Snohomish employer won't hire smokers

It's well known that employees in Washington state are no longer allowed to smoke in the workplace.

[Dinah]

Hey, welcome to the 21st century. It's been HOW long since we knew smoking was bad for you?
I think it's a good step. There are many areas all over the country where one is not permitted to smoke IN the workplace. Got to smoke? Go outside.

Besides it is better for employees especially in the winter with colds, flu and bronchitis going around. The no smoking thing is also good for asthma sufferers.

[Dinah]

I also didn't mention that a no smoking in the workplace environment is good for older workers whose medications may react badly with cigarette smoke.

[Lynda]

Dinah wrote:

I also didn't mention that a no smoking in the workplace environment is good for older workers whose medications may react badly with cigarette smoke.

Not smoking IN the workplace is one thing, and nothing new as most offices have been smoke free for over 10 years now. By the way, that hasn't cut down on the incidence of colds, flu, etc. Office buildings are sealed and very litte real air exchange takes place so all those germs just get recycled over and over.

This article however, is talking about not hiring smokers, period. In other words, if you smoke at home, on your own time, over the weekends, on vacation, you will not be hired. THAT is discrimination. Why should a qualified person not be allowed to work based simply on what they do in their private lives if that thing is legal? As long as they don't smoke IN the workplace, and it doesn't impact their productivity, why should they be denied the right to support themselves, and/or their family?

[Brett]

The employer stated they shouldn't have to pay the extra health care costs associated with smokers.

If so, then why in the world would you hire an obese person. Their healthcare costs are out of this world.

[Lynda]

Brett wrote:

The employer stated they shouldn't have to pay the extra health care costs associated with smokers.
If so, then why in the world would you hire an obese person. Their healthcare costs are out of this world.

Or diabetics, OR anyone with children (kids are the worst for causing parents time off work AND medical costs).

Police Dept in Florida tried this over a year ago. They just recinded it as they couldn't find enough qualified new police recruits AND noticed that their health care costs hadn't dropped either. Guess these folks didn't catch that in the news eh?

[Teed off in PA]

Several months ago my wife was looking for a part time job during the school year and applied at a small privately owned accounting business located inside the owners home. The owner asked her if she smoked, she said she got nervous and thought that she wouldn't get job because she smoked, but she was honest and said yes she smoked. The woman said good...this is a smoking office...we all smoke...and if that was going to be a problem she wouldn't hire her. I thought itwas funny. Just wanted you to know.

[Jay in Washington State]

We're gonna fight this.......
There is a bill right now waiting to go to the floor of the state legislature.....it would make it illegal for an employer to discriminate based on a legal behavior........29 other states have already adapted such laws.......not sure where it is right now in the process but it has some backing by represenatives.......

[hogtyed]

Trucking companies who truck flammable materials, like gasoline, will not hire smokers. Too much of a risk. They've been doing it for years and have never had a problem with it.

[Steve]

How far does the "legal behavior" legislation go? It is currently legal behavior to drink, have sex, own a firearm (even carry it conceiled if licensed), swear, never bathe, and the list goes on and on. This is not an easy issue for business owners or legislators in our overly politically correct world.

[Jay in Washington State]

The snohomish county health district screwed when they justified not hiring smokers recently by saying they didn't want to pay the extra health care cost.
We could name 100 legal behaviors that one can do away from work that could drive up medical costs.

The CDC has said that obesity will soon overtake smoking as the number one cause of preventable death in the U.S.

But fat people are protected under the disabilities act. Ya know, human double-wides, it's not their fault, they are protected from discrimination.
Obese people have entirely more medical costs and conditions than a smoker would ever have.

[Lynda]

hogtyed wrote:

Trucking companies who truck flammable materials, like gasoline, will not hire smokers. Too much of a risk. They've been doing it for years and have never had a problem with it.

That actually makes sense. But what does smoking at home on the weekend have to do with working in an office? Because the firms not hiring smokers are talking about not hiring someone who ONLY smokes at home on their own time. THAT makes no sense.

