Cincinnati Zoo Won't Hire Smokers

[XGatorHead 8904]

EDIT: Link I originally posted doesn't work, use Terpy's below...

[The Interpreter]

And they have already moved the page!

Try:

http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region_central_cincinnati/avondale/cincinnati-zoo-won%27t-hire-smokers

[XGatorHead 8904]

Thanks, Terpy! I was in the process of trying to fix the link when you posted!

[The Interpreter]

Note that this practice would be illegal in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, where they grow the stuff...

[SOB_TOM]

From Dictionary.com:

Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

Link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination

Tell me how this isn't discrimination? To deny a job because of a LEGAL substance!? I'm sorry, but I will no longer be going to the zoo because of this policy. Whether or not there is a law about tobacco users or not, this is and will continue to be discrimination.

And please don't get me started on the illegal practices of the smoking ban....

[Pillsberry123]

I think that businesses should be allowed to do this, but it's pretty ridiculous that they are.

What next? "Since Kings Island sells Coca-Cola products, you may not work here if you drink Pepsi."

[Guest rcfreak339]

^I'll give you a good reason.

Smoking can hurt animals, hurt kids and hurt other staff. Workers will not always be supervised so who is to say that a worker will not light one up while in the zoo?

It's smart in my opinion.

[coaster_junky]

@sob_tom

they never said that it wasn't an act of discrimination, at least what is being discriminated against in this situation is something a person has control over.

unlike in kentucky, where now, if driving and talking on the phone, you're allowed, unless you're under the age 18.

...but i'm kind of confused on how they are going to enforce the rule, they said they can check for traces of nicotine in an employee's body, don't they make products that help people to quit smoking by adding nicotine to their system?

[The Interpreter]

Discrimination is NOT illegal. Government discrimination against a person in a protected class is illegal. So is discrimination against a person in a protected class in matters of employment or housing. As has been pointed out, smokers are a protected class in employment matters in Kentucky. They are not in Ohio.

Next!

(Note also that obesity is not a protected class, nor are hillbillies, nor being under 40, nor is being LGBT under Federal law or the majority of states...)

Terpy, trying to help

[SOB_TOM]

Before I go political, I am going to just stop reading this thread. I don't want to hurt peoples' feelings (which apparently I have done in the past,) or again, start preaching about how smoking bans and bans against groups of people are unconstitutional. I will say this, however... No matter what the side effects of smoking are, it is a legal substance, just like caffine. The next step is to screen for "cronic caffine users" and deny them jobs because of "the side effects of caffine."

Tom, who is so infuriated with the Cincy Zoo that he can't see straight.

[Pillsberry123]

^I'll give you a good reason.

Smoking can hurt animals, hurt kids and hurt other staff. Workers will not always be supervised so who is to say that a worker will not light one up while in the zoo?

It's smart in my opinion.

^ Workers are always supervised. Maybe not by a superior, but by customers and fellow workers. If a customer saw a person light up a cigarette, I'm pretty sure that they'd tell customer service if it bothered them.

And if they are somewhere that no one can see, rather it be a customer, superior, or co-worker, then what's the harm (especially if it's in their own home)?

[shark6495]

well if they make a practice of hiring non-smokers then maybe they look at it as a way to cut costs on their health insurance premiums. Being a smoker, usually, means you are less healthy than a person who does not smoke. (if all other things are the same) ie. two men are both 24 years old, 6'0" and 190 pounds. the smoker will have more issues (usually) with pulmonary, cardiac, and other issues that can arise from smoking.....

[The Interpreter]

If an employer wants to discriminate against caffeine users, there is nothing to stop them from doing so...even in Kentucky.

Terp, just sayin'

[shark6495]

Discrimination is NOT illegal. Government discrimination against a person in a protected class is illegal. So is discrimination against a person in a protected class in matters of employment or housing. As has been pointed out, smokers are a protected class in employment matters in Kentucky. They are not in Ohio.

