Some Employers Refusing To Hire Smokers

Some Employers Refusing To Hire Smokers
Truman Med Says It Wants To Promote Healthy Habits

POSTED: 4:14 pm CST November 22, 2007
UPDATED: 4:52 pm CST November 22, 2007

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- We all know about the debate over smoking in public places. Several cities have banned it in restaurants and bars. But now some employers are taking it a step further. They won't even hire smokers to work at their company.

KMBC's Jere Gish reported that when you fill out an application, there can be all kinds of questions. But when Julie Draper saw one that asked her if she used tobacco products, she answered truthfully that she was a smoker. Draper said she was stunned when she was told that kept her from getting the job."

The report goes on to say...

"The no-smoking policy is enforced. Gish said a hospital spokesperson told him that recently it was discovered that an employee was a smoker even though that person indicated on their application that they did not use tobacco products. The person is no longer employed at Truman Med.

Employees who started before February 2006 were grandfathered in. But new potential hires are out of luck."

(The full report)

I feel that a business has the right to decide whether to ban smoking or not. It is after all -- their business. With this in mind, I feel a smoking ban should be up to "each" business owner and not something forced upon the business by a government ordinance. If there can be no-smoking businesses, then there should also be ones that allow smoking. Otherwise, there is discrimination against people for doing something that remains legal. This is not right!

I will say this again! No non-smoker (which includes me) is "forced" to go into a smoking establishment such as a restaurant or bar. Going in is choice. And, if a bar's customers is made up entirely of smokers, how can people say that second hand smoke is a health issue? How can they say it and keep a straight face?