Children's Hospital saying no to new hires who smoke

[lauradis]

There doesn't need to be any sort of justification on the part of Children's hospital. It's not discrimination and it can be as simple as saying our belief is that smoking is bad for your health and we chose to only hire nicotine free employees. Period. End of story. Doesn't need to be about money, patients, junk food or any other reason. And they have to follow up with a blood test because people will lie. If you don't like the policy, don't apply for the job.

Don't you see the problem with that thinking?

 

[lauradis]

Random tangent... As helpful as webmd is, it's not necessarily something I would quote. I mean, just about everything you can search for gives you the results of you having cancer or are dying, lol.

that's my point. Right now smoking is the devil for last 10 years. Junk food and obesity is next.

 

[SandiR]

There doesn't need to be any sort of justification on the part of Children's hospital. It's not discrimination and it can be as simple as saying our belief is that smoking is bad for your health and we chose to only hire nicotine free employees. Period. End of story. Doesn't need to be about money, patients, junk food or any other reason. And they have to follow up with a blood test because people will lie. If you don't like the policy, don't apply for the job.

My belief is that eating meat is bad for your health and I'm only going to hire vegetarians from now on. Period. End of story. And I will check your colon to make sure you're following my policy. You don't like it; don't apply for a job with me.

You on board with this? You don't think this violates any freedoms? You wouldn't worry about employers having too much control over your life?

 

[mousehockey37]

that's my point. Right now smoking is the devil for last 10 years. Junk food and obesity is next.

Actually, physical appearance is currently debatable too (ie piercings, tattoos and their being visible). As far as obesity, it's a growing problem (no pun intended) and with all of the hormones and additives put into products that go into food on the store shelves, there comes a point where eating healthy is still unhealthy. Mind you, people who have genetic and chronic problems that cause them to be overweight, have a medical history to back them up showing that it is due to those issues that they cannot maintain a "normal" size or weight.

 

[Bec3b1g]

As I said, in addition to these tests, do they also require FBI, Child Abuse and State Police clearances to work with kids? If not, maybe they should.

I guess I don't understand why this needs to be made into any other issue besides a hiring policy by Children's Hospital. Their board obviously feels that they don't want or need nicotene users as employees. Since it's not a case of discrimination, they can set whatever policy they feel reflects their company. You may or may not feels it's justified, but they don't have to justify it to anyone. If the employees feel this is an oppressive, slippery slope making, freedom infringing practice, they can rise up against these administrators and force them to change their policy. I kinda suspect this won't happen.

 

[lauradis]

Actually, physical appearance is currently debatable too (ie piercings, tattoos and their being visible). As far as obesity, it's a growing problem (no pun intended) and with all of the hormones and additives put into products that go into food on the store shelves, there comes a point where eating healthy is still unhealthy. Mind you, people who have genetic and chronic problems that cause them to be overweight, have a medical history to back them up showing that it is due to those issues that they cannot maintain a "normal" size or weight.

Smoking is a health problem just like addiction to food.

Smoker have a genetic and chronic problem of addiction

Addiction is a mental disorder just like addiction to food.

So why would a health company ignore one medical problem that is growing out of control and beat on another????

Because smoking is no longer pc. period. So lets not fool our selves, junk food and overweight is going to be the next devil.

 

[mousehockey37]

Smoking is a health problem just like addiction to food.

Smoker have a genetic and chronic problem of addiction

Addiction is a mental disorder just like addiction to food.

So why would a health company ignore one medical problem that is growing out of control and beat on another????

Because smoking is no longer pc. period. So lets not fool our selves, junk food and overweight is going to be the next devil.

Food is just concentrated to the individual. Smoking is not, it affects the user and those around (2nd/3rd hand).

 

[mousehockey37]

I guess I don't understand why this needs to be made into any other issue besides a hiring policy by Children's Hospital. Their board obviously feels that they don't want or need nicotene users as employees. Since it's not a case of discrimination, they can set whatever policy they feel reflects their company. You may or may not feels it's justified, but they don't have to justify it to anyone. If the employees feel this is an oppressive, slippery slope making, freedom infringing practice, they can rise up against these administrators and force them to change their policy. I kinda suspect this won't happen.

My point I'm trying to raise is that if people want to help the hospital with justification, then add these clearances in as well. How is the nicotine test no different than a standard drug screen?

