The image of a smoker in the United States used to be that of a tall, rugged, handsome cowboy who radiated health and confidence. However, since the Surgeon General now requires all cigarette packages and advertising to carry health warnings, the image of a smoker has changed drastically. Smokers have learned a lot about humility in recent years. Relegated to the rear of airplanes or the drafty section of restaurants, they are sometimes even unable to rent the apartment of their choice. Now smokers face a new form of discrimination. Smoking, it seems, may be hazardous to the chances of getting a job. Citing everything from health hazards and productivity losses to outright stupidity as reasons, some employers are resolutely closing the door to job seekers who smoke. Others will hire smokers but forbid them to smoke in the workplace. Both practices appear to be perfectly legal.
Job candidates often find the question “Do you smoke?” written in red out at the top of the application form. Those who answer “yes” are told they needn’t bother filling out the rest of the form. Employees defend this policy by quoting surveys that show that non-smoking employees are more productive than those who smoke. They argue that people use cigarettes as a break from work, so smoking a pack of cigarettes on the job could mean 20 breaks a day. Smoking related illness can also cause high absenteeism.
Isn’t it illegal to discriminate against smokers? No, says the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – unless the result is discrimination on the basis of national origin, race, religion, sex, or age.
Don’t employers worry they might be passing up talent by turning away smokers? “How smart can they be with all the evidence of what smoking does to their health” is the usual answer. Other employers, while remaining firm on a policy of no smoking on the job, sympathize with smokers and try to help them break the habit. At Cybertec Computer Products Inc. in Los Angeles, employees who quit smoking get a $500 bonus.
