29 ms·

U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy

• inamberclad 7y ago
  I doubt this is legal. Can a company refuse to hire people who drink alcohol because they're statistically less healthy than those who never drink? It's already illegal to discriminate on the basis of other factors which influence health, such as age and pregnancy.
  • vertex-four 7y ago
    Age and pregnancy status are very specifically listed in law as being illegal to discriminate on (in the US). Anything else is fair game. Assuming you enjoy being able to eat, your life belongs to your employer.
    • dylz 7y ago
      Weirdly, age is only discrimination if they're over 40 in the US, while below that you can do as much "illegal discrimination" as you want, which is pretty messed up.
      • bananocurrency 7y ago
        I dont know about you but I really enjoyed this policy as a 22 year old with 10 years experience vs a 30 year old bootcamper. "They have a family they need to support and you're more of a risk" I'm glad we have really innovative policies that allow businesses to grow like this.
        • layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
          >22 year old with 10 years experience Hmmm.
          • jakear 7y ago
            Do you not believe someone can begin to gain coding experience at age 12?
            • layoutIfNeeded 7y ago
              Not in a way that's relevant for your employer 10 years later. It can be a nice anecdote to mention, but don't put it on your CV. By the way, I started coding at the age of 13.
              • nationsobviou 7y ago
                Maybe you're just not as good as OP. I started writing code at 10 and being properly employed (contract, office hours every day, etc etc) at 14. I'm 28. The extra years of experience in Delphi, C#, JavaScript, HTML, CSS, PHP, Python, Ruby (before Rails even :-) that I had before the age of 18 are certainly a significant part of why I'm ahead both in seniority and pay of many people who work side-by-side to me, or for me.
              • shantly 7y ago
                The unpaid screwing-around-with-computers I did from ~13 through college is very relevant for my employers. I'd be a way shittier developer if you took out especially the Linux admin and networking stuff I picked up then, most of which I would not have picked up at any of my employers since, nor in college—I'd have just been among the other developers without a clue why X is happening or Y is broken—though it's consistently been extremely useful. For the record, I did paid screwing-around-with-computers from 15 on, but the unpaid stuff added at least as much value to me as an employee. Ditto my abandoned humanities degree, which I also don't put on my résumé. More valuable to my work as a software developer than the CS degree I eventually got. I wouldn't present it that way for obvious reasons, but that doesn't change the reality of it.
          • nicoburns 7y ago
            My early experience (ages 13-19), which consists of a mix of projects in Game Maker, PHP and JavaScript is at least as important as my later professional experience. It's not equivalent: when I got my first job at 19 I was incredibly naive, I'd barely used source control, and I had a bad case of NIH syndrome. BUT, it's given me a depth of experience that is rarely matched by my people in age group. Actual professional experience is often quite routine, and time pressured. You don't get the same opportunity to experiment and learn things in depth that one has as a teenager. It might not be the most efficient way to learn, but it's certainly effective. Do I sometimes feel a bit of a fraud putting "12 years of experience" on my CV? Yes. But I also know I can hold my own in a room of people who have 12 years of "real" professional experience, and that it was this early experience that enables me to do that. So it seems equally disingenuous to not put it on my CV.
      • sk5t 7y ago
        Prohibiting employers from discriminating against workers under 40 would be not unlike prohibiting the NFL from refusing to employ fast 40-yard runners, or disallowing Hooters from refusing to hire buxom servers. If you'll please forgive the swell of double/triple negatives.
        • pacaro 7y ago
          IANAL You find yourself in BFOQ (bona fide occupational qualification) territory here — sometimes stated as "blind people can't be bus drivers". For an NFL player, running speed is clearly a BFOQ. For Hooters the case is more complicated (IIRC there is case law)
          • sk5t 7y ago
            Yes, but--the gist of my post was that there is no utility (and maybe some negative utility) in trying to pass laws to prevent the NFL, or Hooters, or whoever, from hiring the people they really, really do prefer to hire, all other things equal.
  • astura 7y ago
    Smokers and drinkers are (generally) not a protected class in US employment law whereas pregnant people and older people are [1] Some states may have additional employment laws that protect smokers. [1] https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/smallbusiness/faq/who_is_protected.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/smallbusiness/faq/who_is_prot...