 

[FairestOfThemAll37]

Mind you, people who have genetic and chronic problems that cause them to be overweight, have a medical history to back them up showing that it is due to those issues that they cannot maintain a "normal" size or weight.

So people should have no problems sharing their detailed medical info with their employers to be hired? Um, no.

No, the hospital doesn't have to explain themselves but it's ok to question these types of policies.

Weekly weigh-ins? Mandatory food journals? Lipid panels? Mandatory exercise classes? Alcohol tests? They might as well start providing more breaks and quit the 12-16 hours shift for Drs/nurses. Lack of sleep is horrible for your health. It can even cause cognitive imapairments equivelent to being legally intoxicated.

There are a ton of what ifs and the issue at hand is nicotine. For me, the steps in the article a few steps to far and don't really seem to be in the name of health.

 

[Bec3b1g]

My belief is that eating meat is bad for your health and I'm only going to hire vegetarians from now on. Period. End of story. And I will check your colon to make sure you're following my policy. You don't like it; don't apply for a job with me.

You on board with this? You don't think this violates any freedoms? You wouldn't worry about employers having too much control over your life?

I think this has ventured into the ridiculous, but I'll play along.

I can't imagine any employer requiring a "colon" check but as long as that's a posted requirement of the hiring process, it's up to the applicant to decide how badly they want the job. Employers are well within their right to ask for fingerprinting, urine, hair and other tests necessary during the hiring process. I've never heard of an employer asking for a stool sample, but I'm sure it's legal. And again, if you don't want to do it, don't apply for the job.

 

[mousehockey37]

So people should have no problems sharing their detailed medical info with their employers to be hired? Um, no.

I don't see an issue with it. Like I said... there are other professions where you are required to submit to several different types of background checks to be eligible for employment.

If they want to make this nicotine/smoking thing a part of a drug screen process that if it shows up in your pre-employment (which would make the most sense), you can't get hired, then that's on the hospital.

 

[Bec3b1g]

My belief is that eating meat is bad for your health and I'm only going to hire vegetarians from now on. Period. End of story. And I will check your colon to make sure you're following my policy. You don't like it; don't apply for a job with me.

You on board with this? You don't think this violates any freedoms? You wouldn't worry about employers having too much control over your life?

So I googled employer required stool sample and it is apparently done and legal. Haha! So much for venturing into the ridiculous . And btw, I still don't have a problem with it.

 

[ReneeA]

I work in a health system that no longer hires smokers. We have been a smoke free facility for at least 10 years, so you have to leave property to smoke as well ( for existing smokers).

My issue (as a unit assistant manager) isn't the health issues, etc. It's the breaks the smokers take. We allow 2 15 minute breaks and a half hour lunch for a 12 1/2 hour shift. I can tell you that very, very frequently, the non smokers have difficulty getting away for that amount off time. I barely get away for half of that when I'm taking a full set of patients.

My employees who are smokers take all of those and more. Not only that, but it isn't as easy to run down and have a quick smoke. The hospital is enormous (takes me 12 minutes to walk to and from my car parked on-site). They must walk further than that to get off-site, then take the time to smoke a cigarette, and get back. Not to mention the additional safety patrols necessary since we're in inner city Detroit. There's always an extra security guard sitting close to where the smokers gather when they should be inside. I know why they do it - there's been tons of crime against our employees - not enough to prevent the smoking, obviously. It's expensive and dangerous for our facility to have this going on. They hire additional armed security to have enough protection just for smokers.

Not only that, they are leaving for close to a half hour for each smoke break, shorting our unit of staff for that amount of time. Another RN assumes responsibility for an additional set of patients several times a shift. It's a safety issue, especially when you have more than one smoker scheduled per shift. We don't allow then to go out together, obviously, but when each is taking a few breaks every shift, that's many hours without full staff on the unit. It's annoying and a hassle for those of us that do not smoke and pick up the slack.

 

[lauradis]

Food is just concentrated to the individual. Smoking is not, it affects the user and those around (2nd/3rd hand).

Paying ton of $$$ in medical bills through taxes or insurance for both addictions are wrong and they do effect me individual.

so your wrong. Obesity effect the public at large $$$ wise.

 

[SandiR]

I think this has ventured into the ridiculous, but I'll play along.

