Casino in Ohio Will Not be Hiring Smokers

[guywithashovel]

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...s-no-dice.html

They're even going to do nicotine tests on applicants, and if they test positive, they'll be disqualified. Not only that, there will be nicotine tests given periodically during employment.

The article doesn't mention this, but this story was aired on the local news last night, and the TV story mentioned people making the distinction between smoking and eating unhealthy foods, saying that the two aren't much different. Evidently, the casino is covering that, too. The cafeteria will only serve healthy food (that's what they said, anyway).

[Andara Bledin]

My workplace has been "smokefree" for at least 20 years because what you do, legally, off the clock, isn't protected in the state of California.

Nobody is particularly surprised that several former employees have admitted to smoking the entire time they worked here.

I know that at least one state does prohibit companies from any regulations or sanctions based on what workers legally do or do not do while off the clock, and I really wish more states would step up and protect wokers' personal time rights. It is nice to see that over half of the states have prohibited such policies. Intriguingly, my state is one of those, which I will pass on to the owners.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

The article doesn't mention this, but this story was aired on the local news last night, and the TV story mentioned people making the distinction between smoking and eating unhealthy foods, saying that the two aren't much different. Evidently, the casino is covering that, too. The cafeteria will only serve healthy food (that's what they said, anyway).

How...terrible?

[Seifer]

Maybe the casino thinks smokers aren't decent employees because they have to take smoke breaks?

(How do casinos handle breaks, anyway? Is it on a schedule?)

[mikoyan29]

If it's like any other casino I've been in, it wont matter if the employees smoke or not....

[Andara Bledin]

Maybe the casino thinks smokers aren't decent employees because they have to take smoke breaks?

(How do casinos handle breaks, anyway? Is it on a schedule?)

No, it's not for the breaks, it's for the health insurance issues.

There are hundreds of things people do while off the clock that have the potential to cost their employers money, and if we start allowing companies to dictate what employees can or cannot do while off the clock and off the premises, it will never stop.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

And yet, when all these potential applicants can't find jobs and have to go on welfare, the rich fuckers who own the place will be like "WTF? That's not fair! My taxes are so high why won't they get jobs?"

It wouldn't be so bad if they were at least consistent with it. How about firing employees with bad driving records? Bad drivers could get in accidents and lose time from work. Gotta pay out sick days, and their health insurance will be shelling out some cash for some bills.

Let's fire people who use tanning beds too. Might get skin cancer, lose time at work! If you're all sick and stuff with chemo you won't be working as productively either.

Let's just shun everyone who doesn't live a perfectly healthy, 100% squeaky clean life.

[bara]

if we start allowing companies to dictate what employees can or cannot do while off the clock and off the premises, it will never stop.

^-.-^

This pretty much sums it up.

[blas87]

And thanks to the fact that gambling is illegal in Wisconsin, but Native Americans can do whatever they want and own all the casinos in the state, we can still smoke in there

[Seifer]

No, it's not for the breaks, it's for the health insurance issues.

Ah, alright, that actually makes sense from a business standpoint.

Smokers aren't protected under any kind of discrimination laws (that I know of), so it's up to the casino if they want to hire them. Smoking can and does lead to all kinds of health issues, so it is a liability for any employer who offers health insurance benefits to their employees.

[Peppergirl]

Yeah, I think the casino and it's parent company might have bigger fish to fry now, rather than worrying about hiring smokers.

The one they're building here (referred to in the article) suffered a huge setback this morning in the form of a serious building/construction collapse.

http://www.wlwt.com/news/30313420/detail.html

PS - my eye-rolling smiley is not directed at the OP, but sums up my views about much of the anti-smoking crusade. Didn't want anyone to misconstrue.

[Racket_Man]

And thanks to the fact that gambling is illegal in Wisconsin, but Native Americans can do whatever they want and own all the casinos in the state, we can still smoke in there

yup the Indian casinos are one of the ONLY places that allow smoking inside. hotels state-wide just went smoke-free last summer. bars and restaruants went smoke-free in various areas around the state years ago.

[Dreamstalker]

If it's like any other casino I've been in, it wont matter if the employees smoke or not....

I was going to mention that...is the entire casino going to be smoke-free (for 'customers' as well)? If not (or even if; there are few ways to completely avoid secondhand smoke), how could the company tell if a positive result was from the employee smoking or just exposure?

[linguist]

I was going to mention that...is the entire casino going to be smoke-free (for 'customers' as well)? If not (or even if; there are few ways to completely avoid secondhand smoke), how could the company tell if a positive result was from the employee smoking or just exposure?

Blood levels of cotinine (the nicotine metabolite they test for) are much lower for secondhand exposure vs actually smoking.

[bara]

Ah, alright, that actually makes sense from a business standpoint.

The only way I would accept this is if the company banned smoking at all facilities they own and only on company property.

Anything less than all facilities owned means they aren't really serious and anything outside of company time is over reaching.