Scary Stuff.

[hextor]

I work at a very popular hospital in Texas, they are big time in getting rid of tobacco, now i think this is crazy, it does not affect me, but people who are trying to get hired or are new to the hospital will have to take a pee test, now if you are positive you will not get hired!! and they will provide you with a pamphlet to quit smoking and also you can come back in 180 to try again, i hope this does not spread out to other job sites.

 

[warren]

Why scary? I believe the employer should enjoy the ability to lower insurance costs, improve productivity, etc. If one is seeking employment they need to measure up to the expectations of the employer, not the other way around.
As an example, if you wrote your letter of application as you wrote the above I wouldn't consider your application. You wouldn't even get to forms much less the interview. A perspective employee has to meet my expectations.

 

[Sjmiller CPG]

Scary stuff because it borders on invasion of privacy. If companies wish to insure the health of their future workers then nothing would be off limits. Should they be allowed to test to see what the person's diet contains? To much red meat can lead to a heart attack. You can't work here unless you are a vegetarian. Since the training a person gets to do a job could be considered a long term investment by companies, they would need to know if an applicant will be around twenty years in the future. So genetic testing next? Sorry but you can't work here because you have gene that makes it possible you could develop a deadly disease in the future.
Yes, I know none of that could ever happen. Not in America.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Many companies will also run credit checks also. They'll check your arrest records, check your pee for drugs and alcohol, call past employers, talk to family and neighbors... I had a long conversation with a police chief when my neighbor applied to be a police officer. He wanted me to tell him if there was anything out of the ordinary, comes home late, argues with wife, yells inside the house, etc... Lie detectors are required for some jobs. Some companies now will even ask you to give them your Facebook password, so that they can go over past posts.

You can always say, "NO."
Just to volunteer at a school you have to pay for a background check and fingerprinting.
But, applying for a job is not mandatory. You can always turn down the job or deny the process. Look for a job that doesn't have as high a standards.

 

[Chasing Embers]

A lot of companies just outside of where I live in Kentucky are starting to test for nicotine. Not just health care facilities.

 

[seagullplayer]

Wait till they make folks step on a scale!

 

[ashdigger]

Employers also check Social Media sites, tattoos and piercings.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

Some places do make you get on scales. Some also require stress tests and checking your speed at running.

 

[drwatson]

They tried that here,till they got sued. Now it's still on the books,but kinda a "dont ask, dont tell thing"

 

[pitchfork]

It's scary because the likely outcome of this trend, if it continues, is that almost no company will hire smokers, including pipe smokers. And the vast majority of jobs aren't with small businesses, but large corporations, which aren't people at all, but legal fictions designed to maximize profits. That means less freedom and privacy for everyone. And this trend doesn't necessarily end with smoking. What about gun ownership or political beliefs? One could argue that gun owners who attend churches that don't believe in same-sex marriage, for example, are a potential brand liability.
The freedom to enter contracts is one notion of freedom, but it's not the only one, even in an American context. To me, the kind of negative liberty Warren articulates (i.e. no constraint on freedom of contracts) is appropriate for individuals and small businesses, but it leaves much to be desired (for me anyway) when large corporations are involved. I think the fundamental disagreement here centers on how one conceives individual rights and ownership vs. corporate/group rights and ownership. I view them as different animals, but most libertarians/liberals (in the European sense) view them as more or less the same. Unfortunately, there's no clear way to draw the lines (except to view all types of ownership as the same). Seriously, what about tatoos? What about face tatoos? Is that a different issue from political beliefs or church membership? I think so, but how do you make that kind of distinction?

 

[Chasing Embers]

Applications are waivers now as well. They have a line somewhere around the signature section that states that your job is "at will" hiring, and can be terminated without notice and for reasons they deem necessary.

 

[mso489]

Employers have to do what employers have to do. That's one side of the coin. The other side is, if we talk big about the home of the free and the land of the brave, in the U.S. for example, and provide some political freedoms only to appoint our employers our tyrants, I'm not sure where that stops. Perhaps they should choose our marital partners, our diets, hobbies, and our religious affiliations. This sounds crazy, but in various job situations, there is a lot of influence exerted along these lines. I think it's a balance, not a categorical process. Employers should be granted some sensible leeway, to do their business and maintain their work places. But a line has to be drawn somewhere or the value of freedom becomes an empty one. Health institutions and drug stores resisting smoking has a kind of coherence. I don't like it, but it might pass muster. Many other employer "influences" on employees should probably be tested in court or in the court of public opinion. It's tricky. Hiring people is a foreboding step.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

This is why I have taught my daughters how to make a living off their brains. I'd rather see them shovel crap than work for a corporation. My oldest daughter can weld a bead prettier than the factory and do just about any aspect of the building arts, tile, plumb, roof. And, my youngest is getting her cosmetology licence. They both have grown up setting next to me at the workbench also. And, they both can drive a tractor and field dress a deer. It would kill me dead if they decided to go work with the corporate devils.

 

[beerandbaccy]

Utterly invasive if you ask me!! - I am subject to random illegal drugs tests which I think is fair enough as it can only be for illegal substances.
This is another weakness with the US health insurance based healthcare system. Companies are on the hook for premiums and it is leading to a gross invasion of privacy and rights to smoke something that is totally legal! With a Government based heath service like in the UK and Canada then companies don't often need or bother to offer health insurance for their employees.

