Will not hire smokers-your opinions?

[funder]

What is the name of your state? MI

Since I do not smoke, this doesn't bother me. I would however, like to hear the different takes on it. It will be coming more common, I'm sure.

My place of employment has announced they will not hire anyone in a full time position who uses tobacco. Present workers who smoke are not affected. Reason: it cuts down on health issues. Large employer.

Again, I have no stake in this, but is an interesting concept.

 

[stephenk]

some state agencies (police and fire departments) are also coming up with the same decision to not hire smokers. nothing illegal.

 

[cbg]

There are a handful of states where it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of legal activity outside of work. This would include smoking. Michigan is not one of these states, so such a declaration is perfectly legal.

I can understand it. In fact, if I have to decide between two equally qualified candidates and one smokes and the other doesn't, I will hire the non-smoker. (If the smoker is more qualified, I WILL hire the smoker.) It does cut down on health issues.

I may get flamed for this next part, so I will make my position as clear as I can. IN MY EXPERIENCE, more of the employees who have been non-productive due to excessive breaks, have been smokers. I am NOT saying that all smokers are non-productive and I am NOT saying that all non-smokers are productive. There are some of each in both group. But of my most non-productive employees have all been smokers and all for the same reason; too many smoke breaks, lasting too long.

(Yes, I know that an employer can demand a completely smoke free environment and not permit smoke breaks at all. That was another battle I lost with upper management.)