Smoking

Dynamo

Can you refuse to hire an applicant because they are a smoker?

Gillian3

Yes, unless your state has a law making that illegal. You can do a forum search and find lots of information on this topic.

Parabeagle

I think there are only one or two states that prohibit discrimination against smokers (Oregon is one). I think the other is a tobacco-producing state, so I would definitely check your state statutes. But the answer in most states is yes, you can refuse to hire an applicant who is a smoker.

LivindonSouth

Mississippi is another. I think there are more than a few.

SMace

NC is another. I would be surprised if SC allowed the practice.

LarryC

In The Land of 10,000 Cigarette Laws (and counting) it's illegal, along with everything else.

Dynamo

Thanks for all your help. I just found out from another source that SC does indeed prohibit any adverse employment action based on smoking outside of the workplace..including employment.

E Wart

In addition to this, do you have any current employees who smoke? (even if they don't do it at the office?)
I personally don't know how you could "outlaw" a new hire but have "old hires" that are the opposite.
PS Please don't get me wrong. I HATE smokers and the damage is does. (and you can't convince me otherwise.) However, I don't think I have time in my day to try to save all the smokers out there.)
E Wart

janeS

Actually I do not know if our state outlaws smoking, I doubt it as it is a tobacco producer, but in our town, one cannot smoke in a public building...which took a little time getting used to not being asked, "Smoking or non?"...which now is weird if I go to another town and they ask...

...but I digress...we are a healthcare facility and I cannot tell you the performance issues I deal with on a daily basis due to smoking...(smoking in the stairwell, too many smoke breaks, etc.,) and when I bring it up in a meeting with Decision Makers....they all start talking about our Core Values, our Mission based purposes and that we have to understand these people are addicted, have a disease and should be treated differently. Well you can imagine how well THAT goes over with the non-smokers....equal breaks, etc.

I personally think it is especially ridiculous when I try to get to the employee parking garage and almost trip over multiple IV lines and see people's butts because they have managed to leave their room, push their IV poles to the front outside of the building no less and still have on their hospital gowns.

In a recent meeting I brought up the topic of a non-smoking campus and was immediately squashed. I guess because it would be bad for business. So much for Core Values and Mission.

There's just nothing like a reformed smoker.

szemcumo

There is no reason that smokers should get extra breaks. EVERYONE here gets 2 10 minute breaks regardless if they smoke or not (besides their 1/2 hour lunch). Smoking does not entitle you to extra breaks. Do not/would not allow that here.

LivindonSouth

Somebody asked if we have any current smokers and also said she/he 'hates smokers'. That's a bit of a harsh reaction to a legal habit. I imagine every employer in the world with over 15 employees has one that smokes. It's not my business who might engage in a perfectly legal pasttime and why should I judge what's best for some else's health if they're not my family member?

Brother Bluto

All too often employers focus on external factors that influence their hiring decision rather than the past performance of an individual and whether or not they meet the minimum qualifications of a job. Employment laws are developed to prohibit employers from making employment decisions based on anything else but the above mentioned. A primary example; a job that requires heavy lifting in a dirty environment is considered to be unsuitable work for a woman. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard a women say "Is that a man's job?" After all the liberalization this country has gone through I never thought I would hear that question. I've even had female supervisors tell me that certain jobs are for men. It doesn't matter if a male or female, black or white person applies for a job - if they want the job and can perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation, then they have just as much of a right to be considered for that position as any other person that needs to eat, cloth themselves, and have shelter. If they are not able to perform to the company's standards and those standards have been clearly communicated to that person, then their performance needs to be evaluated. A liberal company may offer rehabilitation through their EAP giving the employee the stipulation that their performance must improve or they will be terminated for poor performance - cutting back or eliminating the smoke breaks may positively impact the employees ability to get their work done in a more timely matter, solving the problem. That person may have wanted to quit smoking for a long time but just didn't have the proper motivation. You may have just gained that employee's loyalty to that company for life!

Balloonman1

While not a legal way to select employees, minimizing or not hiring smokers will save the company big $$ in the long run. Think insurance/medical costs and productivity. One discrete way though not foolproof besides seeing the cigarettes in their pocket etc is if they smell like a cigarette, they probably smoke. :-)

My $0.02 worth
THe Balloonman