Hey smokers, how would you like to get denied a job because you smoke?

[SunnyD]

In Alabama, the state's largest employer, UAB, will start actively screening job applicants for nicotine and will turn away smokers starting in 2013. Period. (Okay, people that smoke, chew, snuff, basically anything.)

And they think that this will legally be upheld. Weee!

According to the new policy, prospective employees will be tested for nicotine use as part of a drug screening following a job offer. If you test positive for nicotine use, you will not be hired. UAB said this includes smoking, sucking/dipping, chewing or snuffing any tobacco product.

“Tobacco use is a major cause of illness and death in our state,” says UAB Health System CEO Will Ferniany, Ph.D. “For more than 100 years, UAB Medicine has been dedicated to preserving health and preventing diseases in Birmingham and beyond. As health-care providers, UAB Medicine and the entities that comprise it should be role models for good health behaviors, and lead by example in the quest for good health. We believe one of the best ways to accomplish this is to encourage people to stop using tobacco products and, in anticipation of the 37th Great American Smokeout tomorrow, we are announcing our new hiring policy.”

The policy will extend to anyone applying for a UAB Medicine job after July 1, 2013 — this includes jobs with the UAB Health System, UAB Hospital, University of Alabama Health Services Foundation, The Kirklin Clinic, The Kirklin Clinic at Acton Road, UAB Callahan Eye Hospital, University of Alabama Ophthalmology Services Foundation, Triton Health Systems L.L.C./VIVA Health Inc. and UAB Health Centers. The policy does not apply to the University of Alabama at Birmingham as a whole.

 

[brianmanahan]

tabacco is pot light

and you wouldn't hire a pot smoker, would you? i think not

 

[SunnyD]

tabacco is pot light

and you wouldn't hire a pot smoker, would you? i think not

Really?

 

[Phynaz]

Not a problem for me. I smoked for 30 years until my employer instituted a no smoking policy. One of the best things that ever happened to me.

I see this as no different as an employer saying we won't hire you if you decide to use cyanide daily

 

[Dr. Detroit]

so e-cigs are out too?

e-cigs do not cause health issues do they?

 

[lxskllr]

I think it's bullshit, and is an overreach of corporatised America. This country's going to shit, and the only bright spot is I'm closer to death than birth...

 

[lxskllr]

e-cigs do not cause health issues do they?

No, and neither does smokeless tobacco, not that that's any concern of an employer anyway. You're there to do a job, and your private life is private.

 

[JackBurton]

I don't have a problem with smokers, just understand you're not getting any "smoke breaks."

 

[TechAZ]

It has already happened to at least one hospital down here in Phoenix for a year now. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about the legalities of it, but it has been a year and I haven't heard of any legal disputes.

I don't understand how I cannot ask interviewees about how many children they have, if they have a car, if they have personal issues that would prevent them from being a reliable employee, etc.....but a business can not ask those questions yet tell someone they cannot work there because they participate in a legal activity outside of work that does not affect them at work.

It's hypocritical to cite health reasons when there are obese employees. The real reason companies do this is to save money on their health insurance payments. Once health insurance companies start charging more for fat/obese people (I believe it will happen within a few years), I could see companies not hiring people over a certain body fat %.

 

[gorcorps]

It may not be fair to some, but I also believe companies should be allowed to hire who they want for the reasons they choose. It's their company so why shouldn't they be allowed to let it rise or fall based on their hiring practices? If they weren't allowed to then that's just the government sticking their dick further into where it doesn't belong.

 

[lxskllr]

I don't have a problem with smokers, just understand you're not getting any "smoke breaks."

That's fine. Company property and time are theirs, and they can set the rules for THEIR property. That doesn't extend to my house.

 

[arkcom]

No, and neither does smokeless tobacco, not that that's any concern of an employer anyway. You're there to do a job, and your private life is private.

You don't really believe that, do you?

 

[lxskllr]

You don't really believe that, do you?

