Children's Hospital saying no to new hires who smoke

[SandiR]

I just have to wonder if those that are so on board with private industry being able to mandate how people live their lives would be equally on board if it was the government who wanted to do so...

 

[Bec3b1g]

I just have to wonder if those that are so on board with private industry being able to mandate how people live their lives would be equally on board if it was the government who wanted to do so...

I would never be on board with the govt forcing me to work for an employer that only hires non-smokers. I believe in the right to choose my employer. That's my line in the sand

 

[ols386]

I think in a hospital setting it makes sense to not hire individuals who are smokers.

Even if a person goes to a DSA to smoke, the scent of the cigarette smoke is still going to get on clothing.

I would think that some patients could potentially be sensitive to things like cigarette smoke. Especially patients with lung and/or breathing issues.

 

[eliza61]

I just have to wonder if those that are so on board with private industry being able to mandate how people live their lives would be equally on board if it was the government who wanted to do so...

governments mandates a lot of things we do in our private lives. Most municipalities force you to wear a seat belt or face a fine. almost all require you to purchase liability insurance.
Mortgage companies most require you to carry home owners insurance and the home owners insurance company most definitely has a say about what you can and cannot do inside your house if you wish to be covered.
The city of Philadelphia definitely tells me how I am allowed to put my trash out on the curb every trash day. I don't get to do it when or how I want.
NYC has had jaywalking laws for a while, in essence telling private citizens how to cross the street.
Most local, municipal and state governments have public safety laws, that tell you how loud you can play the music in your home.
The belief that you can do what you want, whenever and wherever you want is a myth we love to cling too.
In reality very few people can do it.

 

[dodukes]

Haven't read through everything and I am not a smoker but I don't like these new trends of banning the smokers from thing, As far as i'm concerned smoking is legal and its your issue not mine. they should not be banning anything. next thing you know they start banning other legal things and you cant get hired for drinking, , eating unhealthy , etc. not a fan. employers need to stop worrying about what people do on heir off time so long as its not illlegal

 

[Kayabee]

Oh please, private industries have always hired people who best represent them, this concept is nothing new and not a slippery slope. The issue is now its the smokers who have this false sense of being a protected class. A gym is not going to hire an over weight person to work the front desk. A make-up company is not going to hire a person who doesn't wear make-up and isn't attractive, a bank isn't going to hire you if you have a bright fushia mohawk. All of these things are perfectly legal. There is nothing wrong with a hospital, or other medical facility choosing not to hire people who participate in unhealthy activity. If you want to work for that hospital, don't smoke. If you want to smoke then work somewhere else.

 

[pigletgirl]

I think in a hospital setting it makes sense to not hire individuals who are smokers.

Even if a person goes to a DSA to smoke, the scent of the cigarette smoke is still going to get on clothing.

I would think that some patients could potentially be sensitive to things like cigarette smoke. Especially patients with lung and/or breathing issues.

Most hospital systems have had this mandated for awhile. The one my father works for draws nicotine levels to see if folks smoke as a part of the employment process.

This also means that hospital cafes need to be conscience of what they serve. Obesity doesn't look good either.

 

[eliza61]

Oh please, private industries have always hired people who best represent them, this concept is nothing new and not a slippery slope. The issue is now its the smokers who have this false sense of being a protected class. A gym is not going to hire an over weight person to work the front desk. A make-up company is not going to hire a person who doesn't wear make-up and isn't attractive, a bank isn't going to hire you if you have a bright fushia mohawk. All of these things are perfectly legal. There is nothing wrong with a hospital, or other medical facility choosing not to hire people who participate in unhealthy activity. If you want to work for that hospital, don't smoke. If you want to smoke then work somewhere else.

+1
Interesting enough my stylist is adamant about keeping my greys under control, lol to the point of touching up my roots even when I've said my funds where rather tight and I'd get it done in two weeks. Now I don't know if she was just extending a courtesy to me because I'm a regular customer but she always says that when I walk out of her shop, she wants my hair to look good just in case some one ask where I got my hair done.