Next!

(Note also that obesity is not a protected class, nor are hillbillies, nor being under 40, nor is being LGBT under Federal law or the majority of states...)

Terpy, trying to help

my thoughts exactly. It has to be a protected class of people. I wonder why kentucky lists tobacco users as... oh wait I know why....

Before I go political, I am going to just stop reading this thread. I don't want to hurt peoples' feelings (which apparently I have done in the past,) or again, start preaching about how smoking bans and bans against groups of people are unconstitutional. I will say this, however... No matter what the side effects of smoking are, it is a legal substance, just like caffine. The next step is to screen for "cronic caffine users" and deny them jobs because of "the side effects of caffine."

Tom, who is so infuriated with the Cincy Zoo that he can't see straight.

Bans on people, i can understand. But a ban on an optional use instrument at personal property? not sure I follow the unconstitutionalness of it....

^I'll give you a good reason.

Smoking can hurt animals, hurt kids and hurt other staff. Workers will not always be supervised so who is to say that a worker will not light one up while in the zoo?

It's smart in my opinion.

^ Workers are always supervised. Maybe not by a superior, but by customers and fellow workers. If a customer saw a person light up a cigarette, I'm pretty sure that they'd tell customer service if it bothered them.

And if they are somewhere that no one can see, rather it be a customer, superior, or co-worker, then what's the harm (especially if it's in their own home)?

the ban takes place not just at work but at home......

[coaster_junky]

i know for a fact that the two head trainers for the elephant house have offices located *inside* the elephant house, the interior of the elephant house is off limits to the public, unless being given a special tour.

as far as i know, neither smoke, but what's stopping them from doing it in the privacy of their offices?

* i didn't mean for this to sound rude, just trying to state a fact.

[Pillsberry123]

If an employer wants to discriminate against caffeine users, there is nothing to stop them from doing so

Except for bad publicity, which hurts businesses harder than any law can...

the ban takes place not just at work but at home......

I know, that's the point I was making. I should have been more clear.

[shark6495]

If an employer wants to discriminate against caffeine users, there is nothing to stop them from doing so...even in Kentucky.

Terp, just sayin'

correct me if i am wrong, but isnt it only illegal discrimination if the business takes federal money? I mean if I own a small business and take no federal money I can hire who I want for whatever reasons I chose. However if my business does business with the govt then I am not allowed....

[The Interpreter]

I hear they don't let the elephants smoke either.

If an employer wants to discriminate against caffeine users, there is nothing to stop them from doing so...even in Kentucky.

Terp, just sayin'

correct me if i am wrong, but isnt it only illegal discrimination if the business takes federal money? I mean if I own a small business and take no federal money I can hire who I want for whatever reasons I chose. However if my business does business with the govt then I am not allowed....

If you own a small business, with some very small exceptions having to do with religious orders, you still must abide by the EEO laws. EEO is the law. It makes absolutely no difference if you accept any federal funding or not.

[shark6495]

i know for a fact that the two head trainers for the elephant house have offices located *inside* the elephant house, the interior of the elephant house is off limits to the public, unless being given a special tour.

as far as i know, neither smoke, but what's stopping them from doing it in the privacy of their offices?

* i didn't mean for this to sound rude, just trying to state a fact.

in the article it stated that this ban was only for new hires, not people who are already grandfathered in

[Pillsberry123]

as far as i know, neither smoke, but what's stopping them from doing it in the privacy of their offices?

Nothing, but what's the harm of them smoking in the privacy of their offices?

[coaster_junky]

^^i know, i was referring to the post about how if a zoo visitor saw a trainer/keeper smoking, they could always report it to guest relations.

edit:

as far as i know, neither smoke, but what's stopping them from doing it in the privacy of their offices?

