|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by Johnny_Ringo
on Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:02 pm |
|
Hello,
I work for a company who has gone Nicotine free as of Jan. 1 2008. The rules are that if you were hired before Dec. 31 2007 you can still smoke on site with no disciplinary action. However, if you were hired after Jan. 1 2008 you are not allowed to use ANY kind of Nicotine and risk termination. The pre-employment drug testing now requires a Nicotine test as well. They are also performing random drug screenings as well, including Nicotine.(only for new hires after Jan.1 2008) This last Friday I was asked to sign a 2 part contract. The top half was stating that I would not do any illegal drugs etc. The second half was to sign to say that I would not use any Nicotine. This really bothered me! Is this legal? I know that basically while working for an employer that they can do pretty much anything, but this seems awfully hypocritical and possibly illegal. Any legal whizzes out there with an answer?
Thanks |
|
|
Johnny_Ringo
Newbie
Joined: Aug 24, 2008
Posts: 3
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by gilster
on Sun Aug 24, 2008 1:36 pm |
|
|
|
gilster
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 1212
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by CigarBoy
on Sun Aug 24, 2008 10:53 pm |
|
| I would say it is legal, if employees don't like it they can seek employment elsewhere. |
|
|
CigarBoy
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Posts: 236
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by mhedstrom
on Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:07 pm |
|
It's one thing to ban smoking, but if they ban the use of a legal activity while not at work or for that matter nicotine patches to quit smoking one would think that would have to be illegal.
Of course that was before we became the U.S.S.A
Not to mention that, according to all the health nazis, those not smoking will show a nicotine positive from breathing the SHS from those smoking.
If they ARE able to get negative results from the ones breathing SHS wouldn't we be able to use that to prove our point and overturn the bans?
There's my 4-1/2 cents. |
|
|
mhedstrom
Newbie
Joined: Mar 06, 2008
Posts: 9
Location: East Peoria, Illinois
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:45 pm |
|
| Depends on what state you are in. Here in MN we have a "right to work" law that says employers cannot prohibit you from engaging in legal activities outside of the workplace. I know that Michigan (think Weyco) and quite a few other states do not have a law of this type in place. It is legal to discriminate against smokers in those states. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Johnny_Ringo
on Mon Aug 25, 2008 10:39 pm |
|
Thank you all for all the informative responses! I would tend to agree with all of you a bit. The most bothersome thing to me is that :
A: There appear to be 2 sets of rules for employees concerning Nicotine. Upon further investigation supposedly employers can have as many sets of rules for individuals as they please. Personally, I think that continuity across the board will make for a "healthier" working atmosphere.
and..
B: This is a perfectly legal activity to partake in. All 50 states allow you to smoke as long as you meet the minimum age requirements. I can understand smoking while at work policies, but to tell me what I can or can't do in my own home that is within the law. Just seems kind of sad to me.
BTW, I do live in a Right To Work State and have looked into the law a bit, but was unable to find anything about "Employers cannot prohibit you from engaging in legal activities outside of the workplace" I am curious about this as well.
JR |
|
|
Johnny_Ringo
Newbie
Joined: Aug 24, 2008
Posts: 3
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Jay
on Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:02 am |
|
That sounds just about as dumb as an employee agreeing to neva drink alcohol on OR off of the job. Not smoking on the job is one thang. But agreeing to neva use nicotine period is outrageous.
I wonder if it's possible to "cheat" on a nicotine test by using a urine sample from a nonsmoker. Guess not since the employer still verifies the DNA assosciated with that cup of urine. |
|
|
Jay
Enthusiastic Smoker
Joined: Jun 10, 2003
Posts: 647
Location: Chicago
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by runamok
on Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:11 pm |
|
Jay wrote: I wonder if it's possible to "cheat" on a nicotine test by using a urine sample from a nonsmoker. Guess not since the employer still verifies the DNA assosciated with that cup of urine. |
|
|
runamok
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Dec 20, 2004
Posts: 1288
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Johnny_Ringo
on Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:48 pm |
|
runamok wrote: Jay wrote: I wonder if it's possible to "cheat" on a nicotine test by using a urine sample from a nonsmoker. Guess not since the employer still verifies the DNA assosciated with that cup of urine. They don't check DNA on a standard random or pre-employment test. Nobody's paying for that.
I would tend to agree. They aren't going to pay for a DNA test. They are just checking for Nicotine levels. Actually they are checking for Cotinine levels.Cotinine is a metabolite of nicotine.
"The word 'cotinine' is an anagram of 'nicotine'. It is used to measure the grade of tobacco smoking."
"Cotinine has an in vivo half life of approximately 20 hours, and is typically detectable for several days to up to one week after the use of tobacco. The level of cotinine in the blood is proportionate to the amount of exposure to tobacco smoke, so it is a valuable indicator of tobacco smoke exposure, including secondary (passive) smoke. People who smoke menthol cigarettes may retain cotinine in the blood for a longer period.[1] Race may also play a role, as black people routinely register higher blood cotinine levels than white people.[2] Several variable factors, such as menthol cigarette preference and puff size, suggest that the explanation for this difference may be more complex than gender or race.
Drug tests can detect cotinine in the blood, urine, or saliva." via Wikipedia
I contacted the law firm in the post above, and they did not answer any legal questions I had, but wanted to know all the information about the company an myself etc. to persure a possible case. I presume that they are more of a "pounce" law firm. Meaning looking for a possible quick kill.
I am just curious as to the laws in Arizona pertaining to an Employer dictating what an employee can or can't do outside of work. Even if the activity is legal.
Thanks for the good responses.
JR |
|
|
Johnny_Ringo
Newbie
Joined: Aug 24, 2008
Posts: 3
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by gilster
on Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:58 am |
|
Johnny_Ringo wrote:
I contacted the law firm in the post above, and they did not answer any legal questions I had, but wanted to know all the information about the company an myself etc. to persue a possible case. I presume that they are more of a "pounce" law firm. Meaning looking for a possible quick kill.
Oh yeah, they look like they're set up as one of those 'chasing' law firms. That's neat that you called them, they may possibly call your personnel department for information - that could freak them out....LOL
Check out this website:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/search?q=scott%27s
I cut it down using the search word 'Scott's' [check out Feb 4, 2008 entry]
District Court Judge: Smoker's Lawsuit Against The Scotts Company for Employment Discrimination May Proceed on Grounds of Invasion of Privacy |
|
|
gilster
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 1212
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