    • jnwatson 7y ago
      It isn’t an EEOC violation, but possibly an ADA one. Discriminating against nicotine addicts might be illegal.
      • usefulcat 7y ago
        Are you saying that nicotine addiction is or might be classified as a disability under the ADA?
        • JackRabbitSlim 7y ago
          He's saying its one Schizo lawsuit away from being a proxy for discrimination. "We can't not hire black people but we forbid coconut oil hair product use among employees" How well do you think that would go over in a court?
      • jakear 7y ago
        > An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. I’m not sure nicotine addiction fits the bill, what major life activities does it substantially inhibit? https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335 https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335
        • Johnny555 7y ago
          what major life activities does it substantially inhibit? Apparently, holding a job.
  • butterisgood 7y ago
    It’s legal in almost half the United States.
  • JohnFen 7y ago
    A company can refuse to hire (or even fire) employees for any reason it wishes, as long as the reason isn't one in the short list or protected classes. What you eat, drink or smoke is not the basis for any protected class unless it's linked to a religious practice.
    • netsharc 7y ago
      I suppose someone's going to start the Church of Marlboro soon...
    • AlgorithmicTime 7y ago
      Come join my Church of the Smoking Christ. Tobacco is an a sacrament, in addition to wine, beer, and whiskey.
  • ChrisMarshallNY 7y ago
    As a tecchie over forty, I can report that age discrimination in the tech industry is hearty and robust. No one gives a damn about the law. Many companies have job ads that barely conceal their bias. As long as the money keeps pouring in, no one will cook the goose that lays the golden eggs. This has been the case for the finance industry for decades. It's a shame, but I am fortunate, in not needing to work again. Many of my peers are not so fortunate. Some of the younger folk are in for a nasty shock, when their hair starts to turn gray. I hope they are keeping their 401Ks maxed each year. They'll need them.
  • MisterBastahrd 7y ago
    My employer has a $100 per month surcharge if you fail to pass a physical and another $75 per month surcharge if you fail to pass a nicotine screening. Their justification is that they self-fund insurance and they're trying to keep rates down.
  • _0ffh 7y ago
    >because they're statistically less healthy than those who never drink Um, that claim is not even supported by the evidence. Several studies have found health benefits of moderate alcohol use over teetotalling. Heavy drinkers OTOH definitely fare worse than even the teetotallers.
• ivirshup 7y ago
  How is this not discriminatory?
  • toast0 7y ago
    It's certainly discriminatory. The question is if it's legal to discriminate in this way or if nicotine use is a protected class. That they're choosing to only implement this in some states may indicate that they're not totally confident.
    • DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
      I’m concerned it’s creating unnecessary hardships. Quitting smoking is hard. If you’ve lost a job and need a new job then stressing over U-Haul’s no-nicotine policy - or losing out on a job that you’re otherwise qualified for only because of your nicotine habit - then I imagine the added stress and disappointment - and hit to one’s ego - might drive someone to smoke more - or adopt other unhealthy habits like drinking. Also, I’d be very surprised if significant numbers of people give up not just smoking, but all forms of nicotine, just to get a job at U-Haul. They’re probably missing out on great talent this way. ...now, if they instead would hire a smoker on the condition they complete a company-funded stop-smoking treatment course, then that’s different. I admit I haven’t read the article so I don’t know if that was mentioned.
    • dehrmann 7y ago
      Unless this veers into mental health or Native Americans with a legitimate religious use, yeah, no protected class here.
    • thaeli 7y ago
      It may also indicate that they think this will reduce their labor pool too much in some states.
    • blaser-waffle 7y ago
      Smoking anything has no relation to protected class status. The question is if they'd qualify as Disabled under the ADA as addictions can qualify as a disability.
• monkmartinez 7y ago
  2020 already feels like a train-wreck. The next thing will be caffeine... after that will be non-hiring based on DNA predispositions.
  • gxon 7y ago
    It's a rather large leap to go from discriminating against people who consume a thing by choice to discriminating against their DNA that they have no control over.
    • nitrogen 7y ago
      IIRC there is a law specifically prohibiting DNA discrimination, so that law would have to be repealed first.
