“The chosen states are the ones where it is legal to decline a job to nicotine users.”
I was unaware that was even a thing.
The same states will no doubt force them to hire marijuana users.
Saving lives.
Pole smoking impairs health. Many who do it engage in “Risky” practices with a number of random partners (in public spaces).
But companies celebrate that lifestyle CHOICE.
So people who eat tomatoes, eggplant, potatoes and bell peppers can’t get jobs there?
Ain’t bigoted discrimination fun?
Today, nicotine users; tomorrow meat eaters...
The day after that; MAGA hat wearers
There is nothing on earth government doesn’t want to control if they don’t already. Waiting for the posts agreeing smokers are bad and should be banned from having jobs or insurance policies.
U-Haul will save money on health insurance but will have to pay higher wages.
That works out well for the company and employees.
How about pot smokers?
Up next - gun owners don’t bother.
WTH happened to civil rights in this country? Nicotine isn’t illegal - never has been before or after alcohol prohibition!
Are they going to PAY them 24 hours a day, or just tell them what they can and can’t do?
“Scotts” ... the fertilizer and potting soil folks,
have been doing this for many years.
Including random drug tests for nicotine.
So if someone is prescribed nicotine replacement therapy by a doctor they are going to fire them for taking prescribed medication? I doubt that will hold up to a lawsuit.
As a constitutionalist, I think they should have the right to refuse to employ people with a certain eye color or height or age. So I have zero problem with this.
Where this stuff crosses a line with me is when governments require things like this with laws like Jim Crow. Government can’t discriminate, but private parties should have the right to and, in fact, the constitution protects that right. Even if the private party is a business. Though some on this and other SCOTUS would agree with me.
So what is the detection level?
They could have an “issue.”
https://testcountry.com/blogs/nicotine/6-common-food-with-nicotine-content
.
This can’t be constitutional-
What if they charged smokers more for benefits instead? To be honest, I don’t see a solution ever coming for health care, it’s depressing, soon will be working solely for benefits, that’s it.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
C.S.Lewis
These people will not stop until everyone is choked under the heel of their oppression.
Uhaul is a thug outfit. Has been for a long time.
This is nothing new. Companies have been for many years been denying employment to consumers of nicotine products with good reason to. It costs more to hire and maintain a nicotine user than it does a non user of nicotine related products. That’s undisputed fact. It’s a simple and practical decision to cut down on unnecessary costs to do so. Nicotine users miss more work days, take more sick time and raise the cost of medical insurance for all involved in a medical plan for companies. That’s being practical and wise.