in the interest of enforcing conformity in corporate culture is "Wellness"?
Hums a little old tune.. 'It is the dawning of the age of hysteria.."

The underlying message is: "If you want to smoke, go work for someone else".

I'm not confident this will result in an increase in smokers opting to quit. But one can hope...

What will they do? Body searches of employees for nicotine patches? Blood tests? Gum testing? Check social media for evidence of vaping off company hours? It's not about wellness, its about conformity and marketing. Plus, theyve probably negotiated a break on insurance premiums, so it's about profit too. But you are right, no one is forced to work for the sunzabitches.

Why should a company have to pay to treat the preventable illnesses that smokers are at risk for? Smoking is a choice, not something one is born with.

I think the rules of workplace non-smoking should conform to privacy laws and search and seizure regulations. But if a company finds out incidentally that an employee smokes, they are within their rights to fire him/her.

"Pooled risk" is the foundation of proper health insurance. The larger the pool, the better. As soon as you start peeling people into their own "class" or "pool," you have the joke we have today -- health insurance only for the healthy or those that are "properly behaved." All others go into high-risk pools with enormous premiums or "pretend" insurance with $10K or higher deductibles..

preventable. Really SMH.

Our firm has two rates for premiums, one for smokers and then the preferred rate, which now to qualify for you have to go to a health coach. From what I can gather, anyone over 50 are required to go though this BS if they want to have the lower rate. Obviously at 55, my health is going to be different than 25 year old, but that is not considered. Since they are phone calls from some someone who doesn’t know me, I just tell them what they want to hear.

I don’t smoke cigarettes and it’s been 25 years since I had weed.

be familiar with it! Of course, being a life-long non-smoker, nor user of any other tobacco or nicotine-related product, it's never been a major concern of mine. I am aware of a few who have been cheating the system for years, and have yet to get caught.

Or people who don’t exercise.

The company should give out free fitness trackers and fire the lazy ones who don’t have a healthy lifestyle.

So in the end you can have two groups of people: those young and healthy enough to afford health insurance (who don't really need it), and those aging and sick enough to need it (who can't really get it).

I think there should be a limit to what an employer can require when employees are off the clock. Where do you draw the line?

I have no idea how they plan to figure out which applicants smoke. Basically they are blowing smoke and would be better off gradually making their campuses non-smoking, you will be surprised how effective that route is, and legal (which I am not sure not hiring smokers is).

BTW, I worked in corporate America, I never saw heavy people or smokers denied jobs that they could do. There are clearly some jobs that say a heavy person can't do, but typically 95% of the jobs they could do without issue.

Having well defined reasons why people can't do something in some areas is perfectly legal.

I'm diabetic, and my appetite is gone. Have to force myself to eat sometimes.

Still fat but is going away.

That is what it sounds like. Nothing worse than an ex-smoker on a mission. I made it a point to never be like that when I quit.

How is it discriminatory?

Although alcoholism can be a disability under the ADA which may require the employer to provide reasonable accommodations.

Every place around my town has hiring signs. How dumb can you be?

adjoining areas where smoking and any open flame can be dangerous.

I don't see how U-Haul figures out who smokes and who doesn't without people being ratted out. Companies are within their rights to make their campuses non smoking zones entirely, that doesn't infringe on a smoker's or vaper's rights, but does prevent said people from exposing non smokers or non vapers to the risks of secondhand smoke, and importantly for some companies, it keeps smokers from lighting up near areas where such an action can be dangerous.

... built for the hardest core nicotine addicted patients.

I've seen people out there in fifty degree weather wearing hospital gowns and pushing I.V. stands.

The oral nicotine alternatives offered must not have been enough.

Our company has an (optional) wellness program that I don't participate in because I think it's intrusive and that one intent is to find grounds to fire people. (I am also healthy, and have taken fewer than five sick days in 20 years). And I don't smoke.

I just think this is going too far. Smoking is legal. I can see testing people who are drivers for things that might cause impairment, like alcohol and drugs, before they head out on the road, but this sounds as if it's at their offices. Or maybe it's mechanics and people in the rental companies, I don't know. I just don't think it's right. What if they decided not to hire anyone who's on a prescription, even if it's legal? Aren't opioids just as much of a problem to insurance companies as smokers?

Haven’t had a smoking thread in AGES...

Smokers are kicked out if they smoke on the property. There are big red smoking is not permitted on the premises signs as you enter here.

The housing is disability housing.
I am so glad I never smoked.