      • inetknght 7y ago
        There's laws specifically prohibiting a lot of things. That doesn't stop those discriminations from happening.
    • goldcd 7y ago
      But if you were say reference a paper, that indicates a genetic predisposition to addictive substances..
  • snikeris 7y ago
    Caffeine seems like a stretch, but I wouldn't be surprised. We're becoming more aware of the health implications of insufficient sleep, and the socialization of medicine has governments taking on the financial burden of people being irresponsible with their health.
  • jandrese 7y ago
    I thought you would mention the drone strikes on foreign high officials (not terrorists). It seems like a story that should be getting a lot more airtime.
• smnrchrds 7y ago
  Reminds me of Henry Ford: > The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees' homes to ensure that they were doing things the "American way." They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become "Americanized." Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#3b27e5f9766d https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-stor...
  • smacktoward 7y ago
    And the Pullman company famous for its luxury railroad cars, whose paternalistic policies in the “model town” established outside Chicago to house its workers led directly to one of the great industrial crises in American history, the Pullman strike of 1894: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike
    • ryanmarsh 7y ago
      From the Wikipedia article you reference: "When his company laid off workers and lowered wages, it did not reduce rents, and the workers called for a strike." Was it the paternalistic policies or economic factors that caused the strike?
      • CalChris 7y ago
        Both. The economic conditions of 1894 were the precipitating cause. The paternalistic policies were a contributing cause. Pullman, Illinois was the definition of a company town. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/business-july-dec01-labor_day_9-2 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/business-july-dec01-lab...
      • smacktoward 7y ago
• torstenvl 7y ago
  Slightly odd that they're conditioning this on nicotine and not tobacco or smoking. If someone quits smoking but relies on nicotine gum to get through occasional cravings, they would presumably still fall under the ban.
  • Phylter 7y ago
    I think it's because there are health risks associated with most if not all forms of it. Some forms may have small health risks though. Really, they don't want to pay out the money for high health insurance anymore. I don't blame them, I guess. But it does seem discriminatory.
    • DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
      > there are health risks associated with most if not all forms of it Hey, nicotine protects against Parkinson’s - perhaps they should reconsider their actuarial models! (Fun fact: so does methylphenidate, which apparently is generally neuroprotective according the latest on PubMed)
    • sithadmin 7y ago
      >it's because there are health risks associated with most if not all forms of it. Some forms may have small health risks though. There is a strong causal relationship between any nicotine consumption and a plethora of cardiovascular issues. While these effects might be small for the occasional user, they certainly have a detrimental impact on the health of habitual users.
      • torstenvl 7y ago
        > There is a strong causal relationship between any nicotine consumption and a plethora of cardiovascular issues. {{cn}}
  • peteretep 7y ago
    You can test for nicotine usage very easily, but you can’t catch someone smoking anywhere near as easily.
• bsder 7y ago
  You're all missing the point. Some statistician worked out that nicotine use likely correlates to age and this gives them a way to fire old people.
  • 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
    Existing workers are grandfathered in, the new policy applies only to new hires.
    • bsder 7y ago
      For now. This is still basically being used to discriminate against older applicants.
      • blaser-waffle 7y ago
        Bollocks. Vaping is incredibly popular, to the point where Juul was taken to task for marketing incredably hard at high schoolers. It's a nicotine ban, not a smoking ban. That means vapes too, which means plenty of younger workers tossed into the mix as well.
    • sk5t 7y ago
      Care to take a gander at U-Haul's turnover rate?
    • JohnFen 7y ago
      Yes, but just because it could be worse doesn't mean it's not bad.
    • monocasa 7y ago
      It sounds like current employees are going to have to sign the new employee handbooks eventually, which'll include this.
  • gxon 7y ago
    Damn. That's a GREAT point and a concept I'll keep in mind from now on. Seems very similar to Nixon's drug war which was really a mechanism to continue legally discriminating against racial minorities. However, I'm not sure it actually applies here given the surge of nicotine vaping in young people.
