Have any of you heard of this? ocB alerted me to this phenomenon. There are apparently companies out there that are screening people for smoking. That’s right. They’re testing to see if they have nicotine in their system. Apparently, they’re concerned their health benefits will go up, and they want to keep the costs low. I’d like to think that they want to provide a clean environment for their workers, and don’t wish to endanger them, but I’m pretty sure (and ocB assures me) it’s because they want to keep the health costs down.
There is also the mentality that a non-smoker will not take as many breaks as a smoker. Then on top of that, they are saying that the mentality of a smoker could be worse than that of a non-smoker. Meaning of course, if the smoker doesn’t get to smoke, they get really agitated. While I can’t say this never happens to me when I did smoke, I have to admit that when I did smoke, I took a lot more breaks. But I’m not defending the reasoning here. I’m just stating a fact. Are non-smokers more productive than smokers? I doubt it. Non-smokers just find other ways to pass time. That’s my opinion.
What’s your opinion? I personally don’t care either way. I think the reasons might be a bit questionable. It could go either way. So I’m presenting you with a poll! What do you think?
Loading ...
I don’t know which way to vote even after talking with you about this lol.
I’ll just wait for Danalyn to show up!
Why not? Companies can not hire you because of personality tests. :\
So, at my last job, I took a lot of breaks because I could…but the non-smokers were out there with me taking just as many breaks.
This job, I take 2 breaks a day, because that’s all we get. Non-smokers take the same amount of breaks.
It’s stupid.
Which is why we’re moving to Rome. Everyone smokes there. lol
I have mix feelings about this. I do find it annoying when I have to walk past a bunch of people smoking. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s right for a company to single out smokers to lower their medical premium. What about over-weight people, people who have high risks for something, or people who party a lot? Will they be singled out too?
What about the employees who wouldn’t be carried on their insurances? For instance, I don’t use the insurance offered through my company, as my husband’s insurance is cheaper and offers better coverage, so he carries us. Could they decide to fire me because I smoke, touting keeping medical costs down if I don’t even use their offered insurance coverage to begin with?
Even I, as a smoker, hate walking through the cloud of smokers in the courtyard of our building. I smoke out in my car. Who am I bothering out there other than my own upolstery? Nobody.
If I owned my own business I wouldn’t hire smokers if I didn’t have to do so. But then I’m a right bastard so take that for what its worth.
They smell up the place, they take too many breaks, their breath smells, they litter wherever they decide to cluster and waste company time, they smell bad, they are purposely deteriorating their health for no reason. Did I mention the smell?
smoking is an addiction, or at least the addiction to nicotine is what fuels some people to smoke. that being said, i can understand a company’s unwillingness to hire someone with an addiction that will lead to all the horrible smoking related health problems. heh. same could be said for fat people (who have a food addiction) and diabetes, heart disease, etc. and what if you’re not the smoker, but your wife/husband/significant other is? second hand smoke is just as bad if not worse. so can you not hire someone because they live with a smoker who blows smoke in their face? bleh. automate every industry, make people work from home, send all the smokers to france. i’d say rome, too, but i prefer my colosseum smoke free. did you know they tried to outlaw smoking in restaurants in italy? the waitstaff of some of the restaurants protested, saying they’d catch horrible colds smoking outside in the winter…
@ocb LOL yeah, you know Danalyn has to say something about that.
@danalyn so true. they can give you a test and say “oh we can’t hire that person”. So yeah I guess why not if you smoke.
@daddy forever personally, I think you shouldn’t have to be exposed to the smoke at all if you’re a non smoker. You shouldn’t have to have a situation where you’d run into it. But that’s just me.
@jade you know, you’re right. If you don’t enroll in the medical plan, what’s the problem? But honestly, it won’t matter, because it’s against smokers. I think it’s also an image thing. More companies are realizing that employees are representing their company and they just don’t want them smoking. even if they’re not at work.
@cybrpunk yeah, i know you hate smokers. It’s amazing you were able to even hang out in the same room with me. LOL
@the other yoshi yeah i know of a few companies that do take into consideration other health issues too. They won’t hire someone because of some kind of a health issue. It’s kinda crazy. Outlawing smoking in italy? that’ll never happen. hahaha
Shit. Everyone smokes in Rome.
Companies should start firing people for being fat. It costs just as much if not more for insurance coverage. They take up more space. Often, they stink worse than skinny people because they can’t clean beneath their folds of fat.
Oh, and while they’re at it, they should start firing ugly people too. Companies spend money on stupid fake plants and cheap wall art, why sully the view with ugly people?
Think of it, it’ll increase productivity for the non-ugly people because they won’t be huddling in the breakrooms making fun of the fat and ugly people.
@danalyn you don’t sound bitter or anything. :P
Actually I’d like to fire the people repsonsible for decorating the office in fake plants and bad wall art. Bad taste should be punishable by termination.