HRGuru

The following link  below is concerning the idea of testing employees for nicotine. I would like to really know what everyone's stance is on the topic. I personally am somewhat appalled at how employers are gearing towards the violation of human rights, and moving somewhat towards  dictatorship (my opinion). How is this a free country when citizens are constantly being dictated as to what they can and can not do with their personal lives. Healthcare cost is an issue not only for employers but also for employees. I feel that this is barbaric and that business owner's need to accept the consequences with owning a business, in some cases it is the option of Healthcare benefits. Another issue that I have with this is that most employers have employees to pay a portion of the cost so I feel that employer's are not the only one's contributing to the benefits provided within their companies. I personally don't see how in my opinion attacking employees will address the health care issue and what I do with my personal time I feel should be my business. Last thought why not go after the tobacco companies to help pay some of the cost by holding them accountable, which would be the logical thing to do? How does smoking affect job performance? Someone that does not smoke could very well acquire Cancer as if they did smoke, so who will this be benefitting? I do understand the health benefits, but this issue is only being brought forward in my opinion in order to cut employer's healthcare cost, which is the bottom line. I look forward to some feedback on this one. Thanking you all in advance.

http://www.shrm.org/hrnews_published/articles/CMS_026351.asp

Kindest Regards,

Dominique

What about a company that uses BMI (Body Mass Index) as one of the hiring criteria?

We are on the exact same page.  I am trying to impliment some changes without upsetting the managers who have been here for years and "we have always done it that way"

Yes, smoking is bad, it smells bad, is bad for your health and the health of those around you. It is also legal. What an employee does on their personal time should be personal. Smoking is not the only danger to the health of employees that contributes to the high cost of health insurance. There is also the cosnumption of alcohol, maybe next employers can mandate the amount of wine you have with dinner. What about overeating and consuming too much fat? This leads to obesity, which in turn leads to heart problems and diabetes. If smoking in the workplace has an effect on job performance, then it would be up to the employer to rightfully put in place a no smoking at work policy. After all, they are paying for your time and have the right to say how you spend it. A better solution for the high cost of health care would be some preventative measures taken that can help employees lead a healthier lifestyle. It is a shame that health insurance companies are reactive instead of proactive when it comes to this. Perhaps if they would cover the cost of smoking cessation programs and prescriptions they would not be spending the money on treating illnesses related to smoking. Just my humble opinion, try not to snap at me too hard for it.

Having been a generalist for a PEO (professional employer organization), I believe that there are companies out there with such policies, I just question the legality and enforceability of such policies without a BFOQ. For instance, a company I know of would have ee's sign a drug policy acknowledging that if they were injured at work that they would be drug tested and benefits would be denied or reduced based on the results of the drug test. The truth is that benefits could not be denied because the company was not an official "drug-free" workplace (as defined by statutes). Since drugs are illegal, you would think that you could deny benefits with proof of use, but it was not the case.