• pm90 7y ago
  This is an interesting point in the argument for universal public healthcare. I doubt companies work care much if they weren’t responsible for paying part of employee healthcare premiums. This was kinda already the case with the pre existing conditions nonsense before the ACA, but as costs skyrocket and companies are forced to make intrusive lifestyle demands from employees I wonder if it will finally tip the scales. Universal healthcare already polls very well though... so maybe this won’t be significant.
  • bluejekyll 7y ago
    It would be significant if companies start realizing that they could offload some of their debt for “free” instead of using it as a bargaining chip in keeping employees.
    • alistairSH 7y ago
      I assume large employers have already done the math and decided keeping the status quo (locking in employees via health coverage) is a net positive (vs a nationalized system of some variety).
      • pm90 7y ago
        I don't think it has ever been presented as a possible option for anyone to seriously consider. Ultimately it would have to come down to the specific plan.
  • corporate_shi11 7y ago
    Universal public healthcare would just encourage even more policing of people's habits. If I as a taxpayer am funding someone else's healthcare they better not be drinking heavily, smoking, doing other drugs, eating excess sugars, avoiding vegetables, etc.
    • sidek 7y ago
      Your argument is not supported by data. The NHS and Canada's universal healthcare systems have been around for decades. Yet there is no evidence to suggest the factors you describe have ever been part of the public discussion in those countries. And the US is the country with the most draconian drug laws in the Anglosphere.
• exabrial 7y ago
  Dave Ramsey [in]famously fires people that cheat on their spouses. Opinions of his financial advice aside, his justification is nobody is making you cheat on your spouse and they are not a protected class. A lot of parallels here, health benefits are expensive for an employer to buy. Given these are recreational substances, it would be in everyone's best interest to avoid these hires.
• senectus1 7y ago
  they would do better to reward the non smokers.
• ganzuul 7y ago
  Even a little tobacco stinks up the place and cigarette butts pollute. Vapes don't do this though.
  • ganzuul 7y ago
    Don't like the facts, so you downvote them. Typical.
  • EvanAnderson 7y ago
    I've sat in cube farms where others were vaping. I wouldn't say it "stunk up the place" but it was perceptible.
    • ggreer 7y ago
      It’s like the bad wig effect: You only notice the vapes that do smell. I was very surprised to find that a coworker was secretly vaping at his desk. He’d been doing it for weeks before I saw him take a puff. Nobody noticed any smell. If the vape juice is unscented, the only aerosolized compound should be propylene glycol– the same substance used in fog machines.
      • KingMachiavelli 7y ago
        Also the nicotine salt ones are much more discreet since they don't need as much vapor per puff.
  • apta 7y ago
    Both should be prohibited. The sooner society agrees to this the better.
    • throwiay987 7y ago
      How dare adults do to their bodies what they want!
      • 7y ago
• chubs 7y ago
  Are they as concerned about people's health, or do they just want to get rid of people who waste time on smoking breaks?
  • dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Are they as concerned about people's health Only instrumentally. > or do they just want to get rid of people who waste time on smoking breaks? No, they want to get lower group health insurance premiums.
  • dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    There's many stake holders who's ok is required to implement something like this at such a big company. I'm sure there's people who like it for the health saving, some people who like it for the time savings. As someone else said, the health insurance is probably the most reliable dollar figure they can point to as a justification and big business decisions like this don't get made without being able to quantitatively justify them.
  • apta 7y ago
    Does it matter? If you're hitting two birds with one stone so to speak what's the issue here?
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• dehrmann 7y ago
  Interesting to see this in a tight labor market. I also wonder how much they'll save on health insurance.
  • diogenescynic 7y ago
    >Interesting to see this in a tight labor market. Most Americans still can't put $400 together for an emergency and wages haven't risen in decades, so even though the unemployment rate is better it's clear workers have zero leverage to negotiate for better working conditions or higher wages. We need labor unions badly in America. This would never happen in Western Europe. While America may be a democracy, most Americans live under the tyranny, for better or worse, of their employers.
• candybar 7y ago
  In isolation, this is fine but if this is a harbinger of things to come, it seems quite problematic. Tobacco use is extremely strongly correlated with schizophrenia and while this would be difficult to ascertain, likely schizotypy spectrum (most of whom would be undiagnosed) as well. This may not be an ADA violation per se, but it seems to have that type of effect. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia_and_tobacco_smoking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia_and_tobacco_smok... Edit: Wouldn't this potentially fall under disparate impact?
