Following in the aftermath of the Volusia County debacle late last year, USA Today ran an article about the increasing numbers of employers that are refusing to employ nicotine users.
“Nicotine users” is my term, as most articles only reference smokers. There are many ways of using nicotine without smoking.
I still believe that the decision to hire, or not to hire a person rests with the employer. If an employer refuses to hire or employ a nicotine user, then that is their prerogative. While I can’t say that I would run out to go work for such a place, I do commend them for making such a decision.
The ACLU actually lobbied for “smoker’s rights” and caused 29 states to pass smoker-protection laws. Federal law, so far, is silent on the issue of nicotine-free hiring, because smokers aren’t considered a protected class. But, if you live in one of those states in blue, and are a smoker, then you are afforded more rights as such. I found that mildly interesting.
That decision to refuse to hire nicotine users is less about “you can’t use tobacco and work here” and more about “this job belongs to the employer, as opposed to the employee.”
Employers can have one of two reasons for a policy against nicotine users. 1.) Reducing costs of providing insurance, which would directly affect profit margins, and 2.) In the best interest of their employees. While most employers would like us to believe that option 2 is the impetus behind their policies, you can rest assured that it is really option 1. Employers who refuse to hire nicotine users would be better off by offering smoking cessation programs as opposed to just showing someone the door.
The motivation behind the policy doesn’t matter. The policy is set by the employer.
Eventually, employers are going to move to refuse to hire obese people. How they would set that bar, I don’t know. I guess if my employer ever decides to change their policies, I will be losing some weight. I would still choose to remain employed there, mostly because I enjoy my job, and especially like working for Local Ambulance. But if I were looking for a job, I would probably avoid such a policy.
I realize that my stance with employers who make these decisions is unpopular, I am still of the thought that the employer is the one who owns the job, as opposed to the employee. I also believe that if a person doesn’t want to follow rules laid down by an employer, there is surely to be someone waiting who is willing to follow those rules.
As a note, I am an admitted nicotine user. I don’t smoke cigarettes, but do occasionally use smokeless tobacco, and will, on rarer occasion, smoke a cigar during a round of golf. I am also mildly overweight. I stand 6 feet tall and weigh just under 100 kilos. i am also well aware of the health risks associated with both.
Related posts:
[...] CCC discusses the increased restrictions against nicotine users [...]