
U-Haul to Implement Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy - smacktoward
https://www.uhaul.com/Articles/About/19926/U-Haul-To-Implement-Nicotine-Free-Hiring-Policy-For-Healthier-Workforce/
======
caconym_
If we start allowing corporations to dictate what their employees do in their
own time, where does it stop?

Safety issues are one thing (and should be a matter of legal regulation, not
individual corporate policy) but performance issues are another, and I've
already seen them conflated in this thread. Should my employer have the right
to impose a curfew on me so that I'm not tired the next day at work? Should
they have the right to attach a tracker to me to make sure I'm not cheating?

We are already flirting with corporate-employment-as-citizenship and crazy
dystopian things have become status quo, e.g. beyond-the-pale noncompetes for
leaf-level wage-slave class employees, and _all_ "inventions"/IP developed by
employees in their own time belonging to their employers regardless of
relevance to their employer's business or support they received from their
employer in developing them, and so on.

If an employee is performing poorly, fire them. That's where this should
start, and where it should end. People are already selling their time to their
employers, and they shouldn't have to sell their souls too.

~~~
treden
Found the smoker.

Joking aside, non-smokers should not have to pay the insurance costs of
smokers. It is all fine and good if you want to do that to yourself, but you
should also have to pay for it. Simply not hiring smokers is the right
decision, they dont get tangled up in the details of sorting out what diseases
stem from smoking and what are natural.

It's different paying for insurance to cover incidents or conditions that
people can't control (accidents, genetic diseases), or would be bad for
society to not cover (pregnancy, psychological issues).

~~~
notJim
> non-smokers should not have to pay the insurance costs of smokers

The very idea of insurance becomes toxic when you start to pursue this idea.
Everyone has some non-virtuous behavior we can identify in order to exclude
them. Maybe your colon cancer is because you didn't eat enough fiber, so we're
going to cut you off too.

All of this is why it makes no sense to have multiple "pools" for health
insurance, because then it creates incentives for people like private
insurance companies or employers to cherry-pick the healthiest people for
their pool.

~~~
mytailorisrich
> _The very idea of insurance becomes toxic when you start to pursue this
> idea_

Not really. In general an insurance protects you against risks outside of your
control and/or they penalise you for increased risk, and will refuse to pay
for intentional losses. We all experience this with car and home insurances.

Smoking and its health consequences are a personal decision and there is an
argument that you should not expect others to subsidise your life choices.

That being said, in many countries smokers are indeed made to pay because
tobacco products are heavily taxed and proceeds are used to fund healthcare.

In fact, I believe that for example in the UK taxes on tobacco products bring
in more money than smoking costs the health service.

~~~
incangold
As someone who took up smoking when I was young, stupid, and vulnerable,
describing it as a personal decision doesn’t fit my reality. I quit eventually
but it took 15 years of stop-start, combined with a constant, desperate sense
of guilt and failure.

There are limits to free will. Depressed, anxious, abused and sick people are
statistically more likely to make poor life choices. Let’s give them a break.

Agree with what you say though. I live in the uk and it did ease the guilt a
little knowing that I was at least paying my way.

~~~
Red_Leaves_Flyy
Tobacco companies, and really every major branded company product, rely on
manipulating shoppers vulnerabilities to make money. Advertising has caused a
lot of problems that we cannot address until we excise the source.

I'm fully supportive of banning all substance use from tv that is not made by
a nonprofit for educational purposes, forcing all substances to use generic
black and white labels that Are only differentiated by the brand name written
in size 12 font on the back of the container with the warning labels in size
16+ font on the front. Likewise banning all advertisements, and the
sale/distribution of branded products associated with companies that sell
drugs.

------
smnrchrds
Reminds me of Henry Ford:

> _The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with
> character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization.
> This was a committee that would visit the employees ' homes to ensure that
> they were doing things the "American way." They were supposed to avoid
> social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and
> many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become
> "Americanized." Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were
> single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives
> worked outside the home._

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-
stor...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-story-of-
henry-fords-5-a-day-wages-its-not-what-you-think/#3b27e5f9766d)

~~~
smacktoward
And the Pullman company famous for its luxury railroad cars, whose
paternalistic policies in the “model town” established outside Chicago to
house its workers led directly to one of the great industrial crises in
American history, the Pullman strike of 1894:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike)

~~~
ryanmarsh
From the Wikipedia article you reference: _" When his company laid off workers
and lowered wages, it did not reduce rents, and the workers called for a
strike."_

Was it the paternalistic policies or economic factors that caused the strike?