I've already been through this with sixone. If you care to produce some peer reviewed research, I'm all eyes. I've read plenty myself, and tobacco's no worse than other minor vices like moderate alcohol use, coffee, or McDonalds.

Edit:
And don't bother with research that focuses on non-US or European tobacco. Other countries(third world) mix some nasty shit in with their tobacco that makes it particularly hazardous.

 

[SKORPI0]

Probably to cut cost in spending $$$ from health related issues due to smoking. Rarely calling of sick, no loss of productivity, etc. The company would be saving a lot if they have healthy employees right?

 

[BUTCH1]

My company is going "tobacco-free" next week, only time to smoke is at lunch, then you have to clock out, leave the property. We're looking around the woods in the back of the plant for a spot, no smoking at a coffee break as that's paid for so you can't step off company property. Oh, we have 2 company's nearby the do in fact test for nicotine and will not hire on a positive test. Thing is in both companies they had to "grandfather" in all the current smokers when the policy took effect, our company was considering this too but 75% of the people in my dept alone smoke so they didn't bother..

 

[lykaon78]

Smoking isn't a protected class like race, religion, gender, etc... therefore companies can legally discriminate on the basis of someone's smoking status.

 

[BUTCH1]

Smoking isn't a protected class like race, religion, gender, etc... therefore companies can legally discriminate on the basis of someone's smoking status.

But you wonder where it ends. Could companies require physical exams that include blood-work for a lipid panel?. Sorry Mr Smith, your HDL/LDL is WAY out of whack not to mention your triglycerides, you test out like a bacon freak Mr. Smith, I'm sorry, we can't use you..

 

[lxskllr]

But you wonder where it ends. Could companies require physical exams that include blood-work for a lipid panel?. Sorry Mr Smith, your HDL/LDL is WAY out of whack not to mention your triglycerides, you test out like a bacon freak Mr. Smith, I'm sorry, we can't use you..

It's exactly the same, and the only reason they can get away with it is tobacco users are minorities. I'm an asshole, but I'll still defend you heavy meat eaters, and soda drinkers. I'd appreciate the same regard in return. Some locations are already infringing on personal liberty for food items, and it will become mainstream if people don't stand up for themselves. You all better hope there's enough of us to speak for you when that time comes.

 

[Corporate Thug]

But you wonder where it ends. Could companies require physical exams that include blood-work for a lipid panel?. Sorry Mr Smith, your HDL/LDL is WAY out of whack not to mention your triglycerides, you test out like a bacon freak Mr. Smith, I'm sorry, we can't use you..

Depends on state law. For example, CA just passed a law to prevent discrimination against genetic information, which a blood panel would arguably fall under.

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0551-0600/sb_559_bill_20110906_chaptered.pdf

 

[wirednuts]

good. let the idiot employers worry about stuff that doesnt matter so i can gain a competitive advantage in my own ventures.

 

[Cattlegod]

But you wonder where it ends. Could companies require physical exams that include blood-work for a lipid panel?. Sorry Mr Smith, your HDL/LDL is WAY out of whack not to mention your triglycerides, you test out like a bacon freak Mr. Smith, I'm sorry, we can't use you..

if any of those measures skew toward a protected class then it is illegal. otherwise it is perfectly fine.

 

[Markbnj]

Would you really want to work for this company?

 

[Bateluer]

Damn good. More companies need to reject tobacco users,

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Edit:
And don't bother with research that focuses on non-US or European tobacco. Other countries(third world) mix some nasty shit in with their tobacco that makes it particularly hazardous.

Ok. How about an NIH report on the health implications of smokeless tobacco?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1751814/

 

[Sho'Nuff]

Depends on state law. For example, CA just passed a law to prevent discrimination against genetic information, which a blood panel would arguably fall under.

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0551-0600/sb_559_bill_20110906_chaptered.pdf

Er. . . . I think the operative word in "genetic information" is "genetic."

Blood screen for nicotine is more analogous to a standard drug test than it is to a genetic marker test.