What if the policy banned something else - chewing gum, perfume, or eating foods with strong odors? All of those things do bother me but I put up with it because it’s not just about me.
Regardless of your thoughts on smoking, should a company be allowed to influence the personal lives of its workforce.
Companies testing for marijuana and other illicit drugs open the doors for this decades ago, now the intrusion is into legal substances. Where does the line end?
The slippery slope is already visible, be careful what you allow here, regardless of your thoughts on smoking.
The slippery slope is the only argument here. Testing for legal and somewhat socially tolerated substances is an encroachment of civil liberties.
> Those don't really seem comparable to me.
Neither would marijuana and tobacco smoking to someone in the 1950s.
I don't agree. The government isn't involved here at all, so no civil liberties are being encroached. On the contrary, requiring that companies hire people even if they smoke is an encroachment on the company owners' civil liberties. For something as clearly optional and harmful both to the smoker and their coworkers, I don't think being a smoker is worthy of having protected class status.
You are free to smoke; they are free to not hire you for smoking; and you are free to not work for them due to their policies. This seems like a fine situation to me.
The government is legally bound to respect your civil liberties.
Every other entity is just bound by their conscience and the consequences of their actions (we still live in a free-ish society after all). While what Uhaul is doing it not illegal it is still highly disagreeable from a civil liberties and employee rights standpoint.
Legal does not imply morally sound and vise versa.