~~~
CalChris
Both. The economic conditions of 1894 were the precipitating cause. The
paternalistic policies were a contributing cause.

Pullman, Illinois was the definition of a company town.

[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/business-july-
dec01-lab...](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/business-july-
dec01-labor_day_9-2)

------
im3w1l
The definition of working hours are the hours when the employer can tell you
what to do. If they want to say you can't smoke at night then it's no longer
free time and they should be paying overtime.

~~~
mfer
I'm not sure this works out. I know that people who operate heavy machinery in
some states are tested to make sure they never, even in their free time,
ingest certain things. Even legal ones. In their case it's done (IIRC) because
of the impact those things can have on decision making and it's a safety
issue. These situations can even be required by insurance companies to have
coverage for the machinery operation.

While the case is different it does show a precedent for dictating some
lifestyle choices as a matter of employment.

~~~
ProAm
Pilots cannot consume alcohol 8 hours prior to flying for example.

~~~
spiorf
The survival of hundreds of people has more value than freedom of an
individual in his free time. One should not be allowed to put other people at
risk for fun/entertainment/whatever.

Profit for a business, on the other hand, must not have more value than
freedom of an individual. Otherwise, taking this to the extreme, it means
slavery. Max profit for no freedom.

~~~
randallsquared
> _One should not be allowed to put other people at risk for fun
> /entertainment/whatever._

I assume you mean to assert that the cutoff for putting people at risk for fun
is somewhere below pilots going on a bender before flying, but somewhere above
getting in a car and driving to the movie theater?

~~~
wyre
Going on a bender, getting into a car and driving is also illegal.

------
pm90
This is an interesting point in the argument for universal public healthcare.
I doubt companies work care much if they weren’t responsible for paying part
of employee healthcare premiums. This was kinda already the case with the pre
existing conditions nonsense before the ACA, but as costs skyrocket and
companies are forced to make intrusive lifestyle demands from employees I
wonder if it will finally tip the scales.

Universal healthcare already polls very well though... so maybe this won’t be
significant.

~~~
bluejekyll
It would be significant if companies start realizing that they could offload
some of their debt for “free” instead of using it as a bargaining chip in
keeping employees.

~~~
alistairSH
I assume large employers have already done the math and decided keeping the
status quo (locking in employees via health coverage) is a net positive (vs a
nationalized system of some variety).

~~~
pm90
I don't think it has ever been presented as a possible option for anyone to
seriously consider. Ultimately it would have to come down to the specific
plan.

------
torstenvl
Slightly odd that they're conditioning this on nicotine and not tobacco or
smoking. If someone quits smoking but relies on nicotine gum to get through
occasional cravings, they would presumably still fall under the ban.

~~~
Phylter
I think it's because there are health risks associated with most if not all
forms of it. Some forms may have small health risks though. Really, they don't
want to pay out the money for high health insurance anymore. I don't blame
them, I guess. But it does seem discriminatory.

~~~
sithadmin
>it's because there are health risks associated with most if not all forms of
it. Some forms may have small health risks though.

There is a strong causal relationship between _any_ nicotine consumption and a
plethora of cardiovascular issues. While these effects might be small for the
occasional user, they certainly have a detrimental impact on the health of
habitual users.

~~~
torstenvl
> _There is a strong causal relationship between any nicotine consumption and
> a plethora of cardiovascular issues._

{{cn}}

------
t34543
I understand the health implications of being a nicotine user but I’m totally
against policies like this.

It’s your body, if you wish to smoke you should not face employment
discrimination.

