Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

San Mateo Daily Journal ^ | March 1, 2004 | Dana Yates

[at bay]

Rising worker’s compensation and health care cost is prompting San Mateo County Sheriff Don Horsley to put a ban on hiring smokers.

“If your lifestyle contributes to a disability, I’m sorry about that. But I don’t think the taxpayers should pay.” said Horsley.

Since smoking is known to cause numerous health problems, Horsley said the decision to not hire smokers is an economical move that could save the county a lot of money in workers’ compensation costs each year.

The idea came to him after the Sheriff’s Department had to settle a $90,000 workers’ compensation claim with a retired employee. The retiree developed lung cancer…..

[SheLion]

Your arrogance astonishes me,you must be young.

I saw this thread posted yesterday, but when I saw who the poster was, I decided just to ignore it. I KNEW this at bay was who I thought it was............another nasty Nanny!

I don't know why I wasted my time, except my friends were in here, and that made all the difference.

[Mears]

Thanks,She. I should just take my own advice and ignore these people.

[Mears]

The puff-list folks are some of the nicest,and funniest,people on FR.

And we are better tippers!!!!!!

[annyokie]

You're quite right and I honored that SheLion added me to the list!

[Gabz]

I overheard my boss telling my manager that he wasn't going to hire any more smokers. I told him to look for the lawsuit, as I lit up a Viceroy.

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!

Good for you.

[annyokie]

Thanks!

[Gabz]

You're quite right and I honored that SheLion added me to the list!

She Lion maintains what I must consider the MOST definitive ping list for the "Puff List" and she works hard at maintaining it.

whenever I've found something to bring to the attention of the reall folks - She Lion and Just another Joe are always on my list......I'm not real good at maintaining a list - and do my pinging by memory and so my list changes with every "ping" I make!!!

[annyokie]

I haven't a clue about how to create a ping list, but I am indeed pleased to be on the puff list and I'll remeber Just Another Joe when I cross something that is of reference.

[Gabz]

I'm always the first one to stand up for the right of a private employer to make his/her own decisions.......however I have a major problem with those that make changes mid-steam, especially when those changes are based upon what is currently politically correct.

I don't know if it was you, or another poster, but I offer the following as a public service announcement.....

When dealing with the anti-anything posters on internet message boards, where the screen name renders them without being immediately tagged by sex, I automatically say "s/h/it" it covers EVERYTHING!!!!

[dallasgop]

I don't have a problem with a sheriff not wanting to hire drug users, tobacco users included. Hirer medical cost and less productivity are good reasons.Think how many times the tobacco junkies have to go outside to get high and add all that time up.

[dallasgop]

Ooops, thats "higher medical cost"

[annyokie]

Twernt me, but I agree with the sentiment.

[Hot Tabasco]

If I lived out there I would be inclined to apply for a job with this sheriff's dept.

Having worked in HR for 32 years, I am pretty well versed in what kinds of things can be asked on applications and what can and cannot be asked in interviews.

Any questions asked during interviews which do not pertain to an individual's qualifications for the specific job can be misinterpreted by the interviewee as being discriminatory.

If you want to ask me whether or not I am a smoker during the interview process, you damn well better be prepared to be able to document the fact that I can not perform the required duties of such job merely because I am a smoker.

The second you ask me any question relevant to the legal practice of tobacco use, you have now opened the door for me to file a legitimate claim of discrimination with the EEOC.........

[Gabz]

Prove your comments about tobacco smokers.

Oh, you can't can you????

[Wolfie]

How the heck is he going to know if his deputies are smoking on their own time? Oh right, I forgot...random drug testing.

[Gabz]

Thank you for all of that information.

There are 2 types of employment laws in states..."employment at will" and "right to work"......

Doesn't the employer in an "employment at will" state have the right to do this????

Any assistance you can provide in keeping this straight for me would be greatly appreciated...and if you choose, I am not averse to FReepmail.

[Gabz]

Oh right, I forgot...random drug testing.

If that is how they are going to test it, the deputies better not be eating any tomatoes or eggplant or any other fruit or vegetable that is a member of the nightshade family.........

About the only way drug testing can find evidence of cigarette smoking is to check for cotinine which is a biproduct of nicotine which is found, much like caffeine, naturally in many things we eat and drink.

[Wolfie]

I suppose its worth a try. I imagine it'd work as well as the "I was at a Phish concert" defense.

[Gabz]

I imagine it'd work as well as the "I was at a Phish concert" defense.

I have no problem admitting the fact that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[Wolfie]

My point is that there are a number of over-the-counter medicines that can cross-react on a drug test (cold medicines showing up as speed, etc.) The general advice from the powers that be has been to avoid such items when possible if you know you're subject to drug testing. I suppose the same would apply to the officers and tomatoes. In other words, the test can be very inaccurate, but that's not the employer's problem. The Phish concert is a reference to the old "second-hand marijuana smoke" defense that won't get someone off the hook either. Drug testing is an American institution thats impossible to impugn.