County: Smokers need not apply

SARASOTA — Citing the burden they place on taxpayers who pay for government workers' health insurance, Sarasota County officials announced Monday that they no longer will hire smokers.

The policy makes Sarasota County the first county in Southwest Florida to make smoking a hiring issue. Charlotte and Manatee counties do not, though Manatee has policies designed to discourage employees from smoking.

Sarasota County Administrator Jim Ley said the hiring ban came out of "a five- or six-year strategy to produce a healthier work force and manage our long-term health care costs."

The county currently pays about $31 million annually in health benefits for 3,600 employees, or $8,600 per worker.

Ley said not hiring smokers should help limit the annual growth in health care costs, the most expensive perk offered to county employees.

Patrick Reynolds, who runs Foundation for a Smoke Free America, said it is hard to gauge the popularity of such hiring policies.

They are less prevalent than smoking bans in restaurants and public places and largely dependent on state labor laws, he said.

"It's really a question of what extent the state empowers companies to refuse to hire smokers," said Reynolds, who only tracks statewide smoking policies. "We know these bans contribute to the overall goal of a smoke free America."

In Florida, government agencies that refuse to hire smokers range from the sheriff's offices in Hernando, Hillsborough and Pasco Counties to the city of Atlantic Beach.

Manatee County employees who are smokers must pay more for the best health care coverage and attend a class about smoking. The county is also exploring ways to get more people to quit, said Manatee County Administrator Ed Hunzeker.

Fat people cost 10 times more then smokers.

but you cant discriminate againts fatties.

but I see no legal authority for the government to deny employment to a smoker -

In Florida, the right not to hire employees who smoke was upheld by a 1995 ruling of the state Supreme Court.

said employees who smoke cost their employer about $3,400 a year in lost productivity and medical expenses.

At first I thought the same but I read your article in whole and found the answer 



Reading many of the replies on this thread, I can't help thinking that the real issue is being missed here.

The reason for implementing this policy is strictly for cost minimisation purposes, ie to increase companys profits or in this particular case, save taxpayers funds.

The rationale for this policy is outlined in the article


Now, I wouldn't have a clue if that figure is accurate or not, or if it has any foundation but that is the reason behind the policy.

So, I guess the issue that people should be thinking about, it how discriminatory can employers be on employees personal habits or characteristics in order to save costs.

I must admit, on first cursory glance, the new policy seems a bit heavy handed to me. I mean, they are talking about banning employees who have spouses who smoke, which is clearly going too far.

IMO they should think a bit outside the square in order to still cut costs, whilst not being discriminatory against smokers.

Maybe they could get the smokers to contribute to medical insurance or pay a premium. Also they can implement a policy whereby workers who take 5 or 10 minutes for a smoke during work hours, have it deducted from lunch hours.

There are ways and means they can achieve their desired cost saving(assuming the studies and statistics are accurate) without having to go for a full outright ban.