Mike Hofman, the executive editor at Inc. magazine, posted an item on the magazine's blog about a Massachusetts man who sued Scotts lawncare company after he was fired after failing a drug test that showed nicotine in his system...even though he didn't smoke on the job. (Read the item at http://blog.inc.com/archives/2006/11/30/smokers_firing_sparks_lawsuit.html)
It reminded me of a Sound Off question I posed to readers back in January 2005, shortly after Weyco, an employee-benefits company in Michigan, announced it would begin testing its employees for nicotine use. Most of my readers were outraged. You can read their unedited responses at http://marketing.nytsyn.com/nytsyn/editorial/rightthing24.html if you scroll down the page.
If you'd like to post a comment on the current case that's in Mike's blog item or written about in more detail at http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/11/30/off_the_job_smoker_sues_over_firing/, or about the issue of employers testing employees for nicotine use in general, you can click on "comments" below.
I have read the comments posted on the last anti-smoker hiring policy post, and I have to say I amazed that someone had the notion to post a comment that said smoking was not a health risk.Perhaps that was tongue in cheek... maybe he dips snuff? (Cheek... get it?)
I CAN tell you that Workers Comp studies have shown that smokers file many more claims. I would not hire a smoker, ever.
I would not test a worker either-- I think these are 2 different issues. and if I hired non smokers, I might let them know that was a criterion-- or I might not. (If they have never smoked, why discuss it at all?)
I did not take the time to read the most recent case, but I think testing is a slippery slope. Refusing to hire smokers is not.
Post a Comment