~~~
aza05001
Strongly disagree. I am very allergic to smoke, cigarette smoke in particular.
Its not just the smoker that's being affected. I've had numerous run ins with
HR about second hand smoke on the job and how it affects my health. I wish my
company had a policy like this.

~~~
ggreer
This is a no nicotine policy, not a no smoking policy. It bans vaping, gum,
patches, and lozenges. It bans employees from using them even if they are
never used at work. The employee simply has to test positive for nicotine.

------
velox_io
Most 'Smoke-free' policies are superficial and often make the problems worse
e.g. Smoke-free sites mean people smoke near entrances, causing more annoyance
for non-smokers. I've noticed most building sites around London are smoke-free
as they have a line of builders smoking on the pavement. Their smoke becomes
unavoidable to anyone/ everyone walking past.

I absolutely detest smoking, especially when they're exposing others to their
cancer. When my dad died [of lung cancer] we weren't on good terms as I wasn't
sympathetic to him. It was no surprise he got lung cancer as he smoked like a
chimney and had a chronic cough for over a decade. The reason I have zero
sympathy is because they made my sister and I breathe that crap in as kids (my
sister is also very anti-smoking).

However, I don't have a problem with vaping. It is many orders of magnitude
safer than smoking yet it is tarred (excuse the pun) with the same brush. In
The States along smoking kills 500,000 people per year. Lives would be saved
if people were encouraged to vape (it's by far the lesser of two evils).

The media is even more anti-vaping. Like the scare stories about that mystery
lung disease killing vapers. As I vape CBD myself (I have a condition that
causes muscle spasms, vaping is by far the most effective way to reduce them)
I followed the story very closely. It was apparent that it was THC vape
products in/ around New York from the get-go, yet a totally different message
was coming from the media. Even if they did attribute those deaths to vaping,
14 [in total] is better than the 1,400 per day from smoking!

~~~
beatgammit
Absolutely. I hate everything to do with smoking/vaping and drugs in general,
but when it comes to policy, I go based on harm to others. Smoking has real
harm to others, but vaping is pretty much harmless.

------
candybar
In isolation, this is fine but if this is a harbinger of things to come, it
seems quite problematic. Tobacco use is extremely strongly correlated with
schizophrenia and while this would be difficult to ascertain, likely
schizotypy spectrum (most of whom would be undiagnosed) as well. This may not
be an ADA violation per se, but it seems to have that type of effect.

Source:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia_and_tobacco_smok...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia_and_tobacco_smoking)

Edit: Wouldn't this potentially fall under disparate impact?

~~~
chapium
I guess you'll have to get a prescription for cigarettes then.

~~~
derefr
I sometimes wonder what a society would look like where everyone who is
currently self-medicating for an illness using a recreational drug, was
instead able to have easy access to a cheap prescribed drug for that illness
with fewer side-effects. Would things like alcohol and tobacco even be popular
any more?

------
fxj
In europe it is illegal to ask this kind of questions in an interview and you
don't have to answer. Even if you lie they cannot fire you. If they do you can
sue them.

[https://www.diepresse.com/3805136/verbotene-fragen-im-
vorste...](https://www.diepresse.com/3805136/verbotene-fragen-im-
vorstellungsgesprach)

~~~
pkaye
Do they let people smoke in the workplace?

------
chubs
Are they as concerned about people's health, or do they just want to get rid
of people who waste time on smoking breaks?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Are they as concerned about people's health

Only instrumentally.

> or do they just want to get rid of people who waste time on smoking breaks?

No, they want to get lower group health insurance premiums.

------
lulula
Good luck to uhaul achieving hiring goals. I imagine that they have to
disqualify a significant fraction for drug use, and now they want to add
nicotine. Good luck with that. Maybe they really really just want to reduce
the incentive to hiring.

There's an entire economic sector that struggles with finding good people
because of the drug crisis. You don't encounter this problem in startup land,
but talk to restaurants or places looking for general manpower that doesn't
require a college degree. Finding talent who will pass drug tests is a
struggle. Now adding a nicotine? Good luck.

We couldn't get universal healthcare fast enough. When you couple employment
with healthcare, it is only logical that employment will start disqualifying
people based on lifestyle choices. Start with nicotine today. Tomorrow add
obesity and diabetes. Why both sides of isle seem to double-down, no triple
down, on getting benefits from work is crazy to me. The left sees the policy
as a way of extracting rents/dues from corporations. The right sees it as
enforcing a 'working makes free' philosophy on the poor.

------
SergeAx
It's an insane move, there's no doubt here. The question is: how did they came
to that point? What are they trying to achieve? Is it about their HR brand, or
just a pipedream of some C-level executive or even someone from the ranks
below? What was the mindset behind this decision? Lots of questions, no
answers yet.

------
mfer
What might be the most interesting aspect of this is that...

company executives now (again?) think it's ok for them to dictate lifestyle
choices on people that have nothing to do with how the business is executed as
a matter of employment. And, it has nothing to do with religion.

------
diogenescynic
It's pretty frustrating how Americans have such authoritarian and dictatorial
workplaces. We need more workplace democracy. Employers shouldn't be allowed
to dictate what you legally do in your non-working hours if it has no impact
on work (contraceptive coverage, etc.). This is how we got to the point that
Amazon workers are pissing themselves in warehouses while trying to meet
asinine metrics. Sad that all these gains in productivity haven't been
leverages in any way to help wage earners and have mostly just continued going
to the top .01%.

------
metabagel
I suspect they simply don’t want their sales associates to smell like smoke.

------
downrightmike
Having worked in an org where nearly everyone smoked, they usually were
outside smoking and "Discussing problems and solutions" Every hour on the hour
at least. Being at my desk getting work done, and then having to hear about
how behind everyone else was or how swamped they are. Or "Mike your leaving?"
"Yeah, My cases are all green" They scoff, but if you smoke two hours off the
day, they easily did I kept track, you should stay late to complete your work
in a timely manner.

