Posted on 02/22/2013 8:25:37 PM PST by FreedomStar3028
So I go in for an interview, everything is going good. It was for an IT help desk in an office. The interviewer asks me a lot of questions, and asks do you smoke? I said yes. She immediately says, I can't give you the job then.
This is in Oregon. I looked up laws and there is a statute where companies cannot use smoking as a consideration when hiring, they can only ban smoking at work. Any advice would be great. Thanks!
Ooops, almost forgot. Long time Lurker, looking to meet some new FRiends.
Especially these days when you cannot smoke at your desk anymore due to no-smoking laws in office buildings and public places.
Despite being shamed into taking their habit out of doors, where they huddle in designated smoking areas, like derelicts in prison yards, these smokers continue to cling to their habits while their non-smoking co-workers keep working inside. The average smoker loses over an hour of productivity per day for smoking breaks. Is it any wonder employers would rather not hire people who smoke on the job?
Not to mention that they and their clothes smell like garbage cans and you'd rather walk three miles in the arctic tundra than to spend five minutes in the passenger seat of their cars.
This is not a "freedom" or a "rights" issue. People do have the freedom and the right to smoke. Just like we have the freedom and the right to cover ourselves in human excrement and wear our underwear on the outside of our pants. However, if I did that, I wouldn't expect anybody to hire me.
“I maybe the only person on this thread...”
And you may not be. ;)
I will say that the number of smokers have decreased thru the years. There is no doubt of that. Social pressure and cost are huge factors.
As far as polls, statistics and studies go, I put little credence in their findings. Most are manipulated to reflect certain outcomes.
Smoking is a convenient boogie man for a variety of ills and behavior. It is probably the most hated legal activity in history.
Is it a good habit...no. But “protected” classes get no such harrassment.
I can appreciate what you are saying. I wouldn’t encourage any of my 13 grandchildren to take up smoking..I think some of those that get cancer are predispositioned to it...My sister is 80 and has been smoking since she was 13. She has no breathing problems or needs oxygen...I also started at 13. I am not bragging just saying for many long time smokers without problems. My family has a predisposition to diabetes, 2 of my sons, a niece are diabetes...My mother told me when I started to have kids, diabetes seems to skip a generation and my neice was the first female to have it..My husbands family have a predisposition to heart trouble....he died at 51 and 2 of my sons have cardiac problems...its always good to know the family history when it comes to where the weakness in the dna is...
I am sorry for the gentleman you talked with, Your friend was being given oxygen via the mask. with moisture to keep the lungs moist....(Not too many smokers in the family, one of the son’s never smoked legal cigarettes, his brother quits periodically....the other 3 are non smokers
Do you believe that you’re entitled to a job?
That is an excellent point. Preemies and ill new borns create huge claims. Far larger than cancer and other illnesses. (and no, I’m not against coverage for newborns.)
Your logic is also consistent regarding hiring someone because they might become an insurance liability.
I sense that you trust your fellow man less, and government more, than I. That’s OK, most people do.
“he probably smells like smoke”
Yup. Given other viable applicants, this guy just stinks. Literally.
Freedom of association.
Your right any company can hire who they want...Unless its aids and then they are discriminating against a protected group of people. and not every smoker dies from lung cancer.....smokers are always the bad guys. I wonder if they hire women who kill their baby’s before they are born. A murderer is welcome but not a smoker. I can understand a company making a NO Smoking sign from wall to wall, but there is something wrong with a company saying you cannot do it even when your off our property....no need to worry about health insurance Obama will give us all free insurance...by the way, alcohol kills more people than any cigarette but if they did the same to those that drink beer, whiskey or wine there wouldn’t be enough people for the jobs out there...
i trust everyone less and government less than that. but since you fail to read the entirety of what i’ve written and only focus on what you want to focus on, i be done with ya.
I don’t believe I’m entitled to anything, but I do have rights. Smoking tobacco is still LEGAL. I don’t believe I should be punished for doing something that is legal.
This would be fine and dandy, but I specifically said I would not smoke while at work and I would not come to work in clothes that I smoked in.
I’m being punished for something I do at home. Away from the job.
Then it seems odd they'd need to ask if he smoked......
FreedomStar...the sad fact is this. In today’s world smokers are evil incarnate. The cause of all ills..lost productivity, odorous...etc. Even if these things are not true you will be accused of them.
When my office went very quietly non-smoking a couple of years ago..many of the non-smokers still went around holding their noses. It was pretty amusing.
I am a strong believer in smoker’s rights.
At the same time I am a strong believer in employers rights to hire who they choose to.
Sometimes the two factions can’t agree and it’s time to move on to another company to work for. jmho
way to focus on the wrong thing and miss the larger point.
So it was actually a good argument, as long as you don't really pay attention to it?
you reaaly do miss the point regularly, don’t you.
no more wasting time with ya, better things to do.
This is the statute. I may be reading it wrong, but it sure looks like they are breaking the law. Especially since I said I was willing to not smoke at work or wear clothes that I have smoked in while wearing.
659A.315 Restricting use of tobacco in nonworking hours prohibited; exceptions. (1) It is an unlawful employment practice for any employer to require, as a condition of employment, that any employee or prospective employee refrain from using lawful tobacco products during nonworking hours, except when the restriction relates to a bona fide occupational requirement.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply if an applicable collective bargaining agreement prohibits off-duty use of tobacco products. [Formerly 659.380; 2005 c.199 §3]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.