Right before Thanksgiving, we hired a new employee. Per company policy, he is in a 90 day trial period and he is aware of that and agreed to it. He is a really great worker – really, we have zero complaints about his work ethic. However, there are two things that are not preferable. 1. He smokes and it makes our tiny office smell. 2. He has a beard that interferes with a piece of PPE – he can’t get a firm seal on his respirator with the shape of his beard. We have mentioned #2 to him informally, but have not made a formal request that he shave his beard.
His 90 day trial period only has a couple weeks left. My boss decided today to create a company tobacco non-use policy (the wording is based off a policy written by a major aerospace company). No one else at my 6 person company smokes except the new employee. So this is really trying to single him out. Basically, my boss is saying “If you don’t agree to quit, you can’t work here.”
I have…feelings about this. It feels harsh and uncaring. Am I being too much of a softy about this? Do I just need to get on board?
Other information: Remember that I am part owner, so my opinion about company policy does matter to my boss. If this is unfair, I could discuss it with him.
Post by hopecounts on Jan 28, 2015 14:34:39 GMT -5
I think the timing is unfortunate, but is this a case where boss hadn't thought about it until this came up or that he is actually singling this particular guy out?
Post by underwaterrhymes on Jan 28, 2015 14:35:24 GMT -5
I am not a smoker.
But this would make me extremely nervous. It's such a slippery slope. Unless it's merely regulations about smoking on or near the property, I don't like the idea of a company telling me what I can and cannot do in my private time / on breaks.
It depends on the reason for the policy. Usually you see those for implemented for insurance purposes. If it's just because the office stinks, then I think it's a bit too unreasonable. That's the kind of thing that should be addressed with the employee - it's up to him to prevent that. It's an uncomfortable conversation, but them's the breaks.
I think the timing is unfortunate, but is this a case where boss hadn't thought about it until this came up or that he is actually singling this particular guy out?
he never thought of it until we hired a smoker. It's just been a non-issue until now.
#1 Makes me uncomfortable. I think it will appear that he is being singled out.
#2.....there are hospitals that state that you cannot have facial hair if it interferes with your ability to wear your resp mask. I've had to tell students to shave their facial hair. So there is precedent there.
Well, like I said, the policy is almost word for word the same as a major aerospace company’s policy, so I assume it is. If someone knows differently, then please school me.
We now have a smoke-free campus, so you can't smoke anywhere on the property, including in your car. But we aren't telling people they can't smoke at home.
I'd be more concerned about the beard/respirator not fitting, honestly. That seems like a work hazard. The smoking sounds very annoying, but yes - he is going to be 100% aware he is being singled out.
I guess the bigger question is - are you prepared to either fire him or have him quit?
Post by underwaterrhymes on Jan 28, 2015 14:39:55 GMT -5
As far as legality is concerned, it depends on the state.
Smokers are not a federally protected class.
However, more than half of the states have enacted laws that protect smokers from being fired or denied a job. They can absolutely enact regulations that prohibit smoking while on the job, but not while someone is at home or off-property.
But in other states, there are no laws to protect smokers.
Post by peppermint on Jan 28, 2015 14:40:15 GMT -5
i personally don't think a company should be able to determine what employees do outside of the office, unless it directly interferes with their performance or negatively impacts the company in some way.
i don't blame you for feeling the way you do. BUT i also hate the smell of smoke and that would really be unpleasant in a small office.
Ohio does NOT have a so-called smoker protection law, which makes smoking a protected class, which means that generally companies are prohibited from either refusing to hire or firing an employee for using any type of tobacco product during non-working hours and off of the employer's property.
So yes, it would be legal for your company to not hire smokers. The Cleveland Clinic is a high-profile example of a company that does not hire smokers.
I think it's illegal. You can refuse to hire a smoker; but you can't tell a smoker they're no longer allowed to smoke on their own time. You can ban smoking in the workplace, but an employer can't tell its employee what to do when the employee is not on company time.
Frankly I think your boss is a bit of an idiot.
I think my boss is viewing it as "refusing to hire a smoker" because he is on his 90 day trial period.
Well, like I said, the policy is almost word for word the same as a major aerospace company’s policy, so I assume it is. If someone knows differently, then please school me.
You're in Cbus, right? Quite a few companies here are smoke free. When we transitioned no one was let go, but the restrictions of no smoking on the property (including parking garages) have made it damn near impossible to take a quick smoke break.
If you institute this, I think it's only fair to subsidize smoking cessation program(s).
I had to take a breathalyzer test and drug test at my old job to ensure I wasn't drinking or using drugs, so I am guessing it is legal.
Uh. There's a big ol' difference between nicotine and, say, cocaine.
Right, but there isn't a big difference between nicotine and marijuana. And that stays in your system for 30 days, even though the impairment time period is just a few hours. If that had come back positive, I wouldn't have kept my job, even though the marijuana use would not have affected my work at all.
Well, like I said, the policy is almost word for word the same as a major aerospace company’s policy, so I assume it is. If someone knows differently, then please school me.
You're in Cbus, right? Quite a few companies here are smoke free. When we transitioned no one was let go, but the restrictions of no smoking on the property (including parking garages) have made it damn near impossible to take a quick smoke break.
If you institute this, I think it's only fair to subsidize smoking cessation program(s).
Post by captainobvious on Jan 28, 2015 14:48:05 GMT -5
Is he smoking at his desk or is the issue that the smoke smell lingers on his clothing, etc? We have a "only in designated areas" policy for the time being, but we're in process of making it a no smoking campus. We just decided to do it in steps, rather than all at once.
Right before Thanksgiving, we hired a new employee. Per company policy, he is in a 90 day trial period and he is aware of that and agreed to it. He is a really great worker – really, we have zero complaints about his work ethic. However, there are two things that are not preferable. 1. He smokes and it makes our tiny office smell. 2. He has a beard that interferes with a piece of PPE – he can’t get a firm seal on his respirator with the shape of his beard. We have mentioned #2 to him informally, but have not made a formal request that he shave his beard.
His 90 day trial period only has a couple weeks left. My boss decided today to create a company tobacco non-use policy (the wording is based off a policy written by a major aerospace company). No one else at my 6 person company smokes except the new employee. So this is really trying to single him out. Basically, my boss is saying “If you don’t agree to quit, you can’t work here.”
I have…feelings about this. It feels harsh and uncaring. Am I being too much of a softy about this? Do I just need to get on board?
Other information: Remember that I am part owner, so my opinion about company policy does matter to my boss. If this is unfair, I could discuss it with him.
How did he pass his Fit Test then? If he did not pass his fit test the beard has to go. You don't need that BS if OSHA walks in.
Yes, if he were otherwise a good worker, I would offer to pay for a smoking cessation program, if it isn't already covered by insurance. Give him the choice to quit or not.
But even if it's shitty, I think it's completely legal for your boss to fire this guy.
I get it. My office manager, who occupies the office next door to mine, smokes so much that her office smells as though she actually smokes in it. I HATE it.
But still. Even if it is legal, I would feel wary about it. Slippery slope. How would he couch it anyway? Like I don't want the office to reek? Or would he just not even offer a reason for it?
I guess the company as a whole has to decide whether its worth it to lose this really great worker because he chooses to smoke.
Is he smoking at his desk or is the issue that the smoke smell lingers on his clothing, etc? We have a "only in designated areas" policy for the time being, but we're in process of making it a no smoking campus. We just decided to do it in steps, rather than all at once.