tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post2234240643212380981..comments2023-10-26T08:37:12.232-04:00Comments on Heleni Smith: Where there's smoke there's fire.Athena Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11483906167304901085noreply@blogger.comBlogger136125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-80353871630125154932008-11-13T14:38:00.000-05:002008-11-13T14:38:00.000-05:00I believe smoking is a bad habit but you should st...I believe smoking is a bad habit but you should still be able to smoke at work. But like many have mentioned there are good and bad reasons. Maybe a lot of smokers will stop smoking to maintain their job. Now the workplace will be smoke free and be a healthier place… no second hand smoke? But some people relief stress by smoking. So what if the person is having a off day. People who are hiring shouldn’t base it from if you smoke or not. That’s just not right. People work good or bad whether they are smokers or non-smokers.michelleyiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01923335458021448175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-84936635075030064212008-11-11T18:10:00.000-05:002008-11-11T18:10:00.000-05:00Yes I think that employers should be able to utili...Yes I think that employers should be able to utilize smoking as a criteria. Smokers get too may breaks as is. Do you know how anoying it is to see smokers get to leave every hour on the hour, while others sit there and continue to work non stop until they get their measley 15 min break. Also if you are on your 15 minute break here they come also smoking up the air you breathe and have the nerve to get an attitude if you ask them to move.<BR/>Their isn't a smoker that comes to work and does not smoke, but they are people that drink that do not drink on the job. Well atleast the ones that don't have a serious drinking problem. I also think that employers should also use drinking as a criteria because people that have hang overs cannot make it to work the next day, and even if they do, they cannot function 100%.<BR/>If you work for the government, they are allowed to go as far back into your personal life as possible, you have no choice. It just goes to show the type of job that you have is made up in a way that they are all in your personal business. Im not saying that its right, thats just the way things are set up.Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15801041169807436075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-68624443168266275822008-11-11T15:01:00.000-05:002008-11-11T15:01:00.000-05:00I believe that everyone has the right to do whatev...I believe that everyone has the right to do whatever they want to do and if they choose to smoke and is not in the place where the work at they should be allow to smoke because everything you do outside work is only your business nobody else. Even though is a good idea so that people are healthier I don’t think they should ban smokers to be able to get a job because first that’s your personal life and any employer should be allow to investigate how you live or what you prefer to do with your life unless is something really bad like been on jail or something similar.cale87https://www.blogger.com/profile/07649950071358815873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-15922855950708437372008-11-11T11:05:00.000-05:002008-11-11T11:05:00.000-05:00I think that every person has a personal right to ...I think that every person has a personal right to do anything within the law that they desire. If they meet the needs of the job and smike or drink away from that bussiness and don't embares themsevles in a way tha could make that certain bussiness look bad than i do not think that smoking or drinking should be used as a criteria. As long as it doesnt annoy the people that also work in the same area.Dr.Beemdaddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01894806749141123959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-57107489200259406682008-11-11T00:59:00.000-05:002008-11-11T00:59:00.000-05:00I think that not hiring people who smoke is a very...I think that not hiring people who smoke is a very grave mistake. I know a lot of people who smoke and they're extremely good people. I know a lot of people who don't smoke that are very mean and not good people in general. To ban hiring police would make it a lot harder for a person to get a job in an already unstable workforce. It would make it that much harder to nab a job. I know people who work at a hospital and smoke. Sure it may reduce health insurance costs but its unfair to the people.HarlequinMaskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05369405037508612089noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-38347069931485418422008-11-10T21:38:00.000-05:002008-11-10T21:38:00.000-05:00I am neither for nor against smoking as a criterio...I am neither for nor against smoking as a criterion for employment. I think there will be both negative and positive effects if this idea is implemented. Yet still, I do believe it is still a bit ridiculous and going a little too far into people’s personal lives. What’s going to be the next criteria? It seems in the near future people probably have to change their entire lifestyle so they would be able to find employment. Everything now is becoming a factor to determine whether you will be employed.<BR/> On the other hand I can still see a few benefits, such as: lowering the cost of a company’s health insurance, encouraging a lot more smokers to quit smoking and less pollution in the work environment. However, in my opinion, the whole idea is going to force smokers to quit smoking. Although I am not a smoker, it’s a free country and I don’t believe that people should be placed in a situation where they have to choose over their jobs and smoking. Let them quit smoking willingly if they want to.Alainehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06624278434311313738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-78148015122555277522008-11-10T20:55:00.000-05:002008-11-10T20:55:00.000-05:00In my opinion i really don't think they should be ...<I>In my opinion i really don't think they should be allowed to do that. I think that they are using a loop hole in the laws that can allow them to do this. How long is it until they can force other rules upon people, such as specific hair, or tattoos, yes you do say they can't discriminate against appearance, but how do you actually define appearance. Also, even though smokers and drinkers are usually less healthier than normal people, it is an indulgent that they have the right to have, and if done in moderation, has no real effects at all. I just think that there are too many external factors along with the pressure of the hiring process.