I wonder how many people sit down and, as objectively and harshly as possible, evaluate themselves after being denied employment. Many people sincerely believe they are under paid, they over-value their skills and abilities. They do this without assessing the employment market. MBAs are a dime a dozen. I can find a decent truck driver most anywhere without paying too much money. Insurance companies simply provide employers another screen for evaluation, the incentive being a better bottom line. Risky behaviors are simply another tool for getting to what the employer wants, an asset for the company. That's the employee's purpose, to be worth the salary. Who wants a "hard Keeper" or "high maintenance" employee if there is an alternative.
If you choose to smoke, drink, etc. as an employee, you are a demonstrably a higher risk. Companies do not like risk unless there is a high probability of a good return on investment of time and moneys. Smokers bring baggage, much as forty years ago it was thought women were not worth the risk because of marriage, pregnancy, etc. If you are a smoker you must realize you have, by choice, substantially reduced your employment opportunities. Not much different than accepting you are now going to be standing outside the pub, in the snow for a bowl. While your compatriots will be inside, warm and toasty, enjoying a beverage and hitting on the ladies.
If I am tasked with screening applicants for three openings on a production line or say, in accounting, and I have 400 applications, I immediately look for ways to reduce the number of applications. With the assistance of insurance industry numbers I am able to immediately reduce the number applicants. Might I miss an applicant who otherwise might be the perfect hire? MBAs are a dime a dozen. Line employees can be quickly trained into productive workers. My employer gives veterans preferences so, another bunch of applications can go into the discard pile. Six jobs in ten years? Out it goes. In a couple of hours I have reduced the applicants to a manageable handful. Now I can start looking at what the applicant might bring to the company. Bilingual? May be a good thing. Experience? Might or might not be valuable. Was the experience gained at a company which operates very differently from my employer? Rejected out of hand? Possibly.
Now that I have the pile of applications down to 15 or 20 I can start on interviews, physicals, background checks, social media scans, etc. Now I'm into the subjective parts of the screening process. Here is where I need to be very careful as this is where the law suits lurk. So, smoking is in fact a handy screening tool, legal and socially acceptable to all but some smokers, hurt feelings and bewilderment aside. It's not a burden to the company, it is a helpful tool. The discarded applicant may think the company missed a great, well qualified employee. I, sitting in HR, figure I've made my job easier without adversely impacting the company.
For the record, when I found myself doing "pre-employment screening" rejecting applicants was often very tough. Some of those kids were applying for a career they'd aspired to for many years. Once they'd cleared the basic written examination I always tried to spend a bit of time with a rejected applicant if there was something they could change about themselves which might improve their chances in the future cycle. Crushing career aspirations was indeed tough at times.
