I have written a number of articles in favor of smoking bans. My company will not hire smokers and I mean not just smoking on the job, I mean even if they smoke while on vacation in DisneyWorld (although smoking there is getting harder to do) or at home; see my Employment Manual. Just so you know, I believe the government has no right to interfere in your private life, except... if you abuse your wife, children, or even your own body or property if it harms others.

I know there are Muslims who say that Islam gives them permission to beat their wives and it is none of the government's business to interfere in a purely religious matter. I know there are Africans who mutilate the vaginae of their daughters and say it is none of the government's business to interfere in a purely cultural matter. I know there are Christian sects who allow old men to deflower prepubescent young girls and assert it is none of the government's business to interfere in a purely religious matter. I personally know a pyromaniac who would love to burn down his home, not for insurance, but for the sheer pleasure of seeing it in flames; and thinks it is none of the government's business to interfere in a purely personal matter.

But you may object to the last: his pleasure may in fact endanger others. But isn't that exactly the objection of non-smokers? As to the others, I'm sure there are many in this country who will defend the abuse of women and children on the grounds that if we let the government interfere in those matters then it's only a matter of time that we'll lose all of our freedoms. I don't buy that argument. The government interfered in the right to own slaves and the result of that interference was certainly not less freedom but more since that was the basis for extending suffrage to women. According to the slippery-slope crowd we should have experienced a curtailment of all of our freedoms after taking away the right to own slaves. Didn't happen, although at the time that was precisely the argument used.

So I read today that the Whirlpool Corporation in Evansville, Indiana suspended 39 factory workers without pay, all who had claimed they were non-smokers to get a $500 discount on their company health insurance, after they were seen smoking outside their factory (1). I say deservedly so. Worse than smoking is lying to your employer.

As for why I don't hire smokers, higher health premiums is not the only concern, if it were, I would simply charge the smokers more to cover the extra premiums. No, insurance is the least reason, I have other concerns:

1. Smokers stink. (I should also mention I do not allow any employees to wear perfume to work either and for the same reason)


2. Because of #1 above they annoy my other non-smoking workers.


3. Smokers are horrible workers. They look at the clock for their next break and you can never find them when you need them because they snuck off to smoke.


4. If they're hiding their habit and refrain from smoking on the job their productivity is less than others because they are focused on getting through 8 hours without smoking rather than on working to make me money. The only focus I want is on my needs not theirs.


5. Smokers are less considerate of others and that makes for a more contentious workplace.


6. Smokers get sick more often than non-smokers


7. Smokers are stupider than non-smokers: they are more likely to resist wearing seat belts (2) and are therefore more likely to die in a car accident than non-smokers, so all my effort, time and money training them for the job will be wasted.


8. Smokers look terrible. Nothing ages the skin like smoking. I don't want my clients looking at human pieces of crap.


9. Smokers on average are more accident prone, and at least 20 times more likely to become involved in fires than non-smokers (3). And I want them in my business why?


10. Smokers do not have the stamina as non-smokers and therefore cannot give me 110% every day. Anybody can give 100%.

I could go on for a hundred reasons more but I believe this list should convince anyone that if you are an employer and you hire a smoker than you are an idiot.

And don't bother with the nonsense that people who eat fast foods or older workers also contribute to higher health premiums and therefore we should also fire them as well. As I said, higher premiums is the least reason and if it were the only one I would simply pass on the cost to the worker. Everyone has bad habits other than smoking but none have the impact that smoking does. A person who rides a motorcycle can contribute to higher premiums but in all other respects hardly affects the bottom line or the efficient and orderly running of a business as a smoker does. There is no comparison. Let's face it, smokers are just horrible, horrible workers, who wants any of them around anyway?

---

Related:

Planck's Constant,
Au de Stink

As to perfume, I do not allow anyone, male or female to wear perfume to the office. It is offensive to my clients and worse, to me. I can tolerate it if a female is wearing it very, very lightly for a romantic venue, dinner or wedding. But the office has no place for perfume, unless the workplace is a Korean Whorehouse.

CBS News,
28 Jan 2005,
Smokers Need Not Apply Here

"If you test positive for tobacco, you lose your employment here," says Howard Weyer of his health care company Weyco.

As CBS News Correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi reports, he not only forbids employees from smoking on the job, he'll fire them if they smoke ever.

His employees are forbidden from smoking at home or on vacation. They can't even light up a cigar when they have a baby.
...
Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws protecting smokers, but in nearly half the country, including Michigan, kicking smokers to the curb is perfectly legal.