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree with this statement. It is a matter of doing what many people fought for. By doing this, we only revert backwards rather then move forward. Why, then, do we want to further discrimination. The difference here is the people have a choice to doing these action, but some may argue that there are plenty smokers, drinkers and obese who can not avoid their situation. Some people with weight problems have slower metabolism (everyone in America is eating food they shouldn't. Some people have a better metabolism). Smokers may have an oral fixation, and drinkers may be depressed. They have something that is more then just a habit. It's hard to prove one side right or wrong.<BR/><BR/>Typically, when a situation is hard to determine, I usually saw towards choice. For instance (sorry) abortion is a tricky debate. So, why not leave the option there since neither side can convince the other rather then remove something for one party when no one can prove the argument (in my way, the result will not hard or limit another side).<BR/><BR/>Of course, like the comment said, if we are going start with this, then anyone can discrimination for whatever BS reason we have. When one gets let though, why not the rest.Da Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13918156736342067204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-17017782352998304512008-11-10T18:49:00.000-05:002008-11-10T18:49:00.000-05:00I can understand where the employer would be comin...I can understand where the employer would be coming from wanting to know if an employee smokes etc. Especially if they are sponsering the employees health care. BUT, I cannot agree with them having the rights to delve into my personal life to determine my risk factors. Because it starts at smoking. Then was that is completly accepted they take it a step further with drinking then the obesity. Before yo know it Big Brother is watching your every movement and many of your rights have been stripped away in order to appease the higher powers which are selected to govern us. There must be another route as far as having a slightly higher rate for health insurance for those who abuse their health or have them find their own health care if they have diminished their own health that badly. <BR/>But at the end of the day I don't agree or support the idea of a company prying into my personal life to determine what they deem suitable for a productive, healty, lifestyle.blue skyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06574711378416301185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-39749611664931749102008-11-10T17:35:00.000-05:002008-11-10T17:35:00.000-05:00I do not feel that this is a fair requirement for ...I do not feel that this is a fair requirement for screening for a job, especially for a government service job. It discriminates against a certain group of people and the basis or whether you smoke or not has little bearing on performance. There are many other options that could be done and are being done by some employers. Obviously, smoking can be banned on the property of the workplace, when a worker is on the clock, and there are more options. Insurance benefits can even be restricted which could also lower premiums. I believe that the policy is unnecessary. Also, I believe smoking is a very bad habit.Hay Nakuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02657342642555188673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-19448230282949562502008-11-10T16:08:00.000-05:002008-11-10T16:08:00.000-05:00I can understand companies protecting their invest...I can understand companies protecting their investments, the employee, but this practice is discrimination. Why not ban smoking on the premises, encourage programs to help smokers with their addiction, and discounts on insurance premiums or higher contributions to their 401k programs. As far as not hiring people who consume alcohol, this would be impossible. The amount of people that consume alcohol on occasion would leave a vast percentage of unqualified candidates for many important jobs. This just doesn't make sense at all. Imagine the different activities that people are involved in during their time off, things that could hinder their productivity during work hours. Soon companies will inquire into every detail of daily lives to see if you fit into their idea of a perfect employee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-20821849892785902022008-11-10T13:55:00.000-05:002008-11-10T13:55:00.000-05:00I am not sure about this. I feel that if Pasco Cou...I am not sure about this. I feel that if Pasco County were to pass this it would be a huge discrimination. Don't get me wrong it is a good idea. However, not hiring someone who could be well qualified because they smoke would be stupid. If they are so concerned about the costs of health insurance then why don't the companies make the smokers pay the difference in the health insurance. This would leave it up to people if they wanted to keep smoking not mandate them.crguy73https://www.blogger.com/profile/16652129652787341515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-72138240516930186182008-11-10T11:32:00.000-05:002008-11-10T11:32:00.000-05:00I think that employers should be able to use smoki...I think that employers should be able to use smoking as a criterion for whether or not they should be hired. I personally think that smoking is one of the most disgusting habits in the entire world, and not only does it kill you slowly, but it kills all those you care about around you as well. Maybe if employers basically required people to not smoke, then that would add more incentive for people to break their habits. As for alcohol, I don’t believe that is as disgusting a habit as smoking, because unless you do something reckless after drinking, it is not really going to effect others besides you. I don’t know how far they should be able to delve into our lives, however, what I do know is that they already delve pretty far in based on a prescanning of our facebook and myspace accounts.incendiaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14937931081501254945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-35538576502971353942008-11-10T01:32:00.000-05:002008-11-10T01:32:00.000-05:00Well to a certain extent I agree with this article...Well to a