Nothing, but what's the harm of them smoking in the privacy of their offices?

the zoo sometimes gives 'backstage' tours, just like Kings Island does, smoke is one smell that i cannot stand,(but i hold nothing against those who do smoke though.) and if i was going to have paid the extra money to get one of these tours, i know i wouldn't want to have to fight the smell of smoke that's lingered into the interior hallways.

[Pillsberry123]

Then they can go behind the building, or they can hold off on smoking for 10 minutes while the tour is going through. The smell would linger, but it's better than the smell of a cig burning right in front of you.

These are just my opinions. I'm a hardcore free-market fan so I think that businesses should make their own rules rather than be governed by an outside law, so I respect the Zoo's right to do it, but I don't support their decision...

[PREMiERdrum]

Smoking in their offices would be illegal under Ohio's indoor smoking ban...

[windshawne]

If the older employees were grandfathered in and allowed, wouldn't that be discriminatory to the ones hired after the rule? I avoid smoke, but the powers that be have their fingers in our lives too much as it is. The caffeine ban would never fly....

I also think the higher insurance premiums for smokers is bs as well. I had one policy that said I couldn't ride a motorcycle-I dropped it and went without insurance for 4 months.

[KI-ORIG-EMP]

I don't care what they say, it is just plain wrong. I do not care if it is not a protected status. Will they check your BMI next? Like to drink a beer? Like extreme sports? Will they check your credit next, which I think is a bunch of BS. I am applying for a job and not a loan. Just a note, I do not smoke. But what if riding roller coasters too much causes heart problems? Would they deny you a job on that basis? Which would apply to most on this board.

[The Interpreter]

Many, many employers, including mine, check your credit status before hiring you, and from time to time. If you do not agree with that, you will not be working there...Many insurance companies do likewise.

Many other employers, some of whom would never admit it, either do not hire the fat, or are much less likely to. It's a fact of life. Do I like it? No. Is it wrong? That's arguable. Is it a fact of life? Yes, it is.

[The Interpreter]

Job Candidates Undergo Credit Scrutiny:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38561183/ns/business-consumer_news/

[Cormaster]

personally I don't know why they just don't go ahead and outlaw smoking. Workplaces are starting to ban it completly, prices are reaching nearly $10/pack, you can't smoke in restaurants anymore, and some states you only can smoke in the privacy of your own home! I'm against prohibition but its getting ridiculous to the point where they might as well just outlaw it since they are making it nearly impossible for a smoker to continue on smoking.

As a smoker (who doesn't smoke nearly as much as i used to... still in the process of "quitting") I really hate the way society looks at us. They act like its just a choice and we can stop whenever we choose. Its not that simple. Its very very addictive, and its easier to say your going to quit than to just do it. As for me I quit "cigarettes" for 3 months last year, yet still smoked a single cigar everyday to take the edge off. And nowadays I still smoke at work only while sticking to my one cigar at home. Quitting for good and putting it behind you is very hard. I for one don't think smokers should be punished for the curse they must endure.

[PREMiERdrum]

personally I don't know why they just don't go ahead and outlaw smoking.

Tax revenue

Where I am, you pay a surcharge on your insurance premium if you're a tobacco user. It's nothing huge, less than $100 a month, but I know it was helped some coworkers kick it. The company will also pay for 100% of several different cessation programs. I've never touched the stuff. I'm too darn cheap.

[windshawne]

I don't care what they say, it is just plain wrong. I do not care if it is not a protected status. Will they check your BMI next? Like to drink a beer? Like extreme sports? Will they check your credit next, which I think is a bunch of BS. I am applying for a job and not a loan. Just a note, I do not smoke. But what if riding roller coasters too much causes heart problems? Would they deny you a job on that basis? Which would apply to most on this board.

I've had mine checked for jobs and insurance-has nothing to do with my ability to do the job. But hey, you know what? I dont' feel so bad-most of the country has bad credit right now and if they go by that, it will eliminate most of the country.

At some point you just say **** it, and I'm there