[sloopy]

It is so crazy that smoking has taken on such a monster face that even smoking on your own time is cause to not be hired. A smoker is no more likey to cost more in healthcare than the obese or alcoholic. I hope the government is ready to give welfare to all the people who can't find work because they smoke. Instead of standing 25 feet from the door they will be standing in the doorway of DSHS. And to think the same government that allows this persecussion also lines it's pockets with the profits of this disease. And it is a disease. If you consider alcoholism and obesity as such how is it different. Just like I put a cigarette to my mouth of my own free will, so does a drinker drink and an obese person eats. It's maddening to think that this country is so hypocritical that they have no problem letting a drunk drive home from a bar on the same streets they use, but freak if they have to walk by a smoker. Even in open air. Where are the priorities here? I'd much rather take my chances of skirting a plume of ciggy smoke than dodge the speeding car of an intoxicate alcoholic. And when the alcoholic hurts himself at work because he is having withdrawls and shaky, that can't be cheap. I am annoyed by the obese person who blocks the steps for 5 minutes while they grunt and groan their way to the top, making us both late for work. But I still wouldn't say they shouldn't be hired because they are slow and lazy.
Hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

[Highlander]

Sloopy?

THE SLOOPY?

[sloopy]

Highlander wrote:

Sloopy?
THE SLOOPY?

Highlander..:)
I heard about this place and that you were posting here so I thought I'd pop in. You know the ciggy issue is near and dear to my heart.:)Ticks me off. Even if it is bad for me.
How ya been?

[Highlander]

Sloopy,

Well, thanks for the 'drop-in!'

Do you have any idea as to why the old BB was taken down?

I'd set up a new one, and left a note for Hogtyed, but I guess he never checked back on this one. That was about maybe 4 months ago or right after the old one went down.

I'm not at Boeing anymore, as I retired from there in September.

Drop by more often, eh?

[sloopy]

No idea what so ever. It just went tits up. Plante or someone got another one up and running right away. Do you have the link? Hogtyed does now.
I really haven't been posting much at all myself.
Highlander.... You retired from Boeing and didn't even try to catch me for a face to face?
I am crushed!!!:(
Of course I will drop in more often.:)

[sloopy]

PS. Is there and edit button? I hate when I read back on post I made, and spot a badly spelled word. Where are the spelling Nazi's?
PERSECUTION. I was tired and hurrying. I do know the correct spelling.

[Highlander]

Sloopy,

Sorry to have 'crushed' you ... Really, I am.
I had wanted to meet up with you one day, and exchange greetings. But, who knows – it could well happen yet!

There were many poeple at Boeing that I wanted to touch bases with, before I left. Unfortunately – or fortunately (as the case may have been)– I decided to leave because the field QA management was playing stupid games.

I blew the whistle on one of them because of his rather invidious retribution and behavior against another inspector – and that activity directly affected me as well. I wasn't about to take that laying down.

It was only after I had complained that I realized that I would be targeted, and set up for a big fall.
So, I did the only reaonable thing: Retire earlier than I really wanted to.

So, now you know the gist of the matter.

As to the other BB? I don't know of it.

Now, as to the matter of the 'edit button?'
None that I know of ...
The only option is to open a text document with a spell checker, and then proof read before copying and pasting here.

BTW, I'm also active on the Seattle PI's 'SoundOff' section – in the case you wanted to assess the current character of my 'intellectual commerce.'

See you 'round, eh? ;-)

[METRO GAL]

Jay in Washington State wrote:

The snohomish county health district screwed when they justified not hiring smokers recently by saying they didn't want to pay the extra health care cost.
We could name 100 legal behaviors that one can do away from work that could drive up medical costs.
The CDC has said that obesity will soon overtake smoking as the number one cause of preventable death in the U.S.
But fat people are protected under the disabilities act. Ya know, human double-wides, it's not their fault, they are protected from discrimination.
Obese people have entirely more medical costs and conditions than a smoker would ever have.

It is not always the case that a "fat" person is unhealthy and drives up health cost, just as is the case with smokers, they are not always unhealthy. My husband a "large" person, went to the doctor for a checkup and his blood pressure, cholestral, etc. was ALL GOOD! The nurses checked his blood pressure twice and then called the doc in to repeat it! They just could not believe that he DID NOT have high blood pressure at his size. So you see, it's not always the case that "human doublewides" (as you so rudely called them), are not always unhealthy!

[sloopy]

"It is not always the case that a "fat" person is unhealthy and drives up health cost, just as is the case with smokers, they are not always unhealthy."

That is true. At least you are not one of the hypocritical and misguided cheerleaders for the "We Hate Smokers" team.
I think what Jay was pointing out is the hypocricy of how smokers are treated and un treated, as opposed to the excuses and concessions given to the obese. Human doublewide is a harsh term, Yes. But I have heard it the other way as well, ie... walking ashtray, smoldering chimmeny, etc...
Maybe Jay has experienced the same form of disgusting attitude towards himself that your husband has undoubtedly experienced too.