  • chapium 7y ago
    I guess you'll have to get a prescription for cigarettes then.
    • derefr 7y ago
      I sometimes wonder what a society would look like where everyone who is currently self-medicating for an illness using a recreational drug, was instead able to have easy access to a cheap prescribed drug for that illness with fewer side-effects. Would things like alcohol and tobacco even be popular any more?
• t34543 7y ago
  I understand the health implications of being a nicotine user but I’m totally against policies like this. It’s your body, if you wish to smoke you should not face employment discrimination.
  • JohnFen 7y ago
    Yes, I agree. This move makes me much less likely to use U-Haul. I don't like supporting companies that abuse their employees.
    • apta 7y ago
      Abuse? Second hand smoking is a thing, it's the smokers who are doing the abuse, both to themselves and others.
      • kristofferR 7y ago
        This isn't about smoking, this about nicotine supplementation.
      • JohnFen 7y ago
        Second hand smoking can be addressed by prohibiting smoking on company premises, which is totally fair game. This is the company demanding to have a say in what their employees do on their own time, off of company property. That's abusive.
        • apta 7y ago
          This isn't sufficient. Smoking's effects lingers on the smoker for quite a while after they smoke. So even if they leave the company premise and come back, there's still the effect of third hand smoking. This was studied and shown to enter the HVAC system and even affect rooms where the smoker isn't sitting in. It's quite the dangerous, selfish, and disgusting habit.
          • JohnFen 7y ago
• apta 7y ago
  Good start. Hopefully more companies and work places follow with similar policies.
  • _jal 7y ago
    I refuse to work for a company that wants my pee. In an interview some time back, the interviewer mentioned drug testing. I replied, "Do I get a bottle of the HR manager's urine in return?" They were a bit flustered. "How do I know my superiors aren't stoned?" I let him twist a bit and then took my leave. Absent real public safety or other liability concerns, control freaks like this can pound sand.
    • JohnFen 7y ago
      This. Pee for enjoyment, not for employment.
    • apta 7y ago
      Smoking can easily be detected without a urine test. The disgusting smell lingers on the smoker after they smoke for example.
      • _jal 7y ago
        Read the article. "In states where testing is allowed, applicants must consent to submit to nicotine screening in the future to be considered." And you are aware that there are nicotine delivery methods that do not involve cigarettes?
        • apta 7y ago
          I still don't see the issue. They want their employees to be drug free. Athletes already undergo drug testing for example.
          • _jal 7y ago
            You'll spot the issue in your word choice. They want their employees to be drug free I do not belong to my employer. Maybe you're comfortable ransoming your bodily fluids in order to labor for others, but I refuse to do humiliating things that model one-way power dynamics for a right to work. And until you show me how getting stoned offers a competitive performance advantage to truck rental clerks, athletes are utterly irrelevant. More on-point comparisons include prisoners and children.
• im3w1l 7y ago
  The definition of working hours are the hours when the employer can tell you what to do. If they want to say you can't smoke at night then it's no longer free time and they should be paying overtime.
  • dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Exactly. They could just as well say no rock climbing or mountain biking on personal time for the same reason (presumably health insurance cost is what's behind this move) though obviously that would be harder to enforce. Companies having a financial incentive to care about what you do when you're not on the clock is just another reason that we shouldn't have coupled healthcare to employment. Not granting smoking breaks or prohibiting employees from smelling like smoke is one thing but disallowing it entirely is too much intrusion into employee's lives.
  • droopyEyelids 7y ago
    You're proposing new labor laws with this idea. Thats good! However, you shouldn't confuse what makes intuitive sense with the laws governing your country.
    • 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      You're also confusing something: that plenty of legal things are not socially tolerated. If a company came out saying 'sorry, we don't hire feminists'... they might... face consequences. Even if that is legal. Right now U Haul is going after an easy target, since most people hate smoking - but the idea that just because it's legal it won't have any consequences is silly. Companies can be boycotted, they could get grilled in congressional hearings, new laws can be passed, and because of incendiary behavior they can get scrutiny for the non-incendiary behavior (see Shkreli) and other negatives can happen. The law is supposed to codify what makes sense, and when it doesn't, it many times will soon. Many times that includes nailing someone to the wall to set an example. I hope enough people call their lawmakers to pressure the system into dragging the U Haul executives who made this decision through the coals. This 1984 style 'we are going to see everything you do' is getting out of hand.
