U-Haul’s ban on hiring nicotine users is discriminatory, senseless and wrong

Smoking is awful, a creator of tragedy and a drain on America’s health. It also happens to be legal, and that’s where the line should be drawn in the sand when it comes to an employer’s ability to dictate the behaviors of its employees.

U-Haul, which employs more than 30,000 people nationwide, has dipped its toe into problematic waters by announcing that starting Feb. 1 it will no longer hire people who smoke, vape, or chew tobacco – at all.

Employees will have to answer questions on their applications about their nicotine use and, in states where it’s legal, submit to nicotine screening tests in order to be hired. The policy will be imposed in the 21 states where these kinds of impositions are legal. California isn’t one of them. Existing employees will not be subject to the rule. But those hired under it will be subject to further nicotine screening.

“We are deeply invested in the well-being of our Team Members,” Jessica Lopez, the Arizona-based company’s chief of staff, said in a press release. “Nicotine products are addictive and pose a variety of serious health risks. This policy is a responsible step in fostering a culture of wellness at U-Haul, with the goal of helping our Team Members on their health journey.”

But there is nothing healthy about corporations playing the role of Big Brother to their employees, forcing their way into personal lives to require or ban certain behaviors.

Of course, the company has the right to impose an absolute ban on smoking during work hours and in its buildings and vehicles. U-Haul’s viewpoint that hiring non-smokers will keep health insurance costs down is potentially legitimate. But that also brings up some scary issues about making the rules about what constitutes “healthy enough” behavior versus justifiable cost containment.

Elderly people account for a lot more in medical spending than younger people. There are laws against age discrimination in hiring as well, but we also know it happens all the time.

How about obesity? A 2001 RAND study that compared the effects of obesity, smoking, heavy drinking and poverty on health expenditures concluded that “obesity is the most serious problem. It is linked to a big increase in chronic health conditions and significantly higher health expenditures. And it affects more people than smoking, heavy drinking, or poverty.”

Is it time to set a body-mass index limit on new employees? Where should that be? What if their blood tests indicate stellar health? Or turn it around: How about people who maintain a trim body but have problematic health risks anyway?

For that matter, I know people who have maintained a one-cigarette-a-day habit for decades. I doubt their health is worse or their prospects poorer than a person who chows down on highly-processed meat and potato chips every day and washes it down with two-liter bottles of soda.

Although the policy could potentially have some impact on the company’s health insurance costs, it’s worth keeping in mind that the rule does nothing to safeguard people’s health. The people who will apply there will not be smokers. Yes, chances are they will be healthier than non-smokers. But the policy won’t have made them that way, and it’s not going to cut down on the number of smokers in the areas where it operates.

It’s easy to say, “Just quit smoking and you can have a job, too.” Nicotine is a notoriously difficult addiction to break.

According to the anti-tobacco Truth Initiative: “In 2015, 66.7 percent of male smokers were interested in quitting smoking and 55.3 percent had made a quit attempt in that year. Only 7.2 percent successfully quit.” Experts in the field of addiction consider nicotine at least as difficult to quit as heroin.

For various reasons, certain ethnic groups, as well as low-income people, are more prone to smoking than middle-class white people. People below the poverty line are 40 percent more likely to smoke than others. If policies like this were adopted by large numbers of companies, the people trapped in addiction and most in need of a job would be least able to find employment.

That’s what’s potentially most dangerous about these kinds of rules. Start them and it’s hard to imagine where they end. Other companies see an opportunity to do the same thing. Then new rules can potentially creep into other private aspects of employees’ lives.

It’s easy to define what the rules should be for businesses: If it’s legal, off your time clock and not in the company workplace, it’s none of your business.

This story was originally published January 22, 2020 at 5:00 AM.