I can't imagine any employer requiring a "colon" check but as long as that's a posted requirement of the hiring process, it's up to the applicant to decide how badly they want the job. Employers are well within their right to ask for fingerprinting, urine, hair and other tests necessary during the hiring process. I've never heard of an employer asking for a stool sample, but I'm sure it's legal. And again, if you don't want to do it, don't apply for the job.

So then, if I understand you correctly, employers should have the right to refuse to hire any individual for any reason they don't personally agree with (or, just worry that the person will be more expensive to cover).

So, if every company in America decided that they only wanted to hire athletic, vegan virgins, this would be okay?

 

[SandiR]

I work in a health system that no longer hires smokers. We have been a smoke free facility for at least 10 years, so you have to leave property to smoke as well ( for existing smokers).

My issue (as a unit assistant manager) isn't the health issues, etc. It's the breaks the smokers take. We allow 2 15 minute breaks and a half hour lunch for a 12 1/2 hour shift. I can tell you that very, very frequently, the non smokers have difficulty getting away for that amount off time. I barely get away for half of that when I'm taking a full set of patients.

My employees who are smokers take all of those and more. Not only that, but it isn't as easy to run down and have a quick smoke. The hospital is enormous (takes me 12 minutes to walk to and from my car parked on-site). They must walk further than that to get off-site, then take the time to smoke a cigarette, and get back. Not to mention the additional safety patrols necessary since we're in inner city Detroit. There's always an extra security guard sitting close to where the smokers gather when they should be inside. I know why they do it - there's been tons of crime against our employees - not enough to prevent the smoking, obviously. It's expensive and dangerous for our facility to have this going on. They hire additional armed security to have enough protection just for smokers.

Not only that, they are leaving for close to a half hour for each smoke break, shorting our unit of staff for that amount of time. Another RN assumes responsibility for an additional set of patients several times a shift. It's a safety issue, especially when you have more than one smoker scheduled per shift. We don't allow then to go out together, obviously, but when each is taking a few breaks every shift, that's many hours without full staff on the unit. It's annoying and a hassle for those of us that do not smoke and pick up the slack.

So tell the they can't have the breaks. That sounds a lot more fair than telling people what they can and can't do when they're outside of work.

 

[ReneeA]

I don't know any smokers that can tolerate going 12+ hours without a cigarette. It sounds great in theory though.

 

[Bec3b1g]

So then, if I understand you correctly, employers should have the right to refuse to hire any individual for any reason they don't personally agree with (or, just worry that the person will be more expensive to cover).

So, if every company in America decided that they only wanted to hire athletic, vegan virgins, this would be okay?

Logic says every company in America will not hire just vegan virgins. Lol! All private companies can make hiring decisions that reflect their company policies as long as it's not discrimination against a protected group of people.

Now, it would behoove the hiring manager to think through the consequences of their policies. If I only hire vegan virgins, I may anger the meat eating trollups of the world and run myself out of business. That's the beauty of being a business owner. I have the freedom to create whatever working environment I feel best reflects myself.

 

[StitchesGr8Fan]

It's still legal behavior. How can a company discriminate against people who are engaging in a legal behavior on their own time?

If smoking is so bad to everyone else, then make the case that it should be illegal. As long as it's legal though, no one should have the right to discriminate based on engagement in that behavior.

BTW, I HATE the smell of cigarette smoke and detest it when people smoke around me. HATE IT. But just because I hate it, doesn't mean I think it's okay to discriminate against people who engage in a legal action.

I agree that if it is legal then it is hard to ban people from doing it on their own time.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if all tobacco products become illegal during my daughters lifetime. As far as I know there are no health benefits to tobacco use (except for people that claim it calms their nerves) and it has negative effects on users (and bystanders if being smoked). I'm sure the tobacco companies will fight it, but they won't have much of a leg to stand on since they won't be contributing enough in taxes to offset the drop in users as time goes on and tobacco use becomes even more frowned upon in society.

 

[Bec3b1g]

Don't you see the problem with that thinking?

Not at all. If there is outrage about the policy, Children's Hospital will have trouble with staffing or it may harm their reputation in the community. There are consequences to these decisions. If 90% of the medical personnel smoked, this would impact the hospital negatively. I'm sure there was a report or number cruncher that reviewed the statistics and the proportion of non smokers was large enough that this policy made sense. Like it or not, they don't want to hire smokers and it won't be a problem for them in the future.