U-Haul’s no-smoking hiring policy stirs wider debate

When U-Haul announced recently that it would stop hiring nicotine users in the states where it could legally do so, including Arkansas, the reactions were decidedly mixed.

“Good for U-Haul! Nicotine is a drug… . It just happens to be legal!” wrote one Facebook commenter.

“I’m not [a] smoker, but I don’t think being a smoker should keep you from employment,” wrote another.

One simply posted, “Dream on!”

Cigarettes have largely disappeared from employee break rooms and corporate boardrooms, mirroring larger societal trends in recent decades. But U-Haul’s move — which it framed as a way to foster a “culture of wellness” and reduce health care costs — stands apart from how companies typically address tobacco use within their ranks, such as cessation assistance, wellness programs and, in some cases, rewards such as extra vacation days.

Critics say the moving and storage company’s policy, which applies to new hires effective Feb. 1 in the 21 states where there are no prohibitions against it, takes corporate “wellness” too far, crossing squarely into employees’ private lives.

The new policy also applies to e-cigarettes and nicotine patches, which many smokers use while trying to quit.

“Smoking is universally considered to be a bad idea,” said Anthony Johndrow, a corporate-image adviser. “Now it can inhibit your career? That’s a new one.”

Workers give up some measure of privacy when they’re on the job, given the relative ease by which their

email, phone and browsing habits can be tracked. But companies are increasingly bumping up against privacy concerns as monitoring tools become more sophisticated, collecting personal data on employees through their apps, for example, or using artificial intelligence to scan applicants. Some argue that screening out smokers and not, say, those who drink, creates an unfair hiring dynamic.

Data suggests no-hire policies could disproportionately affect those near the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. According to the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Americans with low incomes, limited education and infrequent access to health care are at greater risk of developing smokingrelated diseases.

And some contend that a no-hire policy is the wrong way to encourage a smokefree workplace, as it further stigmatizes nicotine users as lazy or burdensome.

“When that habit is one that is concentrated among lower-income people, that is something we should really think hard about,” said Natalia Mehlman Petrzela, a historian at The New School, a private research university in New York City, who is writing a book on American fitness culture. “A decision like that ends up very concretely excluding working-class people from sorely needed employment opportunities.”

U-Haul declined to answer questions about the policy, including how much it expects to save in health care costs for its 30,000 employees in the United States and Canada. But a 2013 Ohio State University study estimated that employees who smoke cost American businesses nearly $6,000 more per year than those who don’t. The study found that smoke breaks represented the highest share of that premium in the form of lost productivity, followed by health care bills that exceed insurance costs for nonsmokers.

U-Haul pointed to other programs meant to bolster a healthy workplace, including nicotine cessation assistance for employees, gym and personal trainer reimbursements, and registered dietitian plans.

In mid-January, U-Haul had roughly 1,600 jobs posted on its site, from housekeepers to customer service representatives to maintenance technicians. U-Haul operates in all 50 states, but the policy applies only in the 21 where companies are allowed to not hire nicotine users. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have “smoker protection” laws that prevent hiring discrimination, according to the American Lung Association.

“If we take care of our Team Members, they will take care of our customers,” U-Haul chief of staff Jessica Lopez said in a statement.

But how do companies decide what falls under “taking care” of workers, and what simply intrudes in their private lives?

There’s a “policing aspect” to hiring decisions that draw on people’s health habits, Petrzela said. Policies like U-Haul’s impose value judgments against those who smoke, she said, whereas people who run marathons “must be disciplined and virtuous and fit.”

U-Haul is not the first company to take the no-hire approach. Alaska Airlines rolled out its nicotine-free policy in 1985. In an email, company spokesperson Alexis Myers pointed to nicotine’s health hazards and associated medical costs as one driver behind the policy. Plus, Myers said that many of the airline’s jobs, especially those at airports or on planes, aren’t conducive to taking smoking breaks.

Hiring policies aren’t the only ways large companies clamp down on smoking. In 2014, CVS became the United States’ first national drugstore chain to stop selling cigarettes. At the time, the company said selling tobacco products was inconsistent with its purpose.

But Johndrow said that even CVS isn’t a perfect analogy. In one case, a pharmacy decided it couldn’t focus on health care and still sell tobacco products to customers. But U-Haul’s rule could get messy given that it applies unevenly to applicants across the country and does not apply to existing employees.