 

[aldecaker]

Well, here we go again. I've vented my spleen about this before (although, in my defense, I have never once brought up the subject!).
This is only opinion, like everything else on this forum, but here goes: The only thing that Barack Hussein Obama ever said that I found sensible was his "you didn't build that" tirade. Well, I thought he was right. The employer/employee relationship is a two-way street. I don't care how brilliant your idea is, or what an astute manager you are, if you could make your entre-manure-ial dreams come true using only your own labor, you would. If you can't, you NEED employees. Those employees are a part of a society that allows you to get ahead as an employer, maybe even get stinking rich. YOU DIDN'T SINGLE-HANDEDLY BUILD THAT SOCIETY. Just because you inherited money from your rich daddy, went hat-in-hand to a banker to borrow it, persuaded investors to back your brilliance, or even, God forbid, earned it yourself, does not make you the Czar of all you survey. A whole hell of a lot of people besides yourself paid to educate those employees to a first-world standard; the roads they drive to work on, and perhaps deliver your product on, are not the result of only your genius inspiration and hot-asphalt shoveling; any education they use TO MAKE MONEY FOR YOU, be it trade school or a Ph.D., was more than likely not paid for by your magnanimity. And on, and on. The framework of society that you use to make a profit as an employer has given one huge, huge, hell of a lot more to your advantage as an employer than anything your employees may earn from you, and don't you dare forget it, you ungrateful, tobacco hating bastard! (Okay, that one was just for grins, but I am being serious here.)
As far as the poor, poor, pitiful employer having to shoulder the burdens of health care, take it up with the government, and get it ended. It's not the employees' fault the government screwed you with that. Anyone with half a lick of sense knows that your employer should have nothing to do with providing your health care, unless they choose to do it voluntarily, like they did during WW2 as a means of skirting around wage-control legislation during the war years. Employers are the ones who started this whole mess of shit, and now they can't do anything but squeak and squeal about it. How's that for irony?
Checking credit to discriminate against employees? That's rich. How many businesses have gone bankrupt? How long does that stay on their credit report? Huh? Oh, no penalty, but I might get fucked out of a job opportunity because my incompetent company went belly-up, I got laid off, lost my house, then when they get bailed out by the taxpayers and start hiring again, they won't hire me back because I have a foreclosure on my record and look "financially irresponsible"! Not to mention that a credit report is less accurate than a blind sniper, and usually features addresses you've never lived at, and every missed payment of every asshole in the country who has a name similar to yours. Wow, no wonder the guy who writes the check should have all the power over every aspect of your life. They're so fucking stunningly competent, what could possibly go wrong? But that's OK, fellers. The man with the checkbook is always right.

 

[cosmicfolklore]

I agree with you aldecake, somewhat. I didn't say I liked that employers were invasive, I was just saying that beyond testing for tobacco use, there were many other aspects that companies were invading. But, all of that aside, I think that getting an education to become a part of a corporation is not a smart move. Yes, yes, if your passion is being a nurse, or anesthesiologist, or a teller, then yes, you have to do that. But, I'd rather see more people beat out a new path, discover new ways, create a new demand. With the Internet, social media, and reduced choices caused by corporations limiting consumer choices in many aspects, there are many new ways people can create a living. With a little creativity, a person can find an alternative way to irk out a living and keep their hearts and souls in tact.

One is not going to become a millionaire by making a business designing and making doors for people's homes, or landscaping, or making a new line of tiles... but, one can find a niche. No, it's not easy. No, it's not secure. But, working for a corporation that puts profits above their humans isn't either.

 

[tuold]

It's all about the steady onward progress of America's acceptance of collectivism. No man is an island. We can't afford to have individuals anymore because what they might do may take a buck out someone else's pocket or worse, offend them. I don't think this was an accident. Getting everyone to believe in collectivism makes it a lot easier to maintain control over society. If we ever get to a system where people can buy their own health care we will all be a lot better off.
The biggest problem I've had with cigarette smoking employees in the past was their need to bolt outside for a smoke every half hour or so. That can be very disruptive.

 

[aldecaker]

Just for the record, Cosmic, I wasn't commenting on anyone else's comments in the thread, just on the concept of what businesses are using for criteria to reject applicants out-of-hand, and what I think of it. I just got up a good head of steam and was blowing my whistle!

 

[aldecaker]

@Tuold- we had a system where people could buy their own health care. It's called every minute of human history up until WW2! Some doctors would even take farm produce or return services if their patients were short of hard currency. Then "insurance" got involved, and everything took a big shit.
I don't think forbidding employees to smoke at work crosses an invasion-of-privacy line; to me, there is a world of difference between being on "company time" and being on one's own time. Tell me I can't smoke on your time or property, fine. Tell me I can't smoke on my time or property, you should be horsewhipped, salted, and hung.

 

[warren]

You want to work for me, you'll play by my rules as long as they are legal and agree with any labor agreement in force. Period, end of discussion. When unemployment is high, employment requirements are as stringent as employers desire. Low unemployment means less less stringent employment requirements in many instances. It's really quite simple: You want a job or, not.
Many companies actively recruit members of certain religions. Some companies do indeed want to meet spouses prior to offering employment. Is your MBA from Harvard or State? It's a tough world out there and you have to adapt to survive. The world ain't gonna change for you.
If your lifestyle choices make finding a suitable job tough, it's time to make changes. Adapt or die!
I should note, as a smoker, my old career would not be available to me today.