~~~
decebalus1
cool story. What does this have to do with general nicotine consumption, the
thing they're targeting? They're not banning smoking at the workplace, which
is what you're talking about, they're targeting smoking in your own free time.
Also, nicotine gum.

------
ivirshup
How is this not discriminatory?

~~~
toast0
It's certainly discriminatory. The question is if it's legal to discriminate
in this way or if nicotine use is a protected class. That they're choosing to
only implement this in some states may indicate that they're not totally
confident.

~~~
blaser-waffle
Smoking anything has no relation to protected class status.

The question is if they'd qualify as Disabled under the ADA as addictions can
qualify as a disability.

~~~
apta
It's quite ridiculous if that's the case. Someone getting him or herself
willingly into an addiction (especially nicotine) should not constitute a
"disability". Unless they're classified as mentally disabled since they
couldn't judge right from wrong to begin with, in which case they have other
issues to worry about.

~~~
MisterBastahrd
So if I get drunk and drive into a tree and can't work anymore because my
injuries were too severe, I should be able to get disability, but if I managed
to get hooked on an addictive substance then I can't even be allowed to manage
my addiction symptoms?

Only thing ridiculous here is your short-sightedness.

~~~
apta
Perhaps, getting drunk is a deliberate decision in general. People should face
the consequences of such (and we already see it).

------
racecar789
I feel sorry for the field staff and local managers who have to recruit
talent. Also for potential recruits that require nicotine doses (via non-
smoking means) to control inflammation.

------
dehrmann
Interesting to see this in a tight labor market. I also wonder how much
they'll save on health insurance.

~~~
diogenescynic
>Interesting to see this in a tight labor market.

Most Americans still can't put $400 together for an emergency and wages
haven't risen in decades, so even though the unemployment rate is better it's
clear workers have zero leverage to negotiate for better working conditions or
higher wages. We need labor unions badly in America. This would never happen
in Western Europe. While America may be a democracy, most Americans live under
the tyranny, for better or worse, of their employers.

------
corndoge
The nicotine half life is 2 hours. Don't know how they plan to enforce this.

~~~
gnulinux
Some comments above claim nicotine can be tested weeks after consuming. I wish
someone could clarify if this is possible.

~~~
lm28469
Just like weed, and many other substances, you can find traces in hair weeks
or months after exposure. So if you smoke semi-regularly you'd always test
positive depending on the threshold.

~~~
gnulinux
But this is about a piss test, not hair test, so could this be done with urine
too? Also don't human body produce nicotine naturally as a neurotransmitter
(unlike THC etc), which means they need to use a range as a marker for
"smoker" so there _will_ be false positives, how do they deal with this?

------
C14L
And soon connected to your fitness tracker.

------
bsder
You're all missing the point. Some statistician worked out that nicotine use
likely correlates to age and this gives them a way to fire old people.

~~~
9nGQluzmnq3M
Existing workers are grandfathered in, the new policy applies only to new
hires.

~~~
bsder
For now.

This is still basically being used to discriminate against older applicants.

~~~
blaser-waffle
Bollocks. Vaping is incredibly popular, to the point where Juul was taken to
task for marketing incredably hard at high schoolers.

It's a nicotine ban, not a smoking ban. That means vapes too, which means
plenty of younger workers tossed into the mix as well.

------
monkmartinez
2020 already feels like a train-wreck. The next thing will be caffeine...
after that will be non-hiring based on DNA predispositions.

~~~
gxon
It's a rather large leap to go from discriminating against people who consume
a thing by choice to discriminating against their DNA that they have no
control over.

