Posted on 05/25/2006 6:03:57 AM PDT by SheLion
ST. CLOUD -- What seemed to many like a good idea several years ago has gone up in smoke. St. Cloud's ban on hiring employees who use tobacco, which was enacted in 2002, has been revoked by the City Council.
"Number one, it never did do what it was supposed to do -- help on insurance," City Manager Tom Hurt said. "And it put a cramp on hiring."
With more jobs to fill as the city grows, there was a shrinking pool of workers to fill the jobs. Osceola's unemployment rate for the 12 months ending in April was 2.6 percent, substantially lower than the national average of 4.5 percent.
"We had certified operators that wanted to work for us, and then they found out they had to be a nonsmoker for a year," said Robert MacKichan, public works director. His department employs about 100 workers and has 12 to 15 vacancies, he said.
At one point, the city loosened its policy by agreeing to hire smokers if they promised to stop.
"No one wants to take a job on the pretense they will be able to stop, not knowing if they will. In a year, if they're not smoke-free, they're [fired]," MacKichan, said
St. Cloud, which took the action about two weeks ago, is not the only city in Florida that has changed its policy on tobacco.
In 1990 North Miami became the first city in the country to enact the tobacco-user hiring ban, but it rescinded the policy in 2003.
"At that time, we were having a terrible time recruiting police officers," said Sue Luglio, assistant director of personnel. "We thought that might be a little edge we could get."
Like St. Cloud, North Miami did not notice any insurance savings with the smoking policy.
Sanford still has a no-tobacco hiring policy for police officers, said Sheryl Chapman, the city's director of human resources. She added that it has not affected applications, and the police force has been expanding.
But the policy hurt St. Cloud's ability to attract qualified workers, officials said.
"We were losing qualified people," said Lt. Vinny Shepard of the St. Cloud Police Department. "We still have the no-smoking policy in city vehicles and on the [department] premises."
Still in effect throughout St. Cloud is the ban on smoking in publicly owned parks, recreation areas and youth athletic fields in a city where youth activity is omnipresent.
This restriction was imposed in 2004 after parents complained about smokers being around their children in the bleachers at athletic fields. St. Cloud at the time joined a trend being followed in places such as Port Orange, Brevard County and the Southern California cities of Laguna Beach and Newport Beach.
Tobacco ban saved no money, made it hard to fill spots.
Note: A lot of illegals and Muslims smoke. It's the great paradox for the liberals.
St. Cloud of smoke
Do you think they care?
Do you think they'll abandon the argument?
Neither do I.
Illegals smoke, yes. But I think I read recently where the Muslim's do not condone smoking or drinking.
Do you think they care?
Do you think they'll abandon the argument?
Neither do I.
No, actually.
But I commend St Cloud officials for going back to basics and what worked for them. This not hiring of smokers just didn't work for them.
This is hilarious! Thanks for the ping...
Yeah, we don't care if you are a retarded nit who can't perform your job well, don't show up half the time or are a thief. As long as you don't smoke THOSE EVIL CIGARETTES, you are fired.
My ex-husband is a piece of crap garbage, but he's a non-smoker.
>>>Yeah, we don't care if you are a retarded nit who can't perform your job well, don't show up half the time or are a thief. As long as you don't smoke THOSE EVIL CIGARETTES, you are fired. >>>
OOPS, I mean HIRED.
Well, not hiring smokers didn't work. They couldn't find anyone to fill all their jobs. heh!
"Well, not hiring smokers didn't work. They couldn't find anyone to fill all their jobs. heh"
A lot of guys who do blue collar work smoke.
A lot of mechanics, welders, heavy machinery operators, and such.
Discrimination; it's for the "children"
It's like the anti's going into a private business and forcing a smoking ban. Yet, out of the other side of their mouths, they state that landlords can ban smoking in apartments because they are "owned" by a person and not the state.
Common! The state does NOT own a restaurant and/or bar! What is the difference? People have to wake up to this garbage.
Smokers really "are" discriminated against. And cigarettes are a legal commodity!!
Shoot. Muslims smoke like fiends. There are hookah bars everywhere you find them in any numbers.
Which brings me back to the Christmas holidays. A woman was robbed of her purse in a Wal Mart. She went up to a security guard and told him.
He said "Well, this is private property. You entered at your own risk."
Now, I ask you! Isn't restaurants and/or bars "private property?" I sure would like to know the difference here! The anti's suck.
Well, that's true. I have no experience with hookah bars, so I forget about them.
They oughta get sued anyway. Send a message.
Wrong. Theft is theft. Private property doesn't matter. The guard was wrong.
I agree with you.
These people do NOTHING but twist things around to fit their control-freak agendas.
They have no interest in the truth.
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.