• elchief 7y ago
  This is just an attack on people with mental illness https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-public-policy/tobacco-and-smoking https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-public-policy/...
  • throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
    Is it absolutely proven that the causality isn’t the other way around, and that smoking doesn’t cause mental illness? Because that would be my assumption with a standout stat like that.
• mnm1 7y ago
  Here's some other bright ideas along the same line. Don't hire: People who don't eat pork People who eat pork People with feet over or under a certain size People who drive cars older than fifteen years People who take public transportation People who eat vegetarian some days but not others People who eat bread without yeast People who don't drink sugary drinks or eat sugary stuff People who love chicken and watermelon People who fast for a month People who abstain from meat for forty days Vegetarians and vegans ... You can take this in any direction you possibly want because our governments don't give a shit. You are free to die of starvation because no one will hire you due to discrimination and hate and the government doesn't care.
• mfer 7y ago
  What might be the most interesting aspect of this is that... company executives now (again?) think it's ok for them to dictate lifestyle choices on people that have nothing to do with how the business is executed as a matter of employment. And, it has nothing to do with religion.
• fxj 7y ago
  In europe it is illegal to ask this kind of questions in an interview and you don't have to answer. Even if you lie they cannot fire you. If they do you can sue them. https://www.diepresse.com/3805136/verbotene-fragen-im-vorstellungsgesprach https://www.diepresse.com/3805136/verbotene-fragen-im-vorste...
  • pkaye 7y ago
    Do they let people smoke in the workplace?
• caconym_ 7y ago
  If we start allowing corporations to dictate what their employees do in their own time, where does it stop? Safety issues are one thing (and should be a matter of legal regulation, not individual corporate policy) but performance issues are another, and I've already seen them conflated in this thread. Should my employer have the right to impose a curfew on me so that I'm not tired the next day at work? Should they have the right to attach a tracker to me to make sure I'm not cheating? We are already flirting with corporate-employment-as-citizenship and crazy dystopian things have become status quo, e.g. beyond-the-pale noncompetes for leaf-level wage-slave class employees, and all "inventions"/IP developed by employees in their own time belonging to their employers regardless of relevance to their employer's business or support they received from their employer in developing them, and so on. If an employee is performing poorly, fire them. That's where this should start, and where it should end. People are already selling their time to their employers, and they shouldn't have to sell their souls too.
  • cma 7y ago
    > Should my employer have the right to impose a curfew on me so that I'm not tired the next day at work? I bet the military has done that for centuries. Though I wouldn't want companies too start drafting people.
  • CalChris 7y ago
    We already have drug testing in many industries, particularly shipping. https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/Drug%20Testing%20FAQs.pdf https://www.portseattle.org/sites/default/files/2018-03/Drug...
    • zamadatix 7y ago
      To see if you're illegally operating port machinery in a state likely to kill people is a different discussion than "did they have a smoke on their day off?"
      • Cougher 7y ago
        Do they test for Ambien use?
• downrightmike 7y ago
  Having worked in an org where nearly everyone smoked, they usually were outside smoking and "Discussing problems and solutions" Every hour on the hour at least. Being at my desk getting work done, and then having to hear about how behind everyone else was or how swamped they are. Or "Mike your leaving?" "Yeah, My cases are all green" They scoff, but if you smoke two hours off the day, they easily did I kept track, you should stay late to complete your work in a timely manner.
  • decebalus1 7y ago
    cool story. What does this have to do with general nicotine consumption, the thing they're targeting? They're not banning smoking at the workplace, which is what you're talking about, they're targeting smoking in your own free time. Also, nicotine gum.