certain extent I agree with this article. These days everybody is trying to conserve money and cut back costs and I think this is a great way to do it. Many people struggle with nicotine addiction and having programs with in the company to help stop is a great way to help people kick the habbit. At the same time it helps healthcare costs. So in the end everybody wins. But not hiring people based on smoking habit, is,I think, in some ways good and then unfair. It's not that it is "racist" or "discriminating", it's like people now a days not hiring people based on being over weight, thats discriminating on apperance. But then there are people who are very excellent at what they do but just haven't kicked the habit or lost weight. So I think it's unfair and fair.JulyssaVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01816046156622391398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-14807515578124084392008-11-10T00:45:00.000-05:002008-11-10T00:45:00.000-05:00I think that employers should have no right to bas...I think that employers should have no right to base their hiring on people who smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol. If people smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol it is theor own business. I would say that most of the people that do these don't do it while working and can maintain a professional attitude at work. However, the idea of even considering these things for employment is just very retarted to me. I hope this never even comes about in the future because if it does it might stir up some big chaos among people.jb23https://www.blogger.com/profile/12643378846740983758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-45153154684101564462008-11-10T00:31:00.000-05:002008-11-10T00:31:00.000-05:00I personally totally disagree with using smoking o...I personally totally disagree with using smoking or alcohol consumption as a means to decide on who gets a job or keeps a job. Smoking and drinking are personal decisions and what you do in your free time should not play a roll in employment. However, I agree that people who are going to drink on the clock should not be tolerated. I also agree with designated smoking areas and smoking breaks. This is a logical idea. It allows the employees their freedoms however, allows the company to still be productive.Aboylanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11497922038658963145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-27940705292000867212008-11-10T00:06:00.000-05:002008-11-10T00:06:00.000-05:00I think that if employees are to choose to smoke, ...I think that if employees are to choose to smoke, that should be done on their own time. Therefore, it is not necessary that they quit entirely, just that they are not to preform that legal action while 'on the clock'. Smoking in the company vehicle while driving from job-site to job-site is an odor that can outlast the life of the vehicle itself.<BR/>Alcohol is also a legal substance which is consumable by choice, although the side effects may leave a 'harder-hitting' impression on an employee that may last into the next day, although, that was a choice they made the night before. Showing up to the job 'hung-over' is irresponsible and the employer should have every right to terminate the individual on-the-spot. That individual had the full opportunity to call in sick instead of arriving to their job in an incompitent state.wswiegerthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14461541843618802691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-42396229125929781912008-11-09T23:31:00.000-05:002008-11-09T23:31:00.000-05:00I for one believe that smoking should be considere...I for one believe that smoking should be considered when hiring a person. It is unprofessional to assist customers with the harsh scent of cigarette smoke on your skin and clothes and could deter the cutomers and thus harm the business. Also, they will require smoke breaks which further takes money from the employer because they are paying prescious money for people to sit around and give in to their addiction. I have experienced this where I work, I have a serious ankle injury and will stand on my feet for 10 hours at a time with no break at all whilst the smokers have racked up 3-5 breaks in this time, some taking up to 30mins! Smoking is going to be part of their schedule and when hiring it is, in my opinion, pretty important to consider and should not be overlooked. As for drinking, i do not believe that they should drink on the job( like smoking) and also should not show up to work half intoxicated(like the smell on their clothes from the tobacco) bc these conditions will otherwise deter business just as smoking does and should then be punishable by termination from the job. If they want to drink at home on their days off and do it wisely (not getting into trouble with the law) then it shouldnt be a problem. Smoking, on the other hand will always be on their skin and will follow them everywhere because they will not want to go more than a certain number of hours without smoking another cigarette(depending on how addicted they are, it varies).krossellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00698642814316649117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-19386184654180926992008-11-09T23:29:00.000-05:002008-11-09T23:29:00.000-05:00I dont think companies should have the right to di...I dont think companies should have the right to discriminate against employers that smoke. I think they should be able to increase their insurance premiums but fire someone because they smoke, or not hire someone for that. If companies decided to enforce this they would definately lose a lot of employers. I feel the same about alcohol.kobebro21https://www.blogger.com/profile/05740072493579058325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-2585154211041803872008-11-09T21:35:00.000-05:002008-11-09T21:35:00.000-05:00I think that an employer should be able to do that...I think that an employer should be able to do that. I think an employer has every right to ban certain things for his or her business.. Yes smoking is accepted and so is drinking but when it comes down to it it has it harms. It takes a toll on your body and that more money on health insurance policies for that business.. and if banning smoking and drinking does that then so be it. If you need and really want the job then you'll abide by what they want. If not, i believe there is a place somewhere in the world guaranteed to give you a job. Someone left a comment that it messes