The definition of working hours are the hours when the employer can tell you what to do. If they want to say you can't smoke at night then it's no longer free time and they should be paying overtime.
While the case is different it does show a precedent for dictating some lifestyle choices as a matter of employment.
Profit for a business, on the other hand, must not have more value than freedom of an individual. Otherwise, taking this to the extreme, it means slavery. Max profit for no freedom.
I assume you mean to assert that the cutoff for putting people at risk for fun is somewhere below pilots going on a bender before flying, but somewhere above getting in a car and driving to the movie theater?
That's an understatement. It's wildly different. Nicotine doesn't impair judgement. In fact the short term effects are positive (it can be calming or enhance alertness).
Regardless, doesn’t seem like U-Haul should be able to tell you to not use a legal substance during your personal time.
My company does this by just charging people who smoke an additional couple dollars every paycheck for their healthcare.
Smoking is binary, so you can easily price for it.
Inhaling smoke isn't good for you.
(Also, if true, that still makes smoking not a binary)
Sure. Neither is being overweight, which is just as measurable as nicotine use. (Probably more measurable, since you can't easily lie about being overweight.)
It's the reason I've personally ceased my "smoking when drinking" habit.
Not granting smoking breaks or prohibiting employees from smelling like smoke is one thing but disallowing it entirely is too much intrusion into employee's lives.
Thats good! However, you shouldn't confuse what makes intuitive sense with the laws governing your country.
If a company came out saying 'sorry, we don't hire feminists'... they might... face consequences. Even if that is legal.
Right now U Haul is going after an easy target, since most people hate smoking - but the idea that just because it's legal it won't have any consequences is silly.
Companies can be boycotted, they could get grilled in congressional hearings, new laws can be passed, and because of incendiary behavior they can get scrutiny for the non-incendiary behavior (see Shkreli) and other negatives can happen.
The law is supposed to codify what makes sense, and when it doesn't, it many times will soon. Many times that includes nailing someone to the wall to set an example.
I hope enough people call their lawmakers to pressure the system into dragging the U Haul executives who made this decision through the coals. This 1984 style 'we are going to see everything you do' is getting out of hand.
If we didn't have this idea that your ability to afford health insurance should be tied to full-time employment, then this shouldn't be an issue. But I can see that companies have a very good argument for discriminating against people who willingly choose to harm their bodies and incur higher healthcare costs. If we as a society don't want companies forcing their will on employees for things they do off-hours, then maybe we as a society should change the way healthcare insurance is handled.
I will say, just because it costs them more money doesn't mean they should legally be able to act on that.
Many times someone from a certain religion might cost an employer more than someone who doesn't need religious prayer breaks. But legally employers can't act on that.
I'm not saying smoking = religion, but I am saying information available to make logical decisions != the ability to act on that information. Just saying we've already made the decision that we will legally restrict companies from acting on certain pieces of information and therefore we can expand this existing framework to protect other life choices (eating fatty foods, skiing hobby, driving a sports car, having kids, etc)
They can't act on that, specifically because we have a law that prevents them from doing so. Religion is a "protected class" in employment, along with a few other things (race, gender, etc.).
Smoking is not a protected class, so employers are free to discriminate all they want. Do you really want to spend your time writing to Congress to have them pass a law making smoking a protected class?
>having kids, etc)
I'm not sure, but I think having kids is already a protected class. If it isn't, it probably wouldn't be that hard to get that law passed. Getting it passed for smokers would not be so easy. Personally, if Democrats took this up as a major campaign issue, instead of focusing on more important things, I probably wouldn't vote for them any more.
Democrats are, in my view, the worst party in terms of focus and connection with the average voter right now. Wages have been stagnant for 3 decades for everyone, and somehow this is completely lost on the party. Instead they are trying to get Trump re-elected by focusing on gun control as a wedge issue. Focusing on worker’s rights or really any liberal cause besides protecting classes would make me much more likely to vote democrat. Not that I don’t think that everything is fine on those fronts, only that I think women’s/LGBT/immigrant rights should take a back seat to things like wealth inequality, worker’s rights, and global environmental health.
No, but I do like writing about restricting employers ability to discriminate employees based on their off-the clock personal hobbies and preferences.
Basically using your language, I hope that 'everyone is a protected class' when it comes to legal forms of entertainment and hobby.
This gets dangerously close to validating discriminatory hiring against any negative health markers. Do they start tracking your BMI next?
Does it though? Smokers typically don't get ill affects until later in life / retirement, at which point companies don't pay insurance.
Sounds more like typical Puritanical BS. Maybe they're just trying to get some free brand promotion.
Not dinging anyone who works there, but if you work for a budget trucking company and can't have a cig after what, I am assuming, isn't a great job in the first place?
Happy to be corrected by someone who knows more, but my understanding is the major deciding factor in the cost of a workplace plan is average age of the workforce at the company, basically little else. For companies I've worked for, the individual health of those who work there was not factored at all.
I'm willing to bet that if you tell the insurer "we don't hire smokers" you likely get a better price though.