• diogenescynic 7y ago
  It's pretty frustrating how Americans have such authoritarian and dictatorial workplaces. We need more workplace democracy. Employers shouldn't be allowed to dictate what you legally do in your non-working hours if it has no impact on work (contraceptive coverage, etc.). This is how we got to the point that Amazon workers are pissing themselves in warehouses while trying to meet asinine metrics. Sad that all these gains in productivity haven't been leverages in any way to help wage earners and have mostly just continued going to the top .01%.
• velox_io 7y ago
  Most 'Smoke-free' policies are superficial and often make the problems worse e.g. Smoke-free sites mean people smoke near entrances, causing more annoyance for non-smokers. I've noticed most building sites around London are smoke-free as they have a line of builders smoking on the pavement. Their smoke becomes unavoidable to anyone/ everyone walking past. I absolutely detest smoking, especially when they're exposing others to their cancer. When my dad died [of lung cancer] we weren't on good terms as I wasn't sympathetic to him. It was no surprise he got lung cancer as he smoked like a chimney and had a chronic cough for over a decade. The reason I have zero sympathy is because they made my sister and I breathe that crap in as kids (my sister is also very anti-smoking). However, I don't have a problem with vaping. It is many orders of magnitude safer than smoking yet it is tarred (excuse the pun) with the same brush. In The States along smoking kills 500,000 people per year. Lives would be saved if people were encouraged to vape (it's by far the lesser of two evils). The media is even more anti-vaping. Like the scare stories about that mystery lung disease killing vapers. As I vape CBD myself (I have a condition that causes muscle spasms, vaping is by far the most effective way to reduce them) I followed the story very closely. It was apparent that it was THC vape products in/ around New York from the get-go, yet a totally different message was coming from the media. Even if they did attribute those deaths to vaping, 14 [in total] is better than the 1,400 per day from smoking!
  • beatgammit 7y ago
    Absolutely. I hate everything to do with smoking/vaping and drugs in general, but when it comes to policy, I go based on harm to others. Smoking has real harm to others, but vaping is pretty much harmless.
• corndoge 7y ago
  The nicotine half life is 2 hours. Don't know how they plan to enforce this.
  • gnulinux 7y ago
    Some comments above claim nicotine can be tested weeks after consuming. I wish someone could clarify if this is possible.
    • lm28469 7y ago
      Just like weed, and many other substances, you can find traces in hair weeks or months after exposure. So if you smoke semi-regularly you'd always test positive depending on the threshold.
      • gnulinux 7y ago
        But this is about a piss test, not hair test, so could this be done with urine too? Also don't human body produce nicotine naturally as a neurotransmitter (unlike THC etc), which means they need to use a range as a marker for "smoker" so there will be false positives, how do they deal with this?
• lulula 7y ago
  Good luck to uhaul achieving hiring goals. I imagine that they have to disqualify a significant fraction for drug use, and now they want to add nicotine. Good luck with that. Maybe they really really just want to reduce the incentive to hiring. There's an entire economic sector that struggles with finding good people because of the drug crisis. You don't encounter this problem in startup land, but talk to restaurants or places looking for general manpower that doesn't require a college degree. Finding talent who will pass drug tests is a struggle. Now adding a nicotine? Good luck. We couldn't get universal healthcare fast enough. When you couple employment with healthcare, it is only logical that employment will start disqualifying people based on lifestyle choices. Start with nicotine today. Tomorrow add obesity and diabetes. Why both sides of isle seem to double-down, no triple down, on getting benefits from work is crazy to me. The left sees the policy as a way of extracting rents/dues from corporations. The right sees it as enforcing a 'working makes free' philosophy on the poor.
• pioneerpass 7y ago
  You are a resource, and the owners of a resource get to decide how the resource is used.
• SergeAx 7y ago
  It's an insane move, there's no doubt here. The question is: how did they came to that point? What are they trying to achieve? Is it about their HR brand, or just a pipedream of some C-level executive or even someone from the ranks below? What was the mindset behind this decision? Lots of questions, no answers yet.
• metabagel 7y ago
  I suspect they simply don’t want their sales associates to smell like smoke.
• C14L 7y ago
  And soon connected to your fitness tracker.
• racecar789 7y ago
  I feel sorry for the field staff and local managers who have to recruit talent. Also for potential recruits that require nicotine doses (via non-smoking means) to control inflammation.