Quote:
Originally posted by _Opi_
Yeah, I agree the company has the right to make such policies as far as employment criteria/
However, some might view this as discrimination or intrusion of their privacy. What they do at home is their own business-- as long as they don't bring it to work.
What if they ban other substances...like alcohol [like 33girl suggested]?
|
Banning alcohol is different, banning ALCOHOLISM would be the literal analog here. The issue is with the endemic detrimental effects of smoking to the workplace, in the form of lost days, image, and the hypocrisy of charging more for insurance for something 50% of employees do themselves.
Now, alcohol in moderation has no such ill effects - if anything, it's positive. If the employer feels that alcohol may be a problem, and this has been supported by medical experts, most likely testing as proposed with smoking in this case would be perfectly legal.
Now, just because it's legal, that obviously doesn't make it any less invasive. However, employers are under no obligations to treat their employees in a certain fashion, except as dictated by law. It's just like pay scale - if you don't like it or can't live on it, you don't take the job. Honestly, if you can't or don't want to quit smoking . . . don't, and go find another job. Many jobs have lifestyle considerations attached, and while I agree with the conceptual understanding of the legal 'slippery slope' I just don't think it applies here yet.
Now, it's not a far jaunt to get there - it'll be interesting to see how this develops.
Threaded Mode