Options
Well, that sucks...
perkinke
Everyone, Registered Users Posts: 1,562
I was just filling out a job app for a city in Florida and the very last question says "the city will not consider anyone for employment who has used tobacco products in the past year prior to application..." Has anyone else come across something like this? It's the first time I have seen this condition, though our health folks suggested it and happily the decision makers nixed that idea.
Comments
i know that several places will do an x-ray of your lungs but that won't show up with just being a cigar smoker
But that's the technical reason my organization turned down the health folks, we don't do drug testing, but we're gonna test for nicotine? And what about existing employees who smoke/chew? Are we going to fire them? Bottom line though, are you as an organization going to pass on a good candidate over one factor that has nothing to do with job performance? Ah well, given what I have read about the state of governance in Florida I wasn't that excited about the opening anyway.
How on Earth could they possibly test you to see if you had used these products? They can't possibly force a job applicant to get an X-ray, and I would think that if there's nothing in your medical record disclosing that you smoke or have smoke-related health issues that they could possibly prove that you're not telling the truth. Does tobacco even show in a blood or urine test?
Know what else increases insurance costs? Being fat, drinking too much, having a baby, getting sick.... why is it ok to punish one group? Im starting a company and so I get lower ins. rates I will screen for women/spouses who want to be or already are pregnant. I will not hire them. And whoever I hire cannot have had sex in the last year.
Sound crazy? Youre ***!ng right it does.
As far as the legalities? This was all settled by the War on Drugs, when both Left and Right couldn't wait to give up the 4th & 5th Amendments. I don't think there is much political help out there, the Left hates tobacco, and the Right defends the industries "freedom" to tell their employees what they may or may not do in their free time, because conceivably 40 or 50 years from now health costs will be incurred.
Did someone just think "that doesn't make any sense"?
If not, we're doomed.
Yeah, it is funny that it does cause both the left and right to agree for different reasons. But, if that is an indication of the way that organization operates, heavy handed and intrusive, then it's not likely I'd be successful there. It's been another of those areas that I just don't think money is an appropriate reason for limiting personal choice, even before I got back into cigars I argued against it. I argued against banning chewing tobacco on my agency's property because if the rationale is that banning smoking is needed to protect OTHER people from second hand smoke then banning chew does nothing to advance that position, it only affects the person doing it. But some of our public health folks are as fanatical as any cultist I've ever met and using logic is as useless as a jell-o hammer.
But, remember, in Florida one doesn't call them cockroaches - one calls them "Palmetto Bugs". I lived there - I know all about Palmetto Bugs..... :-/)