~~~
nitrogen
IIRC there is a law specifically prohibiting DNA discrimination, so that law
would have to be repealed first.

~~~
inetknght
There's laws specifically prohibiting a lot of things. That doesn't stop those
discriminations from happening.

------
senectus1
they would do better to reward the non smokers.

------
mnm1
Here's some other bright ideas along the same line. Don't hire:

People who don't eat pork

People who eat pork

People with feet over or under a certain size

People who drive cars older than fifteen years

People who take public transportation

People who eat vegetarian some days but not others

People who eat bread without yeast

People who don't drink sugary drinks or eat sugary stuff

People who love chicken and watermelon

People who fast for a month

People who abstain from meat for forty days

Vegetarians and vegans

...

You can take this in any direction you possibly want because our governments
don't give a shit. You are free to die of starvation because no one will hire
you due to discrimination and hate and the government doesn't care.

------
apta
Good start. Hopefully more companies and work places follow with similar
policies.

~~~
_jal
I refuse to work for a company that wants my pee.

In an interview some time back, the interviewer mentioned drug testing. I
replied, "Do I get a bottle of the HR manager's urine in return?" They were a
bit flustered. "How do I know my superiors aren't stoned?"

I let him twist a bit and then took my leave.

Absent real public safety or other liability concerns, control freaks like
this can pound sand.

~~~
apta
Smoking can easily be detected without a urine test. The disgusting smell
lingers on the smoker after they smoke for example.

~~~
_jal
Read the article.

"In states where testing is allowed, applicants must consent to submit to
nicotine screening in the future to be considered."

And you are aware that there are nicotine delivery methods that do not involve
cigarettes?

~~~
apta
I still don't see the issue. They want their employees to be drug free.
Athletes already undergo drug testing for example.

~~~
_jal
You'll spot the issue in your word choice.

 _They want their employees to be drug free_

I do not belong to my employer. Maybe you're comfortable ransoming your bodily
fluids in order to labor for others, but I refuse to do humiliating things
that model one-way power dynamics for a right to work.

And until you show me how getting stoned offers a competitive performance
advantage to truck rental clerks, athletes are utterly irrelevant. More on-
point comparisons include prisoners and children.

------
elchief
This is just an attack on people with mental illness

[https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-public-
policy/...](https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-public-
policy/tobacco-and-smoking)

~~~
throwawayhhakdl
Is it absolutely proven that the causality isn’t the other way around, and
that smoking doesn’t cause mental illness? Because that would be my assumption
with a standout stat like that.

------
exabrial
Dave Ramsey [in]famously fires people that cheat on their spouses. Opinions of
his financial advice aside, his justification is nobody is making you cheat on
your spouse and they are not a protected class. A lot of parallels here,
health benefits are expensive for an employer to buy. Given these are
recreational substances, it would be in everyone's best interest to avoid
these hires.

------
inamberclad
I doubt this is legal. Can a company refuse to hire people who drink alcohol
because they're statistically less healthy than those who never drink? It's
already illegal to discriminate on the basis of other factors which influence
health, such as age and pregnancy.

~~~
astura
Smokers and drinkers are (generally) not a protected class in US employment
law whereas pregnant people and older people are [1]

Some states may have additional employment laws that protect smokers.

[1]
[https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/smallbusiness/faq/who_is_prot...](https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/smallbusiness/faq/who_is_protected.cfm)

~~~
jnwatson
It isn’t an EEOC violation, but possibly an ADA one. Discriminating against
nicotine addicts might be illegal.

~~~
jakear
> An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a
> physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major
> life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment,
> or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment.

I’m not sure nicotine addiction fits the bill, what major life activities does
it substantially inhibit?

[https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335](https://www.ada.gov/cguide.htm#anchor62335)

~~~
Johnny555
_what major life activities does it substantially inhibit?_

Apparently, holding a job.

------
ganzuul
Even a little tobacco stinks up the place and cigarette butts pollute. Vapes
don't do this though.

~~~
EvanAnderson
I've sat in cube farms where others were vaping. I wouldn't say it "stunk up
the place" but it was perceptible.

~~~
ggreer
It’s like the bad wig effect: You only notice the vapes that do smell.

I was very surprised to find that a coworker was secretly vaping at his desk.
He’d been doing it for weeks before I saw him take a puff. Nobody noticed any
smell.

If the vape juice is unscented, the only aerosolized compound should be
propylene glycol– the same substance used in fog machines.

~~~
KingMachiavelli
Also the nicotine salt ones are much more discreet since they don't need as
much vapor per puff.

