tobacco polcy

Status
Not open for further replies.
a lot of places ban tobacco use on the job as a lot of states have banned it in the work place, or in any public space.

I find it interesting to see the smokers huddled 15 feet away from the door (the law in IL) shivering in the cold wind in winter. It does not appear to me that the law is reducing the amount of tobacco use at all.

I would just as soon not have to be around smokers. I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke.
 
Rewire said:
200LB is not overweight the difference is the direct health care costs that are attributed to smokers is something they have imperical data on an employee that smokes also costs the company in productivity. I may not be able to control what they do on saturday but I can control if they have a job monday.
Click to expand...
Control health costs even more, forbid employees to get their wives pregnant.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Do you have a source for that?...everything I have read says the opposite. Illinois says they have lost hundreds of millions in gambling revenue after they passed the smoking ban that applied to most public places including the river boat casinos.
Click to expand...

The casinos may be a different story, I wonder what happens if you remove them from the data.

The NIH tells us:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1759095/
Conclusion: All of the best designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment. Policymakers can act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in secondhand smoke confident in rejecting industry claims that there will be an adverse economic impact.
Click to expand...

And the NY Clean Indoor Air Act (CIAA):
http://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/tobacco_control/docs/ciaa_impact_report.pdf
Exhibit 3-19 shows that the CIAA had no apparent effect on sales tax receipts for bars or full service restaurants or on totals from all retailers in New York City or New York State. Additional statistical analyses were conducted (see the 2005 Independent Evaluation Report, page 4-43, for more details), which confirm that the CIAA had no significant impact on bar and restaurant sales.
Click to expand...

Another source reports that studies funded by the restaurant trade tend to show a business, and studies of those studies tend to show their flaws.


Make of that what you will. I know I'm more likely to go to a pub if it doesn't reek of stale smoke.
 
I would not knowingly hire a tobacco user, and I ask when I hire someone. If they lied, I would promptly fire them when I found out. Most (though not all), are slobs, throwing their butts wherever, or spitting wherever, etc. Bad breath, bad body odor, bad company image. And I agree with what was already stated about the "smokers breaks".

I worked for years inhaling second hand smoke and cleaning up chewing tobacco that my fellow workers indiscriminately spit or left around. And this was in a firehouse. Never again.

Bad for their (and my) health and bad for business! :rant:
 
zbang said:
The casinos may be a different story, I wonder what happens if you remove them from the data.
...
Click to expand...
I don't know what happens when you only look at bars outside of the casinos. In 2008 after the Illinios no smoking law took effect the casino revenue dropped 21% in Illinios, but in the bordering states their casino revenue dropped less than 2%.
 
ceb58 said:
Our insurance carrier charges the employee more if they are a smoker. Which I think is wrong, they don't charge the 200lb over weight person more for shoving snickers bars in there mouth.
Click to expand...

Don't bet too much on that. I know if you are overweight it does no good for life insurance rates, health insurance maybe a little different. If you are young and overweight you could be better off, if you are older and overweight you probably have other medical problems that will bump you to higher rates(and these problems possibly go away if you lose weight). High blood pressure, diabetes, coronary/heart problems all can get better with weight loss in many cases.

Besoeker said:
A perspective from across the pond....

Smoking in the workplace is illegal in the UK. I don't have a problem with that.
Smoking in pubs is also banned. That I'm not so sure about. I'm not a smoker and when I went to a pub in the past the smell of smoke clung to my clothes and came with me when I left. I don't miss that at all. However, it was my choice to go there. Now pubs, like many other businesses are have a hard time and many are closing. To some extent, this has been blamed on the smoking ban.
I think the pub smoking/no smoking decision should be at the discretion of the owner/operator. Customers will vote with their feet.
Click to expand...

Since smoking was banned around here many bars and restaurants have opened outdoor "beer gardens" and other spaces where smoking is not banned.

zbang said:
In most places in the US, there was an increase in business of bars/pubs/restaurants when they went no-smoke. The owners were quite afraid to make the change but were generally pleased with the result a few months after the change.

One thing that gets my goat is when the smokers are allowed to take smoke breaks on the clock and I, the non-smoker, am not allowed to take no-smoke breaks.
Click to expand...
So buy yourself a pack of cigarettes and go on break, or do they make sure you do smoke while on the break?

Being around smokers does bother me some, but not like some who act like a guy on the other side of the room that happens to be a smoker is going to shorten their life just because they are in the same room (even though he is not smoking at the time).

