What are your thoughts on this Job Limitation?

[Monster]

I have been job hunting and doing a lot of online applications over the past month or so...

I noticed on one I was doing for a management position at a region distribution center (will leave the company name out, however it's a major corporation on the stock exchange)... had a statement you had to sign stating that you were made aware of their tobacco policy. Something close to "This establishment has a non-tobacco use policy. Studies have shown that tobacco use reduces productivity and leads to higher health care cost for our company. The use of any type of tobacco product on any company property is reason for immediate termination." You have to sign this in order to be considered for a position.

Now I don't have any problem what so ever with the policy but it got me thinking about the legal aspect of it... just wanted your thoughts?

What about people that are over weight? I'm sure studies have shown being over weight can reduce productivity? Does that mean I can disqualify an applicant because he is over the current BMI rate? Can I show a study that shows a certain race, gender or religious belief causes more lost time than others and then use that as a disqualifier for employment?

Just curious as to your opinion... is this a slippery slope? or is it ok to classify a certain (habit, thing, belief, study, or whatever) as a disqualification for employment?

 

[botfly10]

Well, its pretty weird, but nicotine is about the most Special person drug of all time so...

 

[ShiftyDevil]

I have been job hunting and doing a lot of online applications over the past month or so...

I noticed on one I was doing for a management position at a region distribution center (will leave the company name out, however it's a major corporation on the stock exchange)... had a statement you had to sign stating that you were made aware of their tobacco policy. Something close to "This establishment has a non-tobacco use policy. Studies have shown that tobacco use reduces productivity and leads to higher health care cost for our company. The use of any type of tobacco product on any company property is reason for immediate termination." You have to sign this in order to be considered for a position.

Now I don't have any problem what so ever with the policy but it got me thinking about the legal aspect of it... just wanted your thoughts?

What about people that are over weight? I'm sure studies have shown being over weight can reduce productivity? Does that mean I can disqualify an applicant because he is over the current BMI rate? Can I show a study that shows a certain race, gender or religious belief causes more lost time than others and then use that as a disqualifier for employment?

Just curious as to your opinion... is this a slippery slope? or is it ok to classify a certain (habit, thing, belief, study, or whatever) as a disqualification for employment?

Trying to keep healthcare costs down. Our new insurance, starting at the beginning of the year, has a nice discount for people who don't use tobacco, as well as discounts for taking advantage of wellness stuff.

It's not a slippery slope to race, gender or religious restrictions because those don't cost the company money.

 

[Urblock]

**** fat people. My wife works in a large hospital and most of her coworkers are fat pigs.

 

[Chief Walking Stick]

Would you give a job to a hippopotamus? I didn't think so.

 

[winos5]

This has been going on in healthcare jobs for a while, both smoking and the overweight part.

 

[number51]

If I read that right, they're not saying you can't be a smoker, just not on their property. That's nothing new.

15 years ago I worked at a place that didn't allow tobacco use on their property. Smokers had to literally walk or drive off property to smoke. They would write people up for finishing a smoke in their cars in the parking lot before coming into work.


A few years after that I worked for a Japanese company that had multiple designated smoking areas on every floor of the building. They wanted it to be convenient because every Japanese person that I worked with there was a smoker. There was no way they wanted all those people being too far from their work area, much less leaving the property for every cigarette.

 

[Monster]

If I read that right, they're not saying you can't be a smoker, just not on their property. That's nothing new.

15 years ago I worked at a place that didn't allow tobacco use on their property. Smokers had to literally walk or drive off property to smoke. They would write people up for finishing a smoke in their cars in the parking lot before coming into work.


A few years after that I worked for a Japanese company that had multiple designated smoking areas on every floor of the building. They wanted it to be convenient because every Japanese person that I worked with there was a smoker. There was no way they wanted all those people being too far from their work area, much less leaving the property for every cigarette.

I've spent a lot of time in Asia... and they smoke more than any place I've been too... and out live us by a several years... must be the fish and rice... that and you rarely see obese people there... seems to me weight is more dangerous than smoking... or a lethal combination...

I get the smoking on property part... just thought it odd they used the med cost... wonder if some day applications will ask height and weight for same reason... that would make the paper...

 

[SiDe WaYs]

At loyola hospital all of the employees have to go across 1st Avenue in the forest preserve to smoke. But at McNeal hospital they just have to be 15 ft away from the door.