Florida County Tells Smoking Job Applicants to Butt Out

I don't smoke, and I can't stand the smell of cigarettes, but tell me, how is this NOT discrimination?

What's next? Not hiring obese/overweight people?

This is ridiculous.

I can't believe this is legal! If a person is using their 15-minute break(s) and lunch to smoke, how is their productivity less? I can understand (maybe) charging more for health care but not hiring them based on the fact that they smoke?? That's just outrageous. And let's be honest: they're just going to lie on their job applications.

I don't smoke either, and yes the smell of it make me hurl despite comments about cigars in an earlier post .. but good god this is just not right.

NYFash oddly enough I think some companies are even doing that.

If the company is paying for their health insurance as some companies are forced to do, than shouldn't that be part of the consideration? I mean, if you had to hire someone who smokes, won't their premium's be higher?

Betty- really? I think we had a post about this before, but I dont quite remember it now. Are these companies publicly discriminating against overweight or obese ppl?
Wow....

Rac- if a candidate comes in and interviews and is diabetic, or has cancer, or gets sick alot, is it fair to discriminate against them as well? At this rate our country would fall apart! We wouldnt have any more workers!

And yet...should this sort of private invasiveness be something we condone as a society? I cannot stand the smell of smoke and I have serious allergic responses, but I do not think my comfort trumps everyone elses rights. Just as NYFashionista pointed out-- what are the next logical steps? Not hiring overweight? or maybe genetic testing to determine the diseases someone might have? Or if it is just tied to behavior then what about if you don't exercise at all or enough? Or you have high blood pressure?
Maybe instead of changing the society through litigation,invasive policy and discrimination we can use education and media to promote healthy behavior.

Isn't this the same as not hiring women b/c of they might choose to get pregnant?

If you can be fired for being an alcoholic or crack addict I don't see why nicotine addict shouldn't be added. Even though addiction is considered to be a disease, it's still not covered by the ADA. Whether or not you want to smoke is a personal decision, but smokers don't just hurt themselves. So if you make that choice, then you accept the consequences.

"Rac- if a candidate comes in and interviews and is diabetic, or has cancer, or gets sick alot, is it fair to discriminate against them as well? At this rate our country would fall apart! We wouldnt have any more workers!"

I think the argument would be that people actively choose to smoke, but can't help getting sick. You may get sick by not taking preventive measures, but actively doing something is different, I think. - but I still don't agree with this law (as much as I hate smoke)

I don't understand how this is NOT discrimination. What is next? Since obese people incur higher health costs, will it next be ok to not hire them? This is crazy!

raci~ I don't have a problem with premiums for those workers being higher, I just have a problem with them not being hired based on that fact alone.

This is crazy and extreme. They should just ban smoking at the workplace not ban smokers from applying! Smokers who take like 15 breaks a day to go smoke are annoying though!

Crack and alcohol addictions are different from a nicotine addiction in that crack/alcohol can render you incapable of performing your tasks properly...second crack is illegal. Until nicotine is illegal, you cannot discriminate against someone who is addicted to it.

One thing I DO agree with is that smokers do get extra breaks and for that they should either work later or make up the lost time in some other way.

Zeze- I see the counter argument. Point accepted. However, I also see that many of our life choices can affect our health i.e. the food we eat (fats and sugars), how much exercise we get, the alcohol we consume etc...all of the choices we make affects our health in some way or another. Although I do understand your point that nicotine does have a more direct effect...I just don't see how a line can really be drawn legally.

This is insane!

Why is it ok to test for drugs and fire people who are on them, but not cigarettes? It's basically the same thing, except one is legal and the other isn't. Both things affect a person's health negatively, as well as productivity.

Drugs are illegal, smoking is not.

Where I work we have 4 smokers, and they take smoke breaks CONSTANTLY. In my opinion it does take away from productivity.

I also feel the government has no right to tell a company that they can't choose whom they have working for them. If I own my company, I do not want to hire someone that smokes, it is my money and my right.

