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…..

[Gabz]

Thank you for the explanation...I appreciate it.

[dallasgop]

Or you can just do the "smell test". Tobacco junkies have that stale stink on them. Another is just good old honesty, ask them to tell the truth.
I always get a kick when I hear some old raspy voice 30 year smoker putting down junkies and drug user's then he or she has to retire outside to load up on their dope.
I don't care too much for drug user's, tobacco user's included. Now excuse me while I go to bed. I like to run 5 miles every morning before 7am.

[Great Dane]

Can we find out if this man is fat, could be an interesting can of worms.

[Great Dane]

There already weight restrictions, bub,

They do, then how come we see sooooo many overweight cops.

[Great Dane]

It still begs the question, why are smokers the only ones discriminated against.

[Great Dane]

"s/h/it"

I have never seen that before, but you're right, it covers just about everything..... and it's funny.

[pepsionice]

OK, what kills Americans more? Donuts or smoking?

[Great Dane]

Or you can just do the "smell test". Tobacco junkies have that stale stink on them

If that be the case, how come my Dentist of at least 15 years was shocked when I told him I smoked, Dentists do get up close and personal.

[capitan_refugio]

"How about if the applicant is HIV positive?"

Covered under the "Americans with Disabilities Act"???

[at bay]

"Just because someone smokes are you implying they are setting a bad example?"

If you don't like it implied, I'm happy to state it for you: Smoking sets a bad example for kids. And in case you haven't grasped where I'm coming from, it is the smokers whose arrogance is unbelievable to me.

[Gazoo]

But I did not shoot the deputy.

[been_lurking]

I like to run 5 miles every morning before 7am.

Sanctimonious exercise junkie.

[Gabz]

I gather you do not drink coffee, soft drinks, tea, or eat chocolate in any form......considering caffeine is just as much of a drug, if not more than nicotine.

You may not care much for drug user's but I will generally take them over holier than though arrogrant prisses any day. I hope you enjoy your run and I'm sure you don't do it anywhere near a road.....wouldn't want your purity impugned by those carcinogen spewing vehicles, now would you?

[dallasgop]

You are correct, I do not eat chocolate or drink caffeinated beverages nor do I drink alcohol. And I still do not care for drug user's, now and go have a smoke and hack up some phlegm for me. :-)

[Gabz]

What a pleasant person you are........not.

[dallasgop]

As I have stated in earlier post, I don't really care too much personally for drug user's, I place tobacco user's in that category. I do favor their ability to user their drug of choice, I would also favor reduced or eliminated criminal penalties for so called "illegal drugs". I feel there are better ways to approach this health issue.
I do support any employers right to screen for the type of employee they want for a position. It has been proven in a variety if studies that tobacco user's are less productive and have higher medical cost. I personally consider anyone who allows themselves to become addicted to drugs to be a looser and has exercised very poor personal judgement.
I am a partner in a small professional services firm, we do not hire tobacco users. I know of one large company in the Dallas area that does not hire smokers nor does it allow any tobacco products onto it's property. You have to sign a form it the front security gate acknowledging that if you are a visitor or you sign a form as part of your hiring HR package. The company is Poly-America.

[sweetliberty]

I'll bet they have racial quotas too. Smkers just happen to be on the "officially acceptable to discriminate against" list.

[ampat]

You mean you've never seen a fat cop, or a cop who drinks? Darn, are you a hermit?

[Gabz]

I have a hard time with government entities disallowing certain segments of the taxpaying population to apply for taxpayer funded positions based upon the legal use of legal products while not on taxpayer time. And while I respect the right of private firms to hire who they choose, I personally will not knowingly patronize any such business that refuses employment to someone based upon their use of legal products while not on company time.

As to your assertion of tobacco user's being less productive that is sheer anti-smoker propaganda. In my 25+ years of being in the work force I can count exactly how many times I have missed work.....and appendicitis and childbirth have exactly zero association with tobacco use.

In all my years of being self-employed and running several small businesses I have never hired anyone based upon use or non-use of tobacco products - however I have always found smokers to be far more productive workers and pleasant employees. They tend to take less time off and are more willing to pitch in wherever needed without whining about it.

[ampat]

Viceroy, they still make those?