bcrayner on Mosio
bcrayner
this is a game for me...

Name: Brian
Location: San Francisco
Web:

283 Qs, 541 As, 88 FYIs
38 in bcrayner's Qniverse:
jay brandonpaski KungFuKitten Robot sharkey mosio boggle slikwacko barbiedoll musicmethod modcom grooviekenn TransAm tracylee bigmike akatrielle Kitteh rose ghostly vagabond Fixitfox north bethie elvis xianfox Herd ggapol bigkey66 Gingine Mangangali mylicon Moshe kamekaze confucius Hawk616936 GabrielM estelarobinson Hawk81596169
Buy a Mosio T-Shirt!
Question
Is it legal to disallow smoking on the job in California? Join or Log In to answer.
you mean like, forbidding smoke breaks?
-hunter (116Q / 476A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:34pm

Yeah, or hiring only non-smokers or people who agree to not take smoke breaks.
-bcrayner (283Q / 541A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:36pm

California Law only allows two 15 minutew breaks and a half hour for lunch. What you do wiht any of that time is your business. Trying to sneak in extra time would be frowned upon.
-modcom (41Q / 7735A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:39pm


You still have rights, but employers frown on smoking due to the increased costs of insurance.
-modcom (41Q / 7735A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:40pm

Comments:
can an employer forbid it though? can you get in trouble for telling someone, sorry we don't hire smokers...
-bcrayner (283Q / 541A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:41pm

(To bcrayner)
you can get in trouble for saying you don't hire smokers but you can say that there is no smoking allowed on shift, it would be considered a house policy, same as dress code or where you can eat on the premises, things like that
-estelarobinson (27Q / 611A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:47pm

(To estelarobinson)
i thought you could discriminate on the basis of anything EXCEPT the protected groups...
-bcrayner (283Q / 541A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:48pm

(To bcrayner)
it is not currently illegal to not hire someone for being a smoker but some places have been sued for firing someone they saw smoking somewhere else
-estelarobinson (27Q / 611A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:57pm

(To bcrayner)
i just read a lawyers blog that discusses smokers being included in the negligent hiring category
-estelarobinson (27Q / 611A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 1:59pm

(To estelarobinson)
not sure what that means...
-bcrayner (283Q / 541A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:01pm

(To bcrayner)
that is actually bad for business to hire smokers for insurance reasons, or customer complaints and the like
-estelarobinson (27Q / 611A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:07pm

(To estelarobinson)
ah... i would agree that it can also have the effect of impeding employee productivity, due to excess breaks, and increased illness.
-bcrayner (283Q / 541A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:10pm

(To bcrayner)
and resentment from non smoking employees. my last boss let me take "smoke" breaks cuz i was the only non smoker and he didn't want me to be left out
-estelarobinson (27Q / 611A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:13pm

(To estelarobinson)
i have a friend who is trying to get his HR to approve giving non-smokers more paid days off than smokers.
-bcrayner (283Q / 541A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:14pm

(To bcrayner)
wow. to make up for smoke breaks? that seems far fetched
-estelarobinson (27Q / 611A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:16pm

(To estelarobinson)
consider how much time smokers take... 5 minutes per hour... he's trying to encourage his employees to make healthier choices and to be more productive
-bcrayner (283Q / 541A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:24pm

(To bcrayner)
no i get it, it just seems like a difficult battle to win
-estelarobinson (27Q / 611A) Tue Sep 30, 2008 2:26pm


Permalink AddThis Social Bookmark Button

AddThis Feed Button