No use of Tobacco Products

Eliant

We are in California. Recently we were acquired by another company, they are privately held. They want to institute the "No use of tobacco products" on company premises. They are willing to pay for smoking cessation classes or a program to assist employees in this area. This applies to existing employees. Moving forward they will make this a pre-requisite for all new hires. (Their founder died of Lung Cancer from second hand smoke)

I'm looking for assistance in the law that gives employers this authority.

rad

Doesn't CA already have a no smoking in the workplace law? If so, there's your answer. Even before MA had one I could not smoke in work or on company property. Are they talking about chewing tobacco as well? By making this a prerequisite, are you saying that they will not hire smokers? Are they going to ask that during an interview?

Eliant

Yes, there is a no smoking in the workplace law. But, they are talking about not allowing employees to smoke at all on company premises, even during their break in the current "designated smoking area". They mean no tobacco of any kind, period. And, they are not going to ask this question during the interview. They will simply post this in our lobby, "Smoke and Tobacco Free Work Environment", if advertising for a job they will also place this statement in the advertisement and when completing the application candidates will be advised of this policy in writing , ask to sign an acknowledgment and understanding of a condition of employment.

smaces_twin

I think I know what you are asking, but it is not clear in your question. I see no problem with instituting a tobacco ban on your property. You are in CA, so who really knows, though. I do see a problem if you start only hiring people who do not use tobacco. As long as you focus on company time and company property and not try to regulate what people do on their own time, you are OK.

Crout

They have every right to insist that no one may smoke on their property. Just make sure that the question is not asked during the interview, and also make sure that new hires are fully aware of the ban.

Eliant

Thanks for your imput.

safety

(Their founder died of Lung Cancer from
>second hand smoke)

I say horse pucky to the physician who gave this post mortem opinion. No offense to the dead founder is intended. Junk science is rampant in our society today. OK, I'll concede that smoking is not healthy but most studies on SHS are biased with a pre-determined outcome.

Let's see, we subsidize the tobacco farmers with tax dollars then the same government sues the companies who take the raw material and refine it into a legal consumer product. Only in America.

smaces_twin

No one has health problems because of second hand smoke?

BTW the companies that got sued particpated in deceptive advertising and continuosly lied to American consumers. Sure they made a legal product. But I think the issue is a little deeper than that.

safety

First off I did not say no one has health problems because of second hand smoke. I believe if you do a little bit of research you will come to the conclusion that most of the studies on SHS are biased as I stated in my post and I stand behind that fact!

Second, deceptive advertising and continuosly lied to consumers, about what? Back in the 50's maybe but in recent history I beg to differ.

smaces_twin

The deceptive advertising targeting chidren continued well past the 50's. Remeber Joe Camel? Was it the 50's when they came out and said smoking will kill you? My mother smoked in the early 70's when I was born. I don't believe even then they understood the full effects of smoking on fetuses. I say they weren't waiving the red flag of the terrible health implications even then. What year did they start putting warning labels on cigarettes? 1959?

My first hand experience when I ran a pediatric practice is that children of smokers, in general, had more health problems than children of non-smokers (asthma, respiratory infections). This is well established information in the pediatric field. I would argue that pediatricians are not out to destroy the tobacco industry, they are concerned for the health of children.

I don't know who the SHS is and I'm not using them for my information.

safety

I am sorry to get your blood pressure up over this issue. I just do not believe the studies were completed using the scientific method. I do not doubt there are health issues related to smoking and even some with second hand smoke. I just believe there is a bigger agenda there than the studies show. Here is a link you may find interesting on second hand smoke (SHS).

[url]http://www.davehitt.com/facts/[/url]

I have some old Life magazines from the 50’s that show Dr. so and so recommending a certain brand of cigs. I also have had conversations with physicians who went through med school years ago and at the end of the lunch line there were salesmen giving away all different brands of cigs. I know there has been deception in the past but this is not the only industry that has practiced deceptive advertising however they seem to be the ones that are being singled out now. I challenge you to watch any beer commercial and tell me that they are not deceptive and may even be targeting our youth.

I believe the studies are based on junk science just like the ozone issue. In 1984 I took a chemistry class and at that time the issue in the scientific community was global cooling caused by the same substances the community now claims cause global warming. Again junk science in my opinion.

smaces_twin

Here is a link you may find
>interesting on second hand smoke (SHS).

I was just kidding, I knew what SHS was...x:-8
>
I challenge you to watch any beer
>commercial and tell me that they are not
>deceptive and may even be targeting our youth.

I never said that other industries didn't participate in deceptive advertising. But anyway I like beer and not cigs, so I'm biased.

>I believe the studies are based on junk science
>just like the ozone issue. In 1984 I took a
>chemistry class and at that time the issue in
>the scientific community was global cooling
>caused by the same substances the community now
>claims cause global warming. Again junk science
>in my opinion.

I appreciate the info and your opinion. How about we go for a smoke after work?

safety

OK smaces_twin, I get off at 6:30 and will be having a smoke (legal) and a cold one by 6:45. A truce it is.

Shadowfax

I know of no law that would require an employer to hire a smoker. In fact, being a non-smoker is a prerequisite to being hired in our city. There may be state laws out there somewhere to protect private acts off site, but at least in Mi, you are free to discriminate against smokers.

jfletcher

My previous company as well as my current one are total no smoking properties. The former company was a national retail and did not allow smoking anywhere on grounds. We did away with the designated smoking areas completely. ALL tobacco products were included. Is the pre-requisite to be a non-smoker or to be aware that smoking is not allowed anywhere on the grounds or in the faculity?

deltadays

There is no law that protects smokers. You are free make your entire property smoke free. Recently, the police departments in a particular county, (I think it was police)just implemented a policy to not hire smokers. And also some state beaches were recently declared smoke free. I am in California.

smaces_twin

In NC their is.

System

To say that smoking and tobacco products can be banned in the workplace is not the same as not hiring smokers. In some states, smokers are a protected class. You can't refuse to hire a smoker. You can hire them, they just can't smoke where they work if policy says they can't. In Maryland there is no protection for smokers. I used to ask "Do you smoke" at the end of an interview then make a note of that answer. That's not an illegal question; probably a bad practice though. Now I explain our break policy and ask candidates if they can live with it?

I agree with Safety on the SHS - don't see how anyone can make that conclusion.