Are Smokers a Protected Class?

Shannon & Parks (980 AM) were discussing the recent attention Truman Medical Center has received regarding it's stance on employing smokers. I didn't listen long enough to get all the facts on this particular instance (not that either Shannon or Parks are a reliable source), but was able to gather the basic tenants of the discussion:

Should employers be allowed to discriminate against smokers?

At first blush, I would say "no" they can't, for a variety of reasons; but after 30 seconds of careful consideration, I now say "absolutely yes!"

Those that disagree with me are quick to throw out the slippery slope argument - "if you allow discrimination against smoking, what's next, can you discriminate against fat people too? How about ugly people, or people with bad breath? Where do you draw the line?"

To all of the above questions my answer is still yes - as an employer, you should be able to discriminate against them.

Before I go on, I must make it clear that I'm not an advocate of discriminating against the federally defined Protected Classes ... I'll save my thoughts on each of those for another time.

First, nobody is entitled to any particular job. It seems our society is becoming more and more of the mindset the it is our right as citizens to have certain things. Our right to have a job, our right to own a home, our right to have nice clothes, our right to have our butts kissed by service workers, the list goes on and on. Unfortunately though, the fact remains that none of theses things are our rights, but privileges to be earned, and then opportunities to be kept.

Each job, and each employer, has a certain set of requirements that don't always have to be pure skill sets, education, etc. These requirements can be personality attributes, physical appearances, health considerations, or whatever else that particular employers deems worthy or necessary for the position they have created - provided it meets all applicable laws.
It's widely accepted that people are associated with what they do for a living. Like it or not, that's one of the initial questions people ask each other upon first meeting and many things are assumed based on the answer. It's not unreasonable to believe that the same thing works in reverse for employers - assumptions are made and images are formed about the company based on the people that work there and how they behave or appear.

If you have ever applied for health or life insurance on your own, you know that it costs a lot more if you are a smoker, or if you are in poor health, or if you don't meet any number of other requirements the providers have. Companies who provide these benefits generally pick up some or all of the costs, which ultimately effects how each employee's wallet looks. If my employer could either pay more, or provide better benefits because they adopted a firm no smoking policy, I would be a huge supporter. For those co-workers of mine that smoke, they could either quit smoking or quit choosing to limit the benefits available to those that don't by finding a different job. If my company wanted to take it a step further and add a reasonable fitness or body weight requirement and increase my pay even more, again I would be a huge supporter. In fact, even if they didn't increase my pay or benefits, but added these policies just because they were concerned about the "image" of our organization - I would be okay with that too. (It would be unheard of them to do it for the personal health gains the employees might receive - how dare they want their employees to be healthy!) Yes, the obvious question again is - where do they draw line, what's to keep from requiring a 10% body fat maximum? And the answer is obvious as well - when people stop wanting to work there and they find themselves without productive employees, the restrictions and requirements will loosen.

Is a health club that doesn't hire fat people considered discriminatory? Should we call foul on the modeling agency that doesn't hire ugly people? How about the white-collared financial institution that has a strict policy against visible tattoos? What about a dental hygienist with yellowing teeth and miserable breath? If you owned a cigar bar, would you hire someone who didn't enjoy cigars? Unfortunately, I will probably not land a job at the new hip and fashionable store - they say bland, I say timeless. A slippery slope indeed, where do we draw the line?

Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, it boils down to a simple question: Would you rather smoke than have a job? If you say "yes", you don't deserve to be hired. Ironically the woman who stirred this whole pot and brought about the media attention, was most upset about the whole situation because, "money is tight and I really needed the income." Hmmmm... if she can't figure out that smoking costs money and therefore contributes to the money problem, there's a strong chance that there are other reasons that she was fired.