No jobs for smokers

[jnobles06]

Pulled this off drudge, it's local, and interesting.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/09/22/only-non-smokers-need-apply-at-baylor/

I think its fine. Its their choice to hire whoever I want, right? I could be talking out of my ass, but who's to say who they can, or cannot hire?

If I walked into a fried chicken place right outside of a black neighborhood, and they straight up said, "We won't hire you, because your white", I would simply apply somewhere else. Why work somewhere you're not welcome? To prove a point?

Some will say "What I do in the privacy of my own home, is my own business"
Well, if I own a company, and you're a fucking child molester in your own time, Fuck you, you're not working for me.
I'm not comparing smoking to child molestation, but its two things SOME people don't like.

Thoughts?

i wonder when they will start not hiring people for eating fried chicken because it's unhealthy. it's not to prove a point it's just a matter of having the same opportunities as every one else. not defending smokers, but in my opinion people shouldn't have to give up something that's perfectly legal to get a job. that is discrimination in my book. why not just charge them more for insurance since its a health issue?

[scootro]

I knew a guy that wouldn't hire woman with babies or small kids because he said they were unreliable and always had to take off early and sometimes late for work. I always thought it was asshole thing to screen for but he kept it hush hush as a hiring policy!

[CJ-95GT]

I think it's wrong. Obesity and alcohol are next on their hit list. All of these are currently legal which makes it very different than drug screening. Health care cost continue to go up even though the populas overrall is in better health. There are several reasons for the rise in health care, but overall it's big business and everybody wants a piece of the pie.

[jdgregory84]

Wow...it's like Waterworld before Waterworld.

I'm sorry, but obese worthless motherfuckers should be at the bottom of the hiring pool. I'd rather have a smoker that works his ass off for a couple of hours and takes a 5 minute break than a fatass that breathes louder than a turbine and accomplishes nothing and assumes that the company will give them special treatment.

[jdgregory84]

smoking is fucking nasty.

Not if you do it with class.

[Forever_frost]

Been there man, lol. Unless you smoke, shower (well), change clothes and brush your teeth people will know you are a smoker withing ten seconds of talking. Unless it's foreverfrost and they have no sense of smell. Oh, and if you smoke in your bedroom your clothes already smell before you even smoke in them.

This is where I say 'fuck you'

[psdtech]

I think employers should hire who ever they want no matter what!!!!! This is coming from a smoker. I'm just thinking what they are missing by making there potential employee pool so small for something so stupid.

[Scott Mc]

I tend to not hire smokers (not all) but the regular smokers tend to be lazy. Call it steriotypes and me an oxymoron but smoking is a bottom line addiction and if I hire someone with a habbit I want a speed addict, then shit will get done.

[YALE]

Not that I am proud of it but a lot of what you said isn't quite right. lol

I've been smoking for 8 years and have been sick probably less than anyone I know, which probably equates to once or so a year which happens around cold/flu season. My teeth aren't stained and my truck doesn't smell of smoke.

The other points are pretty dead on.

I am actually in the process of trying to quit. I went a few days with only having one but I tend to splurge. I know its hard to go cold turkey so I am trying to phase it out.

Bad logic.

[jdgregory84]

Bad logic.

Great point? Oh wait...

[jdgregory84]

Smoking is obviously unhealthy. However, it's pretty much just like any addiction. If you over indulge, it interferes with your life. Smoking however has been targeted because smoking, as we all know, causes cancer. Plenty of people that have various forms of cancer can perform their jobs with no problems.. Perhaps we should tell people that fake bake that they can't work somewhere because they absorb direct UV rays that are known for causing cancer. OR people that regularly eat microwaved food. They ingest that shit...just like a smoker inhales it.

Seriously?

[YALE]

Great point? Oh wait...

My point was that if you're a company that provides health insurance, banning smoking is a no-brainer. Mike hasn't overtly stated that he doesn't think smoking will hurt him, but he's presented that it hasn't hurt him so far. I can promise you that if he quit, his pulmonary function would go up, and his LDL would go down. It's a fact. Statistical evidence will always weigh more than anecdotal evidence.

EDIT: More to the point, the business world is run on numbers, and businesses devote a significant amount of effort to cost analysis. Once something becomes a big bar cost, it doesn't matter what it is. They'll attempt to mitigate that cost by any means necessary.

[jdgregory84]

My point was that if you're a company that provides health insurance, banning smoking is a no-brainer. Mike hasn't overtly stated that he doesn't think smoking will hurt him, but he's presented that it hasn't hurt him so far. I can promise you that if he quit, his pulmonary function would go up, and his LDL would go down. It's a fact. Statistical evidence will always weigh more than anecdotal evidence.

Smoking as a liability is bullshit, especially at this day and age. Obesity is a much larger, and probable liability than smoking.

Just going by personal experience. Of course smoking is a liability, but isn't stuffing your face with fast food, and whatever else? It's just easier to lie when you visit a doctor for a physical because he/she can put that stethosope up to your chest and prove you otherwise if you say that you don't smoke. They can't hear the clots in your blood stream. High blood pressure is not as much as a liability as smokers lungs, even though it's a more direct problem.

[jdgregory84]

Sorry, not even talking about the risk of heart attack, but what about diabetes? SO much more of a risk than smoking.

[YALE]

Smoking as a liability is bullshit, especially at this day and age. Obesity is a much larger, and probable liability than smoking.

Just going by personal experience. Of course smoking is a liability, but isn't stuffing your face with fast food, and whatever else? It's just easier to lie when you visit a doctor for a physical because he/she can put that stethosope up to your chest and prove you otherwise if you say that you don't smoke. They can't hear the clots in your blood stream. High blood pressure is not as much as a liability as smokers lungs, even though it's a more direct problem.

There you go with that anecdotal evidence. Obesity is a killer, and probably a bigger bar cost when it comes to health care, but smoking is easier to control, hands down. For what it's worth, most insurance plans are pretty good about covering gastric bypass for the really obese. Same idea.

Sorry, not even talking about the risk of heart attack, but what about diabetes? SO much more of a risk than smoking.

Smoking increases your risk for diabetes. Higher blood pressure over time = slowly degenerative kidney function.