Originally posted by Swank
Curious about the views of discriminating against smokers vs obese people; should the same rules apply?
29 states and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination based on legal activities outside the workplace, which includes smoking tobacco. In these states, it is illegal for an employer not to hire you simply because you are a smoker.
Smoking is a choice, smokers typically take more sick days a year, and more smoke breaks. They have reduced pulmonary capacity which would impact their abilities for work requiring physical exertion.
I know some people would pay more to eat at a restaurant with non-smoking staff (especially cooking staff), and they wouldn't even think twice if the price was the same.
How far should a company have to put themselves out to accommodate workers though?
Do you feel that employers should have to spend more money to buy specialized officer furniture to accommodate higher weight? Should they have to buy more expensive uniforms to accommodate larger bodies? Should they have to allow frequent, extended breaks due to physical exertion? Provide mobility aids for employees?
Would you be ok with the cost of these things being passed onto the workers who require them or should the employer be forced to pay more to make accommodations? Or should the employer be allowed to assess the pros and cons of each potential hire and make their own decision?
As for the cost of smoking compared to excess weight/inactivity, there is a paper a few pages back showing the cost of smoking is now less than excess weight.
See Crank. See Crank Walk. Walk Crank Walk.