with that persons freedom to make choices and do what they do. Well if I as a person wants to screen people for the fairness of others and even health and overall the wellbeing of my other employees then i have that right to do so. Hey and in the end you get a plus out of it. BETTER HEALTH AND THAT BAD HABIT THAT YOU WERE PROBABLY TRYING TO KICK IS GONE. As for how far i think an employer should be able to dwell into your life. Hm.. i think that an employer has the right to know anything that effects the work environment or any persons in it.J3NNii3 BABii3https://www.blogger.com/profile/06917933958064922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-85192778055391313392008-11-09T21:30:00.000-05:002008-11-09T21:30:00.000-05:00I completely disagree with this idea. Even though ...I completely disagree with this idea. Even though I can't stand the smell of cigarettes, I think to test people on if they smoke cigarettes in order to get a job is ridiculous. I mean smoking cigarettes is legal, and if people want to smoke then let them smoke. It is none of the company's or employers business. People that smoke are aware of the health risks, so why should it matter. I think that just because someone smokes they won't be able to get a job is ridiculous. It’s that persons life, if they want to smoke then let them smoke. They should be a loud to smoke cigarettes if they want to, and should not let it affect their lives.mp88https://www.blogger.com/profile/07225830004240715942noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-1468228446877575412008-11-09T21:29:00.000-05:002008-11-09T21:29:00.000-05:00Employers should be able to choose not to hire a p...Employers should be able to choose not to hire a potential employee based solely on their smoking or drinking habits. First of all, a worker that smokes or drinks is statistically more likely to miss work due to illness. Also, someone who chooses to smoke has a much higher likelihood to develop cancer. For a small business this can mean the entire company could potentially lose their medical coverage. I do understand that it is hard to define the line on how a company can legally discriminate, but applying a simple cost/benefit analysis clearly demonstrates that it is in a companies best interest to hire employees that do not engage in habits that are harmful to their health. On the other hand, many companies are starting to realize this and are responding another way by providing incentives, such as assistance in quitting tobacco or providing workout equipment at the office, for employees to live healthy lifestyles.Bluefieldstanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04951043106898931009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-91030170562404790462008-11-09T21:08:00.000-05:002008-11-09T21:08:00.000-05:00employers should have the right to say when certai...employers should have the right to say when certain things are appropriate. If an employer dose not want an employee smoking on the job they should have the right to say so. smoking on the job is unproductive and puts off a bad image for the company. if someone is walking into a store, who wants to walk past employees on their smoke break. I agree 100% that employers should have the right to say if an employee can smoke. smokeing costs alot of money for both the employer and the employee. A smoking employee should be seen as a risk to the company. Although drinking is not illigal it should not be comsumbed on the job in any way, shape or form. But as far as telling employees they can not do these things on there time away from work at home is not right. If someone is visably putting off a bad image to the company then the employer has every right to repremand them. But an employees free time off the clock is their own personal time.CrazyFred21https://www.blogger.com/profile/10275690344563632537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-35876867817661639722008-11-09T21:01:00.000-05:002008-11-09T21:01:00.000-05:00I personaly don't mind this rule because I am not ...I personaly don't mind this rule because I am not a smoker and do not like to be around cigarette smoke, but I also do not feel it is fair. This is supposed to be a free country and that would be an ivasion of personal rights. I think it would be fair to restrict smoking at the work place but what people do on their time in their own home is solely their choice. To say you would not hire someone because they are a smoker is discrimination and I believe an invasion of personal rights.London Skieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09160000187673611757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-91726188176173657352008-11-09T19:59:00.000-05:002008-11-09T19:59:00.000-05:00my personal opionon of this is that they shouldnt ...my personal opionon of this is that they shouldnt try to dig so hard in a person's personal life. mabye they should not be allowed to smoke in company cars or anything belonging to corprate, or even on job sites unless of the clock. but some poeple cannot quit, and they may be to jittery or unstable to do a good job at work becuse they are craving a ciggarette or even alch. i do not personally have addiction problems, and i dont smoke, but i have lots of family and friends who do, and if they dont smoke or drink, they become either moody or tense, and that is not good for ones work ethic. mabye if the companies would make a prgram to help the addicts, then this would be o.k.Brian Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01803670975381965018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1951811281604727291.post-90043400610589291932008-11-09T19:49:00.000-05:002008-11-09T19:49:00.000-05:00I think what people do in their personal lives awa...I think what people do in their personal lives away from their job should not be used against them when applying for a job. If they drink at home and it doesn't affect their performance at work it shouldn't be a factor for employment. I think companies should not discriminate when hiring someone because they smoke. All employees should be treated equal. Break times should be the same regardless if you smoke or not. I don't think potential employers should have the right to dig into the personal lives of these people. As long as the person is qualified for the job, has good references and good attendance at previous jobs there personal lives or the fact that they smoke should not play a factor into getting the job.Nurse4Uhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15940790998273242742noreply@blogger.com