 

[Luvchefmic]

I already responded on page 1, but went looking around for the original article. Most links wanted you to sign up for a subscription but I finally found one.

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2015/apr/01/children-s-hospital-saying-no-to-new-hi/?news-Arkansas

from the article:
If prospective employees fail the nicotine tests, they will be allowed to reapply for a position after 90 days, Holland said.

So the sky is not falling, no one is being discriminated against, you want a position quit using nicotine.

What a society we have where so many people scream about rights, discrimination, etc: You can almost picture people throwing themselves on the floor flailing their legs and fists and screaming , " It's not fair"

No one is owed anything, or entitled to anything & that includes the privilege of employment.

 

[pigletgirl]

+1
Interesting enough my stylist is adamant about keeping my greys under control, lol to the point of touching up my roots even when I've said my funds where rather tight and I'd get it done in two weeks. Now I don't know if she was just extending a courtesy to me because I'm a regular customer but she always says that when I walk out of her shop, she wants my hair to look good just in case some one ask where I got my hair done.

Of course she does. Word travels fast, especially when it comes to healthcare.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

Oh please, private industries have always hired people who best represent them, this concept is nothing new and not a slippery slope. The issue is now its the smokers who have this false sense of being a protected class. A gym is not going to hire an over weight person to work the front desk. A make-up company is not going to hire a person who doesn't wear make-up and isn't attractive, a bank isn't going to hire you if you have a bright fushia mohawk. All of these things are perfectly legal. There is nothing wrong with a hospital, or other medical facility choosing not to hire people who participate in unhealthy activity. If you want to work for that hospital, don't smoke. If you want to smoke then work somewhere else.

I have absolutely seen bank tellers with multiple piercings and tattoos. If a make-up company's written policy was to not hire unattractive salespeople they would get in a heap of trouble. Same with a gym. Can you imagine a gym's advertisement for a receptionist stating "obese people may not apply" because it doesn't fit with their image?

It's called discrimination and it's illegal. Do people discriminate? Of course, that's why we have laws.

 

[Mizzoufan]

I already responded on page 1, but went looking around for the original article. Most links wanted you to sign up for a subscription but I finally found one.

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2015/apr/01/children-s-hospital-saying-no-to-new-hi/?news-Arkansas

from the article:
If prospective employees fail the nicotine tests, they will be allowed to reapply for a position after 90 days, Holland said.

So the sky is not falling, no one is being discriminated against, you want a position quit using nicotine.

What a society we have where so many people scream about rights, discrimination, etc: You can almost picture people throwing themselves on the floor flailing their legs and fists and screaming , " It's not fair"

No one is owed anything, or entitled to anything & that includes the privilege of employment.

This was in what I posted. I posted the orignal article.

 

[eliza61]

e

I have absolutely seen bank tellers with multiple piercings and tattoos. If a make-up company's written policy was to not hire unattractive salespeople they would get in a heap of trouble. Same with a gym. Can you imagine a gym's advertisement for a receptionist stating "obese people may not apply" because it doesn't fit with their image?

It's called discrimination and it's illegal. Do people discriminate? Of course, that's why we have laws.

But they do have regulations. Heck the marines have even a policy against a boat load of tattoes. Don't they tell you exactly how many you can have and w here they can be? Banks often will say that if you have them you have to have them covered up. And a lot of gyms around here most definitely require you to pass a physical fitness assessment, now I don't know if it's for receptionist but my neighbor works for planet fitness as a yoga instructor and you better believe they have BMI guidelines you have to stay within.

Aren't Discrimination laws against protected classes. as far as I know (and I could be wrong) but smokers are not a protected class.

I haven't read the hospitals advertisement. I'm assuming that the advertisement was for the position and as with any job the requirements needed were listed below. It could be as simple as saying
must pass a drug, alcohol, background test.

Many jobs have specification that if you don't pass you don't get the job.

 

[Luvchefmic]

This was in what I posted. I posted the orignal article.

Sorry I missed it, my mistake.

