Do potential employers care about nicotine?

[Rebasxer]

I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to take a drug screen test in a few days for a new job, and my system is clean of any and all illegal substances, but a few friends and I have plans to go to a hookah bar tonight, and I'm wondering if really high levels of nicotine as a result of smoking hookah is going to throw up a red flag.

Anyone have any insight into this?

 

[Arcex]

When they do a drug test it looks for several very specific things, nicotine isn't one of them since it isn't illegal (assuming you are old enough, even then they wouldn't test for it). You're fine.

 

[D1gger]

I do not like hiring smokers, as they tend to waste a good part of the day walking outside to light up and suck down a cancer stick. I certainly wouldn't be testing for nicotine in a drug test though, I simply ask the person if they smoke.

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: D1gger
I do not like hiring smokers, as they tend to waste a good part of the day walking outside to light up and suck down a cancer stick. I certainly wouldn't be testing for nicotine in a drug test though, I simply ask the person if they smoke.

Is that legal?

I personally don't like working with them either. Rarely do they hide it well. If I don't smell the smoke, I smell musty smoke covered up with gum and it still doesn't smell normal.

 

[Rabidwerewolf]

what Arcex said.

Hookah nuts, although just as bad for you as smoking anything else even cigaretts, are not illegal. Drug tests look for the chemicals that illegal drugs are broken down into by your body after you take them. That's why although smoking hookah nuts or cigaretts won't set off an alarm, if you eat enough poppy seeds from muffins, cakes, breads, ect, it can register on a drug test so avoid eating that poppy seed bagel or cake.

 

[IGBT]

..it is legal to ban tobacco use, products and possession on private property. Many employers do wide spectrum drug testing and tobacco is looked for.

 

[nonameo]

I don't smoke or drink. Should I put that on my resume?

lol.

 

[steppinthrax]

I work at a hospital. One of the things they did here recently is ban smoking for all employees (more then 1,500). It seems unconstitutional but if you think about it they have full rights to do so. Like if someone comes to your house and starts smoking you can tell em to stop....

 

[elektrolokomotive]

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
I work at a hospital. One of the things they did here recently is ban smoking for all employees (more then 1,500). It seems unconstitutional but if you think about it they have full rights to do so. Like if someone comes to your house and starts smoking you can tell em to stop....

They can ban smoking on thier premises, but I don't think they can stop one from smoking off-site.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Originally posted by: D1gger
I do not like hiring smokers, as they tend to waste a good part of the day walking outside to light up and suck down a cancer stick. I certainly wouldn't be testing for nicotine in a drug test though, I simply ask the person if they smoke.

Yet every study that has been done on this topic has shown smokers on average are more productive than non smokers.

 

[Skiddex]

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: D1gger
I do not like hiring smokers, as they tend to waste a good part of the day walking outside to light up and suck down a cancer stick. I certainly wouldn't be testing for nicotine in a drug test though, I simply ask the person if they smoke.

Yet every study that has been done on this topic has shown smokers on average are more productive than non smokers.

links?

 

[nonameo]

Originally posted by: Skiddex

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: D1gger
I do not like hiring smokers, as they tend to waste a good part of the day walking outside to light up and suck down a cancer stick. I certainly wouldn't be testing for nicotine in a drug test though, I simply ask the person if they smoke.

Yet every study that has been done on this topic has shown smokers on average are more productive than non smokers.

links?

You mean like this one?

 

[Arcex]

Yes, of course you could potentially engineer a test that would check for nicotine but to my knowledge it isn't done. Well maybe in California...

Yes, a lot of companies these days try to avoid smokers because of the smoke breaks but also because of the associated health risks. Smokers tend to be more sickly, which means more missed work and higher medical costs, which also translates into the companies paying more for medical insurance.

In a state like Florida (right to hire, right to fire) I'm sure you won't hear an interviewer tell you that you didn't get the job because you smoke, simply because they don't have to. But if it comes down to 2 applicants who are equal in every way except one smokes and the other doesn't the job will more likely go to the non-smoker.

 

[Skiddex]

Originally posted by: nonameo

Originally posted by: Skiddex

Originally posted by: Baloo

Originally posted by: D1gger
I do not like hiring smokers, as they tend to waste a good part of the day walking outside to light up and suck down a cancer stick. I certainly wouldn't be testing for nicotine in a drug test though, I simply ask the person if they smoke.

Yet every study that has been done on this topic has shown smokers on average are more productive than non smokers.

links?

You mean like this one?

thanks

 

[aphex]

I may be mistaken, but I think an employer can fire you for smoking, even if its only during off-work hours. Higher healthcare costs are usually cited as the reason.

