What say you?

I think technically it is, but I say no.

 

I know of a few companies that ask in the phone stages of interviews if you smoke, and those that say they do are never given second interviews.

UAB Hospital will no longer hire tobacco users beginning sometime this year.

No.

How would it be any different than not hiring someone that has unhealthy eating habits?

Smokers do not be long to a protected class. So no it is not.

By definition of course! Discriminating is using criteria to make a decision. Smoking is just one criteria.

 

You didn't specifically ask if it was right, wrong or illegal? Whether it is or isn't, it is a trend.

Nope, not at all. Smoking is a personal choice....you don't have to smoke. Smokers tend to miss more time due to illness. If I have two candidates of equal ability and one smokes, I'm hiring the one that doesn't smoke.

For the record I don't smoke, or use any form of tobacco.

No, smokers are less productive because they take "smoke breaks", smell bad (matters in a sales position), and get sick more often.

By definition it is discrimination.

 

By law it's not illegal.

No, smokers are less productive because they take "smoke breaks", smell bad (matters in a sales position), and get sick more often.

 

Especialy in the winter time to all 3. It is a choice, just like being morbidly obese is.

Religon is a choice.

It is illegal in Kentucky, not in Ohio

By definition it is discrimination.

 

By law it's not illegal.

 

This.