Smokers need not apply...

[Will E Worm]

Employer Refuses To Hire Smokers, Cites Rising Care Costs...

Currently there are some 14 million jobless Americans. And if you’re one of the thousands of North Texans looking for work, the competition is tough.

Now, a new hiring limitation by one employer could make the job search even harder.

The Baylor Health Care System has decided that if you use tobacco, in any form, you won’t get a job with them.

“I don’t like it,” said Cassie Grooms. “I don’t think it’s fair.”

Smokers like Grooms were quick to condemn Baylor’s new policy that basically conveys: if you use nicotine, there’s no need to apply.

“We all have the right to smoke a cigarette,” Grooms said in disagreement. “I can understand not [smoking] on their property, but to not hire somebody for smoking…”

Baylor officials claim smoking has a lot to do with the high cost of health care. The FDA estimates smoking costs American employers some $200 billion a year in lost productivity and increased medical costs.

Article

Discrimination. Lawsuit coming. :yesyes:

 

[mrtrebus]

Good. We do not need those sort of people working for us!!!!

 

[Will E Worm]

Good. We do not need those sort of people working for us!!!!

:nono:

 

[mrtrebus]

:nono:

:yesyes:

 

[CobraCom]

:drama:
As a smoker, I am aware my insurance costs are higher than normal, my risks as an employee are therefore higher (common illnesses like colds last longer for instance), and of course in a lot of workplaces I technically receive unfair advantage to go on smoke breaks and the like. :doa82: So I accept that choosing to continue smoking raises the risk that I am a less attractive hire than others. That's just reality folks.

 

[RichardNailder]

I will never again hire a smoker for a hourly position - bottom line - YOU WASTE TOO FUCKING MUCH TIME!

 

[TheOrangeCat]

if Baylor really want to protect their overhead from egregious medical expenses due to employee health risks, how about they kick out all the fat fucks who gorge themselves stupid every day and saddle the healthcare sector with billions and billions of dollars of costs to deal with their obesity, diabetes, heart, liver, kidney etc issues caused by their repulsive gluttony.

Fat is a far heavier (boom-boom) burden to the system than tobacco. At least tobacco pays for its demerits with appropriate tax levies.

 

[Will E Worm]

if Baylor really want to protect their overhead from egregious medical expenses due to employee health risks, how about they kick out all the fat fucks who gorge themselves stupid every day and saddle the healthcare sector with billions and billions of dollars of costs to deal with their obesity, diabetes, heart, liver, kidney etc issues caused by their repulsive gluttony.

Fat is a far heavier (boom-boom) burden to the system than tobacco. At least tobacco pays for its demerits with appropriate tax levies.

No, that would be discrimination.

American's with disabilities act for starters.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

No, that would be discrimination.

American's with disabilities act for starters.

Only if they were targeting current fat employees rather than potential employees, and not even then because:

"With a few exceptions, the latest cases indicate that obesity is usually not considered a disability unless the employee can show it’s caused by a physiological condition beyond his control."​

 

[StanScratch]

I will never again hire a smoker for a hourly position - bottom line - YOU WASTE TOO FUCKING MUCH TIME!

This.
Smokers do not have 15 minute breaks like us non-smokers.
In most places, if one works for 8 hours, one gets two 15-minute breaks.
Not if that person is a smoker. A 15-minute break for a "fix" every hour is the norm. Of course, they cannot smoke near the building - they must do so in their car. So, to say they use 15 minutes is being kind. Most of the time, we are looking at about a half hour. Attempt to get them to work for a while without their little "fix", and you get a grumpy, unproductive mess of a being who will slow down the productivity of others.
I for one would be ecstatic if my employer stopped hiring smokers.

 

[Will E Worm]

Only if they were targeting current fat employees rather than potential employees, and not even then because:

"With a few exceptions, the latest cases indicate that obesity is usually not considered a disability unless the employee can show it’s caused by a physiological condition beyond his control."​

Most can.

 

[TheOrangeCat]

Most can.

no they can't

EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436 (6th Cir., 2006)

 

[RichardNailder]

This.
Smokers do not have 15 minute breaks like us non-smokers.
In most places, if one works for 8 hours, one gets two 15-minute breaks.
Not if that person is a smoker. A 15-minute break for a "fix" every hour is the norm. Of course, they cannot smoke near the building - they must do so in their car. So, to say they use 15 minutes is being kind. Most of the time, we are looking at about a half hour. Attempt to get them to work for a while without their little "fix", and you get a grumpy, unproductive mess of a being who will slow down the productivity of others.
I for one would be ecstatic if my employer stopped hiring smokers.

You can work for me - I need someone to clean the cum up after the shoots - LOL

But seriously, over the years I've hired hundreds of people - and never once have I had a smoker work for me that didn't cause a problem in the workplace because of their habit.

Even when shooting porn, smokers waste hours every day - shoots start late because some "Princes" needs a cigarette before she can shoot - then the entire crew is on the fucking porch wasting my fucking time.

 

[Jon S.]

no they can't

EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436 (6th Cir., 2006)

Oh no you didn't........going after the worm with facts, AND case law! Ha ha ha!



And no worm, unless case law has changed.......the obese and users of tobacco products (smokers, etc.) are not considered a protected class. What about people who will not hire people with bad credit? That's not any less "discriminatory" than not hiring someone who smokes IMHO opinion (and in the eyes of the courts....and case law would say that they do not see it as discriminatory at all). Hey, anyone can file a lawsuit, and all the more power to them......BUT, everyone with any sense about them know one basic fact......they'll lose! :2 cents:

 

[Petra]

When I was a manager at McDonalds, I loved fucking with the smokers. My entire closing team smoked and I'd space out their breaks just beyond what they could handle. They'd always get so pissed at me and I'd just shrug my shoulders and tell them that it's not my fault they're addicted.

I've been evil for a very long time...

 

[Galactic]

When I was a manager at McDonalds, I loved fucking with the smokers. My entire closing team smoked and I'd space out their breaks just beyond what they could handle. They'd always get so pissed at me and I'd just shrug my shoulders and tell them that it's not my fault they're addicted.

I've been evil for a very long time...

I'm a smoker...and yeah, you're evil. But also correct to fuck with us. Cause we, smokers, are FUCKING stupid.

 

[Will E Worm]

no they can't

EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436 (6th Cir., 2006)

Yes, they can.

Obesity and the ADA: Coverage for a Large Group
Link

 

[Will E Worm]

When I was a manager at McDonalds, I loved fucking with the smokers. My entire closing team smoked and I'd space out their breaks just beyond what they could handle. They'd always get so pissed at me and I'd just shrug my shoulders and tell them that it's not my fault they're addicted.

I've been evil for a very long time...

Terrible. :nono:

 

[Legzman]

That's blatant in your face discrimination if I've ever seen it.

 

[Maria the SnakeBabe]

I am all for the owner of the business having the right to hire who he wants to hire. Even if it is only people who don't smoke OR people that DO smoke. Its his business, if it fails or succeeds is all on his decisions.