Apparently they are no longer going to be interviewing or hiring nicotine users. Is this just the beginning?
Don't Apply To UHAUL
- Thread starter dcicero
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Apparently they are no longer going to be interviewing or hiring nicotine users. Is this just the beginning?
I heard this on the radio this morning, was thinking the same thing. Here we go...
I wonder what the actuarial financial aspect of that is. Statistically fewer sick days, lower cost for health insurance for the employer, lower janitorial fees for maintaining smoking stations? There's some dollar-and-cents rationale that sells this to the board of directors. Next, overweight? Riding motorcycles? Genetic profiles? It seems to transcend the issue with smokers.
yeah it seems to me like that's the next step. Don't hire the fat or the infirm. Like this is a trial run. Seriously the hospital here did that and it's incredibly stupid.
Our hospitals around here did that too. I guess it's still ok to drink a 600 calorie ice mocha latte frappichino cappuccino espresso though. I'll let you guys know when my two bowls a day gives me diabetes.
I'd say being fat is a worse health ding than using tobacco.....
The beauty is, I just bought my own trailer.
You're not issuing insurance policies so you can say what you think.
Companies have been refusing employment to smokers for years now. U-Haul's insurance provider probably offered lower costs if tobacco use by employees is reduced. Improving the bottom line certainly makes sense. Well, not to some of you obviously but, if you or your retirement plan are shareholders ... it makes damned good sense.
And that improves your chances of employment at U-Haul how?
Companies have been refusing employment to smokers for years now. U-Haul's insurance provider probably offered lower costs if tobacco use by employees is reduced. Improving the bottom line certainly makes sense. Well, not to some of you obviously but, if you or your retirement plan are shareholders ... it makes damned good sense.
And that improves your chances of employment at U-Haul how?
It improves my chances of never doing business with them again. In a similar fashion to never doing business with Scott's again for a similar decision.
When asking "Why would (insert business) do (insert action)?" the answer is almost always the same........MONEY. In this case likely lower health insurance costs.
I'm a capitalist to the core and can understand this. I'm glad you brought up this point, there's always two sides to one story. I still don't agree with it, but I'm also not the owner of u haul. The beauty of capitalism is the free market will ultimately decide if u haul made a good decision. The free market will always be far faster and more efficient then legislation.
tobacco users pay good chunk of tax for said tobacco. i can't believe government is ignoring tobacco user's needs. i would think profiling and denying employment due to personal life style choice is illegal.
I haven't rented a uhaul in a couple years but dont they often piggyback on existing businesses as pick up and drop off locations? I wonder if they even have many full time employees that they provide insurance to anyway?
Is it legal to discriminate based on that?
I'm unsure of the laws in the US but that doesn't seem like it would be grounds for termination of an employee.
I'm unsure of the laws in the US but that doesn't seem like it would be grounds for termination of an employee.
The answer to that depends on the state you live in. Arizona, where I live, is a right to work state. This doesn't mean what it sounds like it should. Here an employer doesn't have to have a reason to terminate you. You can walk in one day and your boss says something like "I don't like that tie you have on. You're fired."
Of course the federally protected minority groups get some protection, but for a Caucasian male such as myself; yup I can get the shaft any day. Good thing I have an AWESOME employer!!
From ABC news:
...Not every state is legally allowed to decline hiring individuals who use nicotine products, but Arizona is among the 21 states that can lawfully do so.
Other states where the policy will be enacted include: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.
"Individuals seeking U-Haul jobs in the aforementioned 21 states will see statements regarding the nicotine-free hiring policy on applications, and will be questioned about nicotine use," according to the company. "In states where testing is allowed, applicants must consent to submit to nicotine screening in the future to be considered."
Richard B. Levine/Newscom, FILE
Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have laws in effect that protect smokers from being discriminated against by employers for nicotine use...
And no I’m not trying to dog on anyone. I used to be fat, too!
This is very interesting indeed. I didn't realize that this was legal. Do they screen against alcohol use and poor diet as well? Just seems strange to me that the focus would be on "nicotine". Maybe it's because they know that smokers take about 20 smoke breaks per day (not including lunch or mandatory two 15 min break smokes) lmao. At least that's how they are where I work!
While Arizona is a “right to work” state, that’s not what it means. “Right to Work” laws prevent, among other things, union dues from being a requirement of employment.
What you’re referring to is “at will employment.”
The "work history" of cigarette smokers is long, well documented and, unfortunately for cigarette smokers, there is nothing positive in that "history." Granted an entire segment of the workforce has been stigmatized because smokers take more sick days, stinck up vehicles, cubbies and offices, are risk takers (not of the heroic kind) but of the self-harming type. One could go on.
gervais: A bit of research would inform you that alcoholism (being drunk) is remarked as an illness and protected behavior with certain hoops to be jumped through by an employer before terminating an alcohol abusing employee. A prospective employee with an "alcohol problem" wouldn't be hired based on any number of other reasons the applicant would reveal or would be found in a competent background check.
Smoking is a choice, not a "right. I'm a cigarette smoker. I pitied the poor officer who had to operate the "g-ride" I'd just spent 10 hours in. I certainly, given a choice, wouldn't want a "cubby" next to a smoker. So, if you desire employment at certain businesses you can exercise your right and quit smoking. You are seeking employment to enhance, generally speaking, and they aren't offering employment because they are altruistic.
gervais: A bit of research would inform you that alcoholism (being drunk) is remarked as an illness and protected behavior with certain hoops to be jumped through by an employer before terminating an alcohol abusing employee. A prospective employee with an "alcohol problem" wouldn't be hired based on any number of other reasons the applicant would reveal or would be found in a competent background check.
Smoking is a choice, not a "right. I'm a cigarette smoker. I pitied the poor officer who had to operate the "g-ride" I'd just spent 10 hours in. I certainly, given a choice, wouldn't want a "cubby" next to a smoker. So, if you desire employment at certain businesses you can exercise your right and quit smoking. You are seeking employment to enhance, generally speaking, and they aren't offering employment because they are altruistic.
- Status