My father smoked. When I was a kid I was just used to it, so it didn't bother me. When I was a young adult, I was still around many people that smoked, work, school, I was in military and many smoked there, and it didn't bother me - I was around it enough I may as well have smoked myself - I guess. Then came the bans on smoking in public areas. I notice smokers more now that I am not around it as much. I guess it is good to make them do their smoking away from people that don't want anything to do with it. Can definitely tell when walking into a house where someone smokes inside, or get in their vehicles. When I was younger I really never noticed that.
 
electricguy61 said:
I would not knowingly hire a tobacco user, and I ask when I hire someone. If they lied, I would promptly fire them when I found out. Most (though not all), are slobs, throwing their butts wherever, or spitting wherever, etc. Bad breath, bad body odor, bad company image. And I agree with what was already stated about the "smokers breaks".

I worked for years inhaling second hand smoke and cleaning up chewing tobacco that my fellow workers indiscriminately spit or left around. And this was in a firehouse. Never again.

Bad for their (and my) health and bad for business! :rant:
Click to expand...

So I'm pretty sure you won't be surprised when you get hit with that first civil rights lawsuit.
 
ADA and smoking

ADA and smoking

ADA laws protect individuals from second-hand smoke. ADA does not protects smokers. State Smokers rights laws protect the right to smoke when not at work, nothing more. Prohibiting smoking in the workplace is the law in many places. Charging smokers more for insurance, medical, life, etc. is ok. Prohibiting smoking in company vehicles is ok. Prohibiting smoking on company property is ok. I went to work in the school system because the use of tobacco, in any form, is illegal on school property, on property leased to the school system, and in school vehicles. It is illegal in your car on school property.

By the way I HATE SMOKING, it killed my parents and several mothers-in-law.
 
Rewire said:
of course if they lied about a question you cannot legally ask then it doesn't matter and you cannot ask if they smoke.
Click to expand...

Why would it be illegal to ask someone if they use tobacco?

Me thinks we have a few quasi lawyers commenting on this topic.

Individuals absolutely have a right to use tobacco on their own time and on their own property. I absolutely have the right to not hire someone who uses tobacco.

If I'm wrong, please show me the court rulings where:
1) it is illegal to ask someone if they use tobacco
2) I don't have the right to fire someone for whatever reason I wish (with the exception of religion, ethnicity, sexuality) specifically for lying on an application or during the interview process
 
electricguy61 said:
Why would it be illegal to ask someone if they use tobacco?

Me thinks we have a few quasi lawyers commenting on this topic.

Individuals absolutely have a right to use tobacco on their own time and on their own property. I absolutely have the right to not hire someone who uses tobacco.

If I'm wrong, please show me the court rulings where:
1) it is illegal to ask someone if they use tobacco
2) I don't have the right to fire someone for whatever reason I wish (with the exception of religion, ethnicity, sexuality) specifically for lying on an application or during the interview process
Click to expand...

Take a look at 19 on this link.

http://www.hrworld.com/features/30-interview-questions-111507/

Number 10 on this list, note it gives a reason why.

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10...-these-10-illegal-job-interview-questions/229
 
iwire said:
Take a look at 19 on this link.

http://www.hrworld.com/features/30-interview-questions-111507/

Number 10 on this list, note it gives a reason why.

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/10...-these-10-illegal-job-interview-questions/229
Click to expand...

Very interesting. But I still would want to see a court ruling, (including upheld on appeal), where it is has been found illegal to ask someone if they use tobacco.

If an insurer can, why not employers?

Please, someone correct me. I can take it. Happens all the time :)
 
I just found this by googling the question: is it illegal to ask a potential employee if they use tobacco in california?

http://www.hrmorning.com/thinking-of-a-ban-on-hiring-smokers-a-few-things-to-consider/

Here's a legal one:

http://publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/tclc-symposium-berman-crane.pdf

As the one directly above argues, an employees off-duty use of tobacco could have an impact on their ability to perform their job duties, hence it is not automatically a "protected" activity.

As of yet, I haven't found an actually court case.
 
Last edited:
You cannot not hire a person simply because they smoke for the same reason that you cannot not hire a person because they are in a wheel chair. Now if your job qulifications said that they must be able to climb a ladder, then that's a different matter.

ADA has nothing to do with it. Most ADA cases are filed as Civil Rights Violation law suits.

We had one job where the owner was arguing doing the required handicap access and told the inspector, whom is CASP certified, that he was never going to hire any handicap people, and the inspector looked at him and asked "did you know that you could get sued just for saying that."
 
pre employement is seperate from post employement if you look at most HR sites they will list questions you cannot ask and smoking and drinking habits are amoung them . Now it stands to reason that if all these HR sites have this same prohibited question someone somewhere has filed a suit and prevailed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top