Off on a slight tangent, but a previous employer had a no visible tattoos policy condition on employment.
Holy Spirits Hospital ?
- Thread starter puffy
- 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
I think it is walking a fine line. An employer can't ask about medical conditions or history aside from can you lift/push a box of this weight so far.
If they are screening smokers due to avoid medical costs that question would be a medical question pertaining to the level of one's health. If they were asking because they "don't want people smelling like smoke when meeting with customers" they are kind of within their rights.(similar to if they don't feel visible tattoos are appropriate when dealing with customers- I don't agree with that mentality either)
If they are screening smokers due to avoid medical costs that question would be a medical question pertaining to the level of one's health. If they were asking because they "don't want people smelling like smoke when meeting with customers" they are kind of within their rights.(similar to if they don't feel visible tattoos are appropriate when dealing with customers- I don't agree with that mentality either)
Of course a prospective employer can ask about medical histories. My former employee required a rather stringent physical exam.
Hypothetically, I most likely would not hire an ex-con because he was an ex-con. I would however, not tell him that the reason he was not hired was his criminal record. Nor would that be the reason recorded in my records. An employer can always find an acceptable and legally supportable reason for not hiring an unacceptable applicant.
Hypothetically, I most likely would not hire an ex-con because he was an ex-con. I would however, not tell him that the reason he was not hired was his criminal record. Nor would that be the reason recorded in my records. An employer can always find an acceptable and legally supportable reason for not hiring an unacceptable applicant.
You're missing the whole point. An employer has every have right not to hire someone if they feel that someone is a health risk which might possibly be a cause for them missing work, and or weighing heavily on on the health befits that an employer might very well pay a part of. It's not a 'work around', but a simple fact albeit there are always ways for a employer to not hire someone for 'other' reasons if they very carefully follow the hiring stipulations. As I said before, just something to deal with and that's the way it is. I admittedly would not hire people for several reasons, which is in my right albeit none of them would pertain to race, sexuality or religion. If by chance I had a high end company and someone applied for a job that entailed that he or she deal with the public which reflected on my company there is no way I would hire that person if they had piercings on their face, or viable tattoos. If they don't like it, tough shit and go elsewhere as it's my right and there are a multitude of others that I can choose to hire that would fulfill my hiring standards.
This is a hiring/retention policy that is largely confined to the Health Care industry. They have been on a Anti-smoking campaign for as long as I can remember. I don't see this working for industry in general for a lot of reasons already stated here BUT I suspect it's only a matter of time until Health Insurance for smokers becomes a lot more expensive and your employer won't be picking up that tab!
Sorry Phil67, it might just have to be an agree to disagree type situation. A pregnant woman would be a health risk and would ultimately require them to miss work, also causing health benefits to be paid for by the employer. If you ask a woman if she is pregnant, regardless of if you hire her or not you are risking getting sued as soon as the question is asked.
That is why it is highly advisable not to make small talk during an interview. By bringing certain topics up, even if subconsciously, you are incorporating their relevance into the hiring process. While those conversation pieces may be innocent and not directly connect to race, sexual orientation, gender, religion, age, etc the indirect connection can be equally problematic.
The not hiring for "other" reasons are the workarounds I am talking about.
That is why it is highly advisable not to make small talk during an interview. By bringing certain topics up, even if subconsciously, you are incorporating their relevance into the hiring process. While those conversation pieces may be innocent and not directly connect to race, sexual orientation, gender, religion, age, etc the indirect connection can be equally problematic.
The not hiring for "other" reasons are the workarounds I am talking about.
Women are a "protected class" in the eyes of the law. Apples and oranges with respect to pregnancy versus tobacco usage, especially since some jurisdictions now provide for "maternity" leave for men with newborns in the family. We're discussing smoking and tobacco use with respect to seeking employment. In the US one must keep up the the EEO laws and regs.
Smokers will most likely get the same rights as alcoholics with respect to retention, in the near future. That is, companies will have to fund, through insurance, the employee's attempts to quit for a reasonable period, prior to terminating the employee for smoking as it relates to job performance. Programs and meds will be paid for through the company's insurance. I believe this is already occurring in some locales.
Smokers will most likely get the same rights as alcoholics with respect to retention, in the near future. That is, companies will have to fund, through insurance, the employee's attempts to quit for a reasonable period, prior to terminating the employee for smoking as it relates to job performance. Programs and meds will be paid for through the company's insurance. I believe this is already occurring in some locales.
I left the hospital almost 5 years ago.. When I started almost 25 years before that there was no smoking inside any building.. that, progressed to smoking only in designated outside areas. Then it became no smoking on campus including in your parked car. Not long before I retired word came down that tobacco users would not be hired including doctors down to laundry workers. the current staff had 2 years to become tobacco free.. the hospital offered every option available at their expense for folks to quit.. not sure what happened to the folks that failed. I'll check next time I meet the guys for happy hour.
- Status