So I say, good for Florida.

I have to disagree a little Cine. If we business owners have the right to choose, why can't I refuse to hire a person of color, or worse, a woman?

I can't believe that in this day and age people seriously don't know the difference between drugs and cigarettes. This is just sad, for real!

Oops, just realized that it is a whole county and they are dictating what the companies can do.

Damn Hang over is making me not so smart to day.

Un Dave, I personally feel that you should have the right, doesn't mean the government agrees with me. I feel the companies should have the right to hire who they please

What I think is funny is the one woman in our office who smokes is probably THE most productive member of our team. She's a damn witch... but constantly taking breaks she ain't.

why can't companies regulate breaks, so people who take more stay longer and everyone works the same amount of time...seems easier.

I don't see why it's so terrible for someone to reject a smoker if they can reject drug users, just because cigarettes are somehow still legal. They're just as bad for you, and worse than some drugs.

I feel bad for the other people in their department. They never take a break and the smokers are always taking them.

I am an ex-smoker and I would never imagine taking as many breaks as these people.

Just a clarification. The county has made the decision not to hire smokers as county (government) employees, whose salaries and health benefits would be paid for by tax payers.

I'm not a smoker, but I think it's an invasive and unfair policy. People engage in risky behaviors all the time- why should the guy who smokes be penalized, when the guy who gets drunk and then drives himself home twice every weekend isn't penalized at all? What about people who jaywalk? Or are just bad drivers and get in accidents all the time? They're all choosing to take risks that their health insurance may have to pay for.

I think if a person chooses to smoke, they should have to pay higher premiums that reflect the cost of treatment, but outright not hiring them altogether seems unfair.

"I don't see why it's so terrible for someone to reject a smoker if they can reject drug users, just because cigarettes are somehow still legal. They're just as bad for you, and worse than some drugs."

I don't think cigarettes are good for you, by any means. But they are legal. I have a problem with a company or a government deciding not to hire a group of people because they choose take part in a fully legal activity. However, like I stated before, I don't have a problem with smokers paying higher premiums, just with them not being hired at all.

<-- NONSMOKER: but I agree with those who think this is crossing the line.

One problem I see is that a broad statistic is being used to target a group that might only be a 'piece' of the problem.

"Smoking may contribute to an additional $3400 a year in health care expenses and lost productivity costs" is far too vague to offer any real insight. There are far too many health factors and conditions that could contribute to this statement amongst smokers and non-smokers alike.

I'm curious to see if in a year, Saratosa County will be able to demonstrate comparable health care savings and increased productivity through the enforcement of their new policy. If so - Kudos to them. If not - perhaps they should offer restitution to all those qualified smokers that were turned away due to their 'legal' habit.

...why don't they just make tobacco illegal? I mean honestly, second hand smoke kills. Also, cigarette smoke stinks. I have a grandmother that smokes, and I swear, I have to wash my clothes like 3 or 4 times after leaving her house. That in itself can be a distraction for people, especially those who have sensitivities to the chemicals that are released from smoking (yes, it can even bother someone if its just a smell in your clothes).

I don't know if I'd take it that far to say ban all smokers from working. Instead I would say make them pay the difference in the insurance premiums between them and other non-smoking employees. I would also make them chew nicotine gum during work (or wear the patch) as to keep them from taking as many breaks.

Interesting. It seems like regulating the breaks they take and making them pay a higher premium is a better solution. Guess we'll see how it goes.

I work with smokers and and they take a 10min smoke break every hour on the hour. It cuts into productivity severely and they miss half their calls and other employees can never find them because they are outside smoking. Also in the winter months they are more prone to sickness as well. I don't think the gov should discriminate in hiring them but charge them more for insurance....I do agree.

Oh that's silly just take the $3,400 out of their pay over the course of the year and give them a job.