Was it Weyco who did the mass smoker firings?

 

[Kyle]

Depends on the job. Alaska Airlines checks for nicotine, but they tell you ahead of time that you can not be a smoker. With my current job you have to be 2 yrs nicotine free but they never did test for it (or any other substance).

 

[nonameo]

Originally posted by: aphex
I may be mistaken, but I think an employer can fire you for smoking, even if its only during off-work hours. Higher healthcare costs are usually cited as the reason.

Was it Weyco who did the mass smoker firings?

WTF? Can they fire you for not eating your wheaties, too?

 

[m1ldslide1]

I've heard also that smokers are less stressed than non-smokers, which is surprising since nicotine is a stimulant. The reason given is that they take regular breaks, step outside, space off, and take deep breaths (even though every 3rd is toxic).

I've heard people say that you should never let your boss see you smoking, because it's a natural prejudice (implies weakness), sort of like being overweight. That sort of stuff can matter.

That aside, I've never heard of testing for nicotine.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: elektrolokomotive

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
I work at a hospital. One of the things they did here recently is ban smoking for all employees (more then 1,500). It seems unconstitutional but if you think about it they have full rights to do so. Like if someone comes to your house and starts smoking you can tell em to stop....

They can ban smoking on thier premises, but I don't think they can stop one from smoking off-site.

They could have something against smelling like smoke when you come back from a break or something for a ton of reasons. If you were able to show that you don't come back reaking of smoke and don't smoke on their property or in a way to bother them (like stepping a few inches away from their property in their view), then it shouldn't matter to them. If it does, it's their ego getting in the way because you're doing your work like you should and not bringing smoke into the workplace.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: nonameo

Originally posted by: aphex
I may be mistaken, but I think an employer can fire you for smoking, even if its only during off-work hours. Higher healthcare costs are usually cited as the reason.

Was it Weyco who did the mass smoker firings?

WTF? Can they fire you for not eating your wheaties, too?

What's the issue with this? It's a private business - let them do as they please, there should be competitors who will take advantage of them making a stupid choice.

 

[nonameo]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Originally posted by: nonameo

Originally posted by: aphex
I may be mistaken, but I think an employer can fire you for smoking, even if its only during off-work hours. Higher healthcare costs are usually cited as the reason.

Was it Weyco who did the mass smoker firings?

WTF? Can they fire you for not eating your wheaties, too?

What's the issue with this? It's a private business - let them do as they please, there should be competitors who will take advantage of them making a stupid choice.

The issue is that it shows that employers can dictate many things about your life that the government doesn't explicitly tell them not to touch. For instance, if the reason for denying business to smokers is decreased productivity and increased healthcare costs, should they also be able to do the same for bungee jumpers if that habit shows decreased productivity and increased healthcare costs?

What about coffee? Tea? How about Drinking? It's reasonable for an employer to not want someone to show up drunk, but to require you to never drink(during your personal time)???

Point being, something like that could set the standard for what kind of stake businesses have in someone's personal life... Personally, I want my employer to stay as far from my personal life as bossible.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: elektrolokomotive

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
I work at a hospital. One of the things they did here recently is ban smoking for all employees (more then 1,500). It seems unconstitutional but if you think about it they have full rights to do so. Like if someone comes to your house and starts smoking you can tell em to stop....

They can ban smoking on thier premises, but I don't think they can stop one from smoking off-site.

True, But this is a pretty large hospital. People have been trying to get away with it by going into their car and smoking. Thinking since it's there car they can escape. The hospital owns apartments right accross the street so that includes their property. Really if you want to smoke you got to get in your car and go somewhere.

 

[steppinthrax]

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Originally posted by: elektrolokomotive

Originally posted by: steppinthrax
I work at a hospital. One of the things they did here recently is ban smoking for all employees (more then 1,500). It seems unconstitutional but if you think about it they have full rights to do so. Like if someone comes to your house and starts smoking you can tell em to stop....

They can ban smoking on thier premises, but I don't think they can stop one from smoking off-site.

They could have something against smelling like smoke when you come back from a break or something for a ton of reasons. If you were able to show that you don't come back reaking of smoke and don't smoke on their property or in a way to bother them (like stepping a few inches away from their property in their view), then it shouldn't matter to them. If it does, it's their ego getting in the way because you're doing your work like you should and not bringing smoke into the workplace.

Before they instituted the ban they were handing out free nicotine gums/patches. They were also offering free psychological counseling for those who did smoke. This is a psychiatric hospital btw.