<p>Hunt, I think people possibly have differing opinions as to what “fundamental character” means. Personally I am adverse to smoking, being around people who are smoking, and I do not have a tatoo and dont find the aesthetic pleasing. But, I have run a business and employed people for thirty years and have yet to tie my employees honesty, work ethic or integrity to tatoos, weight or smoking. I would not “do my best” to have someone fired, as it has been mentioned here…if I found out that someone smokes at home or has a tatoo.<br>
Tatoos in themselves can convey a variety of meanings. Like any other form of expression. I would certainly read a different message if someone had a butterfly on their shoulder, just as I would read another message if someone had a swastika on their forehead. But just the choice to have a tatoo, doesnt imply some profound character flaw that would in itself cause me to fire an employee in my warehouse.</p>
<p>^^^^I am a nurse and visit a nursing message board from time to time. It seems that some hospital systems are testing potential employees for nicotine and not hiring nurses who test positive. It’s causing a lot of uproar among nurses who smoke at home, and even more among nurses who take smoking breaks. It’s a legal substance, not being used in the working environment, yet it is being used against these individuals in official hiring policy.</p>
<p>First of all, very few people “smoke at home” and don’t smoke at all during the workday. Just doesn’t happen. Smokers are not a legally protected class. A number of medical establishments are now refusing to hire smokers. What message does it send about health and wellness, not to mention the medical costs the employer might be taking on. One of the most distasteful things I’ve experienced is seeing nurses, respiratory therapists and even doctors hanging around outside hospitals on break sucking on cigarettes. Disgusting.</p>
<p>“First of all, very few people “smoke at home” and don’t smoke at all during the workday. Just doesn’t happen.”</p>
<p>I have an employee who I KNOW smokes cigars at home and not here. When I found out, at a picnic, I just shrugged my shoulders as opposed to “doing my best” to fire him.</p>
<p>Firing him, in my book, would have been DISGUSTING.</p>
<p>Just as it would be disgusting if I fired someone because of my profound distaste for tatoos. I do not think either, apart from health issues, betray a fundamental character flaw that would affect their work in my business.</p>
<p>An occasional cigar is not the same as a cigarette addiction, in my mind. You don’t think doing something that is proven to be one of the most harmful things you can do to your own health and even to those around you shows a fundamental character flaw? I do. It was a different story in the 50s and early 1960s, but today there is simply no excuse for smoking a cigarette. I guess you regard viewing child porn at home OK for one of your employees, too.</p>
<p>“I guess you regard viewing child porn at home OK for one of your employees, too.”</p>
<p>MOWC-----you are a real piece of work</p>
<p>Our govt subsidizes the tobacco industry for quite a obscene amount. I don’t smoke but it seems that is a glaring inconsistency.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So now even smoking at home and off the premises constitutes harm to those around you? Where is this going to end?</p>
<p>And no, I don’t consider it tantamount to pedophilia. Btw, I have never smoked.</p>
<p>“My tattoos DO make me happy.”</p>
<p>MOWC - I am almost afraid to ask…how many tatoos DO you have?!</p>
<p>And…they make you happy now, but will they love you in 25 years?</p>
<p>But, after all, it sounds like someone has found the secret to happiness…who’da thunk it?</p>
<p>Others smoking at home do cause non-smoking employees harm. Their insurance rates are higher because of it. The studies are extremely conclusive that smokers cost an employer more–more insurance, more lost productivity, and more sick days. Not to mention standing around in groups ruining the air quality wherever they are allowed to smoke at work. Yes, smoke drifts…a very long way.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t hire a smoker, not because of any possible character flaw, but because a) they stink and set off allergic reactions among other employees and/or customers and b) they cost more.</p>
<p>EK is right. I think it is absurd that the gov’t subsidizes tobacco and then spends tons of money on anti-tobacco prevention.</p>
<p>As a labor and employment attorney (for corporations), I hear all the “what I do at home is my own business” argurments. Mainly in regard to pre-employment drug testing. Why is it OK for an employer to refuse to hire someone who smokes an occasional joint at home and fails the drug test but not a smoker? Pot is illegal. Smokers are expensive.</p>
<p>I have 2 tattoos. One is on my upper ankle and is a religious symbol. The other is on my forearm and is a gorgeous, brightly colored Colorado mountain/river scene.</p>
<p>Well, if you’re worried about health insurance costs, you should only employ men, and who are younger than 45.</p>
<p>Since obesity is epidemic in this country & also impacts health care costs- I wonder if employees who are overweight are being charged an appropriate rate for their insurance costs to compensate.
How about drinking? How far are we going to take the nanny state?</p>
<p>What many companies are doing to incentivize obese people, smokers, high blood pressure folks etc is to reduce the employee’s portion of the insurance cost if certain activities are completed or benchmarks are met. This could be losing weight, enrolling in a smoking cessation program, getting good readings on blood pressure, cholesterol etc. Weight is also not a protected class, and if you don’t think it is something many hiring folks consider, you would be wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are hospitals and medical facilities which have gone completely non smoking, so there is nowhere for employees to smoke, even in outdoor areas once dedicated to them. In my unit, no way no how could you leave the premises to smoke. You barely have time to go to the bathroom (and some days you don’t). Yet there were smokers working there-therefore they were smoking at home only (well, probably grabbed a ciggy the minute they got in the car).</p>
<p>I have never smoked, I think it is a filthy, dangerous habit. However, I have mixed feelings about large entities refusing to hire employees who smoke a legal substance off the clock. If insurance costs are a problem, they could certainly increase the premiums of the smokers. As I said, I have mixed feelings about it.</p>
<p>And yes, some of the heaviest smokers I’ve known were respiratory therapists. Boggles the mind.</p>
<p>Perhaps they should be smoking pot instead.</p>
<p>[Marijuana</a> Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows](<a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm]Marijuana”>Marijuana cuts lung cancer tumor growth in half, study shows -- ScienceDaily)</p>
<p>[Marijuana</a> May Stall Brain Tumor Growth](<a href=“http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20040815/marijuana-stall-brain-tumor-growth]Marijuana”>Brain Cancer)</p>
<p>[Breakthrough</a> Discovered in Medical Marijuana Cancer Treatment - Salem-News.Com](<a href=“http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january112008/cancer_treatment_11008.php]Breakthrough”>http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january112008/cancer_treatment_11008.php)</p>
<p>^^ I know. Really.</p>
<p>skyhook–"…employing men under age 45"</p>
<p>Smoking is a choice; the gender one is born is not.</p>
<p>You don’t think small employers do consider if someone will be taking multiple maternity leaves in the near future? They probably won’t say it aloud nowadays, but they will consider it. Small business are ran on thin human capital and very thin profit margins. 20 years ago I had such questions asked to me on multiple interview occasions–how many kids, having any more, how old, etc?</p>
<p>I too think smoking is a filthy, dangerous habit. I understand why older people smoke, but I don’t understand why it hasn’t become extinct among our youth.</p>
<p>However, for those who think smokers should pay higher premiums, or that there should be workplace prohibitions against at-home legal activities, I would say: be careful what you wish for. Actuarial statistics can be used against all of us.</p>
<p>Employers much more subtle now. Ashtray purposefully placed on interviewers desk, or pic of family placed on desk, talking about his/her own family, things can lead to interviewee telling more than asked.</p>
<p>P.S. I did read a summary of a study a while back that there are fewer % of young cig smokers now than 10 yrs ago, and that % was smaller than 10 yrs before that. That would seem to indicate a steady decline of young cig smokers.</p>