Replies

"Why shouldn't an employer have the right to dictate who they hire, especially when smokers drive up the costs of health care benefits."

In theory I agree completely. It's just that I find it disturbing that an employer will regulate what a person does on his free time, especially when a lot of other activities could drive up health care costs.

And even people with underlying genetic conditions could be refused being hired by some companies, on the same theory.

A society is more productive when it has a healthy population, when people have their illnesses, whether it's the flu or breast cancer, taken care of in a timely manner.

Someone's got to pay for that. In the U.S., we've chosen private insurance paid for by the employer (and it's resulted in the best healthh care system in the world).

But what if, as science improves, employers start screening out for all kinds of potential illnesses, as Weyco did?

I suppose, left with an untenably shrinking workforce, businesses would have to relent, but still...

It's interesting to think about to say the least.

If companies try and limit who can work for them for silly reasons they'll have trouble finding good employees. Other companies will hire good employees who have characteristics that the first company didn't like and do a better job.

I work at a company that refuses to hire smokers. Those who were hired before the policy went into effect are allowed to continue. I believe it's a total of one person now.

I don't believe we've ever fired someone for taking up smoking, or for smoking after they were told that it's against policy.

There was one person brought on as a temp with the understanding that they would have to quit smoking. They ended up quitting the job because they weren't able to quit smoking.

I don't know what would have happened if they pressed the issue, but they decided to voluntarily quit because they had agreed that it was a requirement.