February 23 2008
I read in the paper today, in an article about smoking legislation in Virginia, that an employer cannot refuse to hire a new employee because he smokes.
Just follow along with me for a moment; you hire someone for a forty hour week and before he checks in for his first day at work, you know that he will be taking two, three or maybe four smoking breaks a day. Just for arguments sake, lets say 3 times fifteen minutes per break equals 45 minutes times 5 days a week equals almost four hours a week.
Now just imagine that this person is in a sensitive position such as a nurse would be. Patients, in someway uncomfortable or ill, will be exposed to the smell which usually clings to the smoker either from his own smoking or the saturation of his clothing from his smoking environment.
What the Virginia Legislators, who have none of their own money invested in the enterprize, are telling employers is that they cannot refuse to hire a smoker whether it is detrimental or disturbing to the customers or economically detrimental to the company's profitability. In additions it matters not whether the "smoking addicted person" causes morale problems with the current employees and might (likely will) subject the company and them to higher health insurance rates.
Nice work Virginia Legislators. Oh, by the way, do you think that the largess of the Virginia tobacco lobby had anything to do with this position which is indefensible on the face of it and is illogical as well?
NOTE. Before you hit the Comment Button, I am talking about new hires.
SECOND NOTE. Just so you don't think that I am copping out, if I were an employer, in addition to not hiring "addicted" new hires, I would initiate a year long plan to eliminate all smoking in the company and would provide an educational, medical and psychological assistance program, as necessary, to my existing workforce.