The antis smokers would be screaming from the rafters for more laws to stop that.
If non smoking companies have the right to not hire or fire smokers, then 'smoking' companies have the right to hire whomever they please, also.
Exactly.
I have smoked for thirty years, been with my present employer for 12, and have never missed a day of work.
I have also been smoking for about 30 years and missing work to give birth is not exactly what I would call a smoking related illness :) I was self-employed then, but had been working with the same people for over 10 years, in fact I was on the phone with a client from the hospital the morning after the baby was born. I came home with the baby on a Friday and was back on the phone with clients and at my desk on Monday morning - having my desk in my dining room did help.
But the point of course is that contrary to the propaganda, smoking employees do NOT get sick more often or account for lost productivity.
They do if they work with many coworkers who have numerous children who bring minor health issues home from school with them.
Gosh, perhaps workers without families should be a mandate pursued for employment? /s
At least in California, a business owner does not have that option. If smoking is outlawed in offices, all must comply.
So, no such option is available today.
The "reasoning" is that a non-smoker may want want to work there, and be irritated by being surrounded by smokers (perhaps even do a great impression of fainting).
You know, that propaganda drives me crazy. Seems to me an employer makes a decision: you get x sick days, and if you use too many, you get fired. Why is it their business why you get sick, anyway? Employers can control this mythical "lost productivity" without interfering in people's lives. To me, that is just a cheap excuse for busybody employers. If someone is abusing sick leave, they should get fired even if they don't smoke.