Question: What is the definition of "a smoker?" On one hand, you have someone smoking two packs of cancer sticks per day. On the other hand, you have a guy who enjoys a cigar a few times per month, or a guy or gal that meets friends for a drink after work and bums an occasional butt from those around them. And of course, somewhere in the middle you have the bird finger.... Kind of a slippery slope, if you ask me.

Just thinking....what is next for Florida? Banning women from the workforce because of the time it takes them away from their jobs to attend to their monthly menstruation cycles?

How about elderly people? Or overweight people? Motorcyclists? People with risky hobbies like rock climbing? Should these people "pay the difference" because they add to health care costs? I seriously doubt the government has considered evaluating other healthcare cost risks. It has become fashionable to persecute smokers, and this is just the latest step in limiting personal liberty.

This is just one more example that when the government provides your healthcare, they have the power to dictate your lifestyle. This is the definition of fascism.

It's a great idea. Fewer tax dollars going to pay for the indulgences of individuals. And yes, nicotine is a drug.
Don't like it? Kick the habit.

janneth,

Don't like McDonald's, Taco Bell, Arby's. Burger King, or your local deli? Kick the habit!

my boyfriend and i were talking about this and it comes down to one thing:government intrusion. if a private company wants to choose not to hire smokers, then they should be able to do that. if government wants to incentivize companies to not hire smokers, they can do that too. but for government to forbid a company to hire a qualified employee based upon a legal habit, is a little too much for me.

Wow I'm pleasantly surprised by the outrage shown on this post...and rightfully so. At this rate they should also not hire diabetic people, disabled people, over-weight people and women...because they get pregnant and "take away from productivity"! Good lord! What is this world coming to? I will be honest, I smoke. But I certainly don't take 10 smoke breaks a day *ugh, I don't smoke that much*, but in any case I go out 3 times a day for 5 minutes..I really don't think that's any less productive then other people who take their hour-long lunches and socialize in the kitchen for 15 minutes while making coffee.

I don't agree with this at all..its sad how much discrimination is out there and how many of us face it every day

This will never work. I too don't smoke and broke my soon-to be hubby of the habit while we were dating.
But if they start shunning away smokers from there counties...whats next? What other bad habits are they going to take on and try to get rid of. This is not right in anyway... there is a better way...

We have people who take alot of smoke breaks, more than the normal tow 15 minute breaks we are aloud, and they come back stinking which makes me want to vomit. we have one designated smoking "area" and its on the back part of the parking lot far away from the building and they complain because they have to haul thier fat A$$es out there and back. BTW we work at a clinic for children with special needs.....needs like Asthma, Allergies, respiratory illness etc.....

It is most definitely discrimination. And like CaterpillarGirl, I also work with people who take many more smoke breaks than allotted. They come back stinky and I absolutely cannot stand the smell. What a disgusting habit!

I couldn't stand the stench of alcohol from my boss when I returned from lunch. Ciggies must be worse, no?

I think they should stop hiring fat people as well they are very expensive on the healthcare system as well. When they walk it takes them twice as long to move, that is valuable company time wasted. Who do you think takes up more company time a smoker taking breaks or a fat person who takes forever to walk down a hallway or just getting in an out of their chair or work or god forbid they have a hill to walk up to get to their job.

I have an even better idea, lets just offshore outsource all the American jobs the wartorn poverty nations will take our jobs at a fraction of the cost and they will work twice as hard as Americans. They also won't be subject to American Laws.

If a company really wants to save money and time that the smokers, fat people, or people who might have urinary incontinence and waste all that time going to the bathroom 20 times a day. Please don't hire anyone who might have some sort of handicap that might slow them down a touch or allow them some sort of individualism. In fact mother's with children are a danger as well they might have to take off more time from work to take care of a sick child or even make personal phone calls on company time to guide and care for children.

Only hire very clean single young people with no illness, no children, no family and no outside life.

People who might develop cancer or anyother illness should also be banned from work, just think of the healthcare costs and waste of company time.

I mean lets be fair here, ban one ban them all!