who focus on their job very seriously and not just the smoke breaks and hardly pose any threat to themselves or fellow employees.



Cheers!!!!




[edit on 3-1-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by RFBurns

---

Agree with you RFBurns. There are some pretty amusing claims in the OP. I smoke and I have never been late getting back from a break because of it. I also don't think non smokers are any better than smokers. Sure smoking is bad for you but I don't think it suggests you are going to be bad for the company. Hell even president elect Obama smokes.

Smoking is a rich man's game nowadays anyway i've had to quit because i'd rather eat than smoke.

And i supposed it is a bad unhealthy habit.

The funny thing is the discrimination against smokers yet the amount of smokers tax funding more public services than a non smoker. Who's going to pay for all the services if everyone gives up smoking??

Do the non smokers not realise that everyone will get tapped up for the tax then instead of one group and industry subisdising it all.

The cries about tax increases can't come soon enough. The feeling of being able to say 'I told you so' for once will be good.

reply to post by jupiter869

---

Discrimination, plain and simple, and a violation of the smoker's Constitutional rights. If smoking is so bad, then why does the government subsidise the tobacco companies? Let's break that down, the government props up and supports the companies that manufacture tobacco, then the Federal government and the State makes a lot of money off the product in hidden and visible taxes, then runs adds on TV and billboards telling people the product is bad for their health. It's double standard. Not to mention the many products on the market for quitting smoking. They, the gov, and the tobacco companies make billions on us smokers. they will never stop, or kill the golden goose. Anyway, this is how the American Indians got back at those who stole their land, they taught the white man how to smoke. BTW, I am a smoker of many years, with barely no effects on me, excepting a chronic cough.

Yep.... smoking is a LEGAL behavior / lifestyle choice, my company is playing the "rebate" route this year... All of our health care costs doubled BUT if you are "tobacco free" you receive a $60 rebate each pay period and another $30 rebate if you take a "health quotient" survey so they can rate your health.

Don't worry... first it is smoking... then you fatties will take a hit for being overweight, your a registered gun owner, your gay, you drink off duty... If you start discriminating against LEGAL behavior and are allowed to do it then it will never end.

Oh... company X won't hire you because you smoke... then your to fat, then your "not healthy enough" or give us blood to check your cholesterol... oh wait, you have other "lifestyle" choices we find "unproductive & dangerous".

Yeah, sorry... Discrimination against choices that are LEGAL being accepted is ridiculous.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by infolurker]

I haven't had a cigarette since 11pm 12/31/08. It is the hardest thing I have ever tried to quit. It doesn't hold a candle to other addictions I've stopped years go.

Smoking was a pleasure for me. It seemed to help me relax in stressful situations.

The government in my county made health insurance more costly for smokers and over weight employees several years ago. Seems like a sure fire case of discrimination to me.

A class action suit was brought against the county government and the government won. Imagine that.

It was found that a government or a private company could have the right to refuse employment of smokers or people that were over weight if the company provided health insurance in any way.

This is my third day without nicotine. I could smoke one as big as a cigar but I will be strong because I am not going to pay the tobacco companies to kill me any longer with their poisons.

My SO and I are going on a 10 day camping trip to get away from family and friends that smoke. Hopefully I'll be stronger by then and will be able to not give into temptation to smoke when we get back home.

nj and another southern state,,, alabama,,, already looking to imploiment this on overweight state workers

same deal do a physical --pass get a rebate---your fat--you pay more

Really, what's more significant than the "discrimination" is the adjustment in salary. Everyone can argue either way about discrimination, but the fact about smokers taking more time off is pretty hard to argue.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by jupiter869]

reply to post by jupiter869

---

Rhubarb!! Its discrimination and nothing else - if that was the UK that guy would be sued big time. People are allowed breaks - if they choose to smoke in their break in a permitted area (in the UK outside - outside the premises for me), then that is thier choice. If you want to spend your break Gossiping whilst the kettles brewing or while your munching a do-nut then thats you! Don't discriminate full stop.



[edit on 3-1-2009 by MCoG1980]

I believe that there are several studies out there that show that smokers are actually MORE productive than their non-smoking co-workers.

Are smokers going to get a rebate on their healthcare costs because they are 75% LESS likely to develop alzheimers or parkinson's?

Are smokers going to get reduced costs because their children are MUCH, MUCH less likely to develop Asthma, respiratory infections, etc.?

Do a web search on the beneficial effects of smoking. Throw out any not from a medical journal. You will be STUNNED by what you find.

reply to post by jupiter869

---

Someone needs to get their head out of their discharge orifice; workers are guaranteed by LAW 2 15 minute breaks and 30 minutes for lunch; that is time you cannot count, for it isn't yours, it is the employees!

The other things you listed and cited are nothing but politically correct totalitarian bull feces designed to further erode our vanishing constitutional rights;

care to explain how so many people are contracting lung cancer that have never smoked, worked in a coal mine, or been exsposed to asbestos?

Go ahead, follow that lead; I will laugh when, after going after the smokers and over weight people, they come up and tell you that you have too many kids or when you can get their permission to have sex with your wife. Or where you can live; or who you can talk to or be friends with.

Beam me up, Scotty, there is no intelligent life left down here...

Heh. If i were a non smoker right now I'd be hoping that other smokers would keep smoking. Why? What happens if everyone quits? Hmm? That's a HUGE loss in tax money for some states. Yep. It's terrible for you, it will kill you, but hey we'll let you keep doing it if we can tax the living crap out of you. Once that tax revenue is gone they will have to regain it somewhere else. What else is bad for you? Let's hope it's not one of your vices but someone else's right? Who cares if someone else has to pay more taxes as long as it doesn't screw you right?

Over 5 dollars for a pack of Camels in Michigan. It's higher in other places of course...but cripes that's just robbery. A pack of smokes is 3.50 in indiana, so Michigan is taxing at least 1.50 more per pack yet the state government is bankrupt.

This is just another thing that's totally f'd up about the laws in this country.

Many companies will not hire smokers because of health insurance, and some even see overweight and other health issues as reasons to not hire.

So what does a company do who wants to reduce healthcare risks within their employees? If I got 3 people I can hire and they all can do the job with one well overweight, one having a nicotine fit and the third somewhat healthy looking, I’m picking number 3 purely based on long term productively potential.

[edit on 4-1-2009 by Xtrozero]

You hire the most qualified person based on the interviewees you encounter and their qualities, not their habits. If you need a saint or even a seraphim, find a new line of work. We are human beings. If that's not enough, find other work