Quote:
Originally posted by ktsnake
Dangerous precedent? As an employer, I would prefer healthy employees who don't have to call in sick because of the recurring upper respiratory infections that they keep getting due to smoking. I'd prefer not to have to pay their higher healthcare costs, It would annoy me to see them taking 15 minute breaks every 30 minutes, and I don't like the smell.
I think this company has every right to select their employees based on whatever criteria as long as it's not illegal discrimination (and cigarette smokers are not a protected class by any stretch).
|
If an employee is using more than their allotted sick days and haven't filed FMLA papers, then you fire them. I can't remember the last time I had an upper respiratory infection. If employees take more than their allotted breaks (including their GC time at work), you fire them. If you can't afford their healthcare costs, you make them pay more of them. You lump all smokers into one category.
The precedent is that what you do in your free time, away from work, if it doesn't affect your work, should not be your employer's business and it's dangerous to allow them to dictate that. It started with random drug testing. Now it's moving to cigarettes. At least the drugs they test for are illegal. Smoking isn't.
My brother is a thin, non-smoker who exercises daily. He is also on medication for high blood pressure and high cholesterol and was rejected by the Air Force because of his blood pressure. He has the healthiest lifestyle of anybody I know but genetics gave him these issues. It would be a scary world if he couldn't get a job because of this. Where and how do you draw the line?