To the posters that keep saying it's discrimination it's not discrimination because you feel like it is. It's a requirement of being an employee there, nothing more nothing less, and you know that going in.

Let's use another example of this so called discrimination: The Disney look. You want to be a cast member you have to have a certain look or you can't work there. It does carry over to off work time as one of the biggest things is natural hair color & style. You aren't going to work there if you have bright peacock blue Mohawk styled hair. Period. It wasn't all that long ago that facial hair wasn't even allowed on cast members and that was a rule since the 1950's and it was just accepted that if you wanted to work there you shaved.

Again not everyone is a " protected class " (certainly not smokers/nicotine users) and shouldn't be.

 

[Happy Snowman]

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 have no problem if you want to limit your workforce this way. I love meat so I wouldn't apply for a job at your company, but it's your company and you can do what you want.

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.

They already have programs in place in many, many companies that do this. They might not get a report that says Fairest has diabetes, but they get a report that says 12% of your employees have high blood pressure, 3% have diabetes, etc. It still comes down to smokers costing companies more money in lost productivity and insurance costs.

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?

Employers can already do that, even "protected" classes, they just can't say "I'm not hiring you because you have a disability" .

I just have to wonder if those that are so on board with private industry being able to mandate how people live their lives would be equally on board if it was the government who wanted to do so...

The government is one of the most selective "companies" out there, just look at any job application for the government.

 

[ronandannette]

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.

For the same reason as they do everything else - economics. I'd imagine some actuary somewhere has run all the numbers and decisions are based on that. For example, it is apparently more costly to our company to provide supplemental health insurance (different in Canada than the US) to families with children and to have employees take parental leaves, than it is to have smokers on staff. Our insurance plan (chosen by the employer) pays for birth control but NOT for smoking cessation therapies.

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.

...and that I could understand and respect but the will of government to take such measures here is practically non-existent. Tobacco taxes are a pretty solid source of revenue - currently over $7/per pack.

 

[Happy Snowman]

For the same reason as they do everything else - economics. I'd imagine some actuary somewhere has run all the numbers and decisions are based on that. For example, it is apparently more costly to our company to provide supplemental health insurance (different in Canada than the US) to families with children and to have employees take parental leaves, than it is to have smokers on staff. Our insurance plan (chosen by the employer) pays for birth control but NOT for smoking cessation therapies.


...and that I could understand and respect but the will of government to take such measures here is practically non-existent. Tobacco taxes are a pretty solid source of revenue - currently over $7/per pack.

That is a bit strange. Birth control is covered at 100% in the US and most US insurance companies have smoking cessation programs offered for free outside of the actual insurance plan.

 

[mousehockey37]

That is a bit strange. Birth control is covered at 100% in the US and most US insurance companies have smoking cessation programs offered for free outside of the actual insurance plan.

Welcome to the difference in healthcare between the US and the rest of the world, lol.

 

[Colleen27]

I don't like it because it doesn't just affect smokers. As others have pointed out, testing for nicotine also "catches" anyone using a step-down program or smoking alternative to quit even though they aren't actually smoking any more and those products lack the issues with secondhand exposure. And it also "catches" non-smokers who live with smokers, in many cases, because the second hand exposure is enough to test positive. If it was a straight up smoking ban I'd have less objection to it. I still don't care for the idea that an employer should be in the business of controlling what employees do (within the bounds of the law) in their own homes and on their own time, but a smoke-free campus and strict expectations that employees will not come in reeking of smoke are both completely reasonable.

 

[Kayabee]

I have absolutely seen bank tellers with multiple piercings and tattoos. If a make-up company's written policy was to not hire unattractive salespeople they would get in a heap of trouble. Same with a gym. Can you imagine a gym's advertisement for a receptionist stating "obese people may not apply" because it doesn't fit with their image?

It's called discrimination and it's illegal. Do people discriminate? Of course, that's why we have laws.

Have you seen one with a bright fushia mohawk though?
Companies can legally set guidelines for their employees to follow. You may get all cranky over the guidelines and requirements of certain companies but that doesn't make them illegal discrimination.