Pennsylvania Hospital Will No Longer...

[Kathi OD]

hire smokers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590110,00.html

St. Luke’s Hospital and Health Network in Bethlehem, Penn., announced this week that as of May 1 it will only hire non-smokers, The Morning Call of Allentown reported.

The hospital is the second-largest employer in the region, with over 7,000 employees.

"While some may view this as a bold move, our organization feels strongly that promoting a healthier workplace benefits everyone," said Bob Zimmel, Senior Vice President of Human Resources at St. Luke's. St. Luke’s is the first business in the region to institute the no-smokers policy.

Starting May 1, applicants to St. Luke’s will be screened for nicotine, much like some employers screen for illegal drugs. Applicants who test positive for nicotine will be ineligible for employment until they can retest with a negative result and will receive information on getting help kicking the habit. Employees already working at St. Luke’s will not be affected by the policy.

Pennsylvania is one of 20 states in which no-nicotine hiring policies are legal.

I've never smoked, so this seems like a common sense decision to me. BUT, as one woman who was interviewed on the local news asked, "Where does it stop? Will people with high cholesterol be next?"

Curious as to what everyone else is thinking....

 

[Cinderellabride]

Part of me says that's awesome! Smoke lingers on people's clothes and hair, and the chemicals can certainly harm some patients especially newborns and young children.

Another part of me says they shouldn't really be allowed to do that.

But mostly I think it's awesome! But I also happen to think that smoking around other people (non smokers I guess cause it doesn't really matter if you smoke around someone who is already smoking) should be illegal.

 

[DaisyLynn]

I am a non-smoker. In my opinion, I think it's ridiculous.

 

[FireDancer]

Unless someone was head and shoulders above everyone else at our office it would be very difficult for a smoker (or even someone terribly unhealthy) to get hired into upper management where I work. All of the executives and department heads are runners, cyclists, or endurance athletes of one sort or another. Our CEO has cycled from SF to NYC twice. We put a very high value on fitness. Of course it isn't that someone has to be able to qualify for Boston or climb Alp d'Huez but even the least healthy upper management person is in the gym a couple of times a week and does some fitness-related events.

As employers try to cut costs one place they are going to look is healthcare and it costs more to insure some people then others. I feel sorry for people who have something completely out of their control (MS, non-lifestyle related cancer, Parkinson's) but something that is completely within your control I just don't. Yeah, it's hard to quit. It isn't impossible. You know what it so easy it requires no effort? Not starting. Healthcare workers should know better. It is like the CIO sending an email to a Nigerian prince who offers you money.

With the proper motivation people can quit addiction, perhaps a job is motivation enough.

I think this kind of thing has a much better chance of effecting overall health then a soda tax or removing salt from restaurants does.

I have a feeling this thread will get quite heated as most smoking threads do.

 

[PaulaSB12]

I am a non-smoker. In my opinion, I think it's ridiculous.

Another non smoker who thinks this is ridiculous. What next no over weight people? People who eat what the hospital doesn't like? Promiscuous people? people with/without children? At this rate the world as viewed by that daft movie Demolition Man is going to happen.

 

[MrsPete]

Next year smokers in my school will pay higher insurance premiums. It's easy to back that up with data; smokers cost the system more. Those of us who signed up for the lower rates had to sign something saying that they have the right to do the swab-the-inside-of-your-mouth test to verify that we are, indeed, non-smokers.

I disagree that this will lead to a witch-hunt (cholesterol, etc.). I remember once hearing the Surgeon General talking about the dangers of various health risks -- it was on some TV show -- and she was asked to rank the various "bad habits": Smoking, being overweight, failing to exercise, drinking too much. She said that overwhelmingly smoking is the worst thing you can do for your health. In fact, she said that if you're going to smoke, there's really no point in doing anything else healthy (i.e, exercise or eating healthy) because smoking overrides it all. She said that it's so far ahead of the other typical "bad habits" that it's in its own league. I mean, we all know it's bad, but that's a very strong statement. Again, this was from the Surgeon General some years ago.

Also, smoking is the only "bad habit" that affects other people. Even if a smoker genuinely smokes out of the way of non-smokers, the smoke clings to their clothing, hair, etc. and does affect others. It's simply impossible to avoid it. I promise you, I know which of my high school seniors smoke. It's not something they can hide.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Unless someone was head and shoulders above everyone else at our office it would be very difficult for a smoker (or even someone terribly unhealthy) to get hired into upper management where I work. All of the executives and department heads are runners, cyclists, or endurance athletes of one sort or another. Our CEO has cycled from SF to NYC twice. We put a very high value on fitness. Of course it isn't that someone has to be able to qualify for Boston or climb Alp d'Huez but even the least healthy upper management person is in the gym a couple of times a week and does some fitness-related events.

As employers try to cut costs one place they are going to look is healthcare and it costs more to insure some people then others. I feel sorry for people who have something completely out of their control (MS, non-lifestyle related cancer, Parkinson's) but something that is completely within your control I just don't. Yeah, it's hard to quit. It isn't impossible. You know what it so easy it requires no effort? Not starting. Healthcare workers should know better. It is like the CIO sending an email to a Nigerian prince who offers you money.

With the proper motivation people can quit addiction, perhaps a job is motivation enough.

I think this kind of thing has a much better chance of effecting overall health then a soda tax or removing salt from restaurants does.

I have a feeling this thread will get quite heated as most smoking threads do.

The trouble is using such a simplistic thing as weight to decide that someone is unhealty. For example I am over weight but loosing it, but in the last 20 years the only medical work I have had is the usual health checks and taking stuff to prevent the monthy cycle disrupting a holiday. One of my collegues at work is a healthy weight yet has had more time of work on the sick and more operations than anyone I know.

 

[imabrat]

Here's my take on it: I can see where they're coming from as a health care facility. Day in and day out they're dealing with people with incredibly fragile immune systems and respiratory systems. If, say, one of the nurses was a smoker and smoked a cigarette on her break 45 minutes ago, the "smell" of the cigarette could carry over to the patient's room causing severe reactions from the patient. It's generally why we (meaning medical students) are told to have zero fragrances when we enter the hospital.

I do not intend to be offensive with this statement, but yes if one smokes cigarettes repeatedly in a short span of time, they do develop an odor. I don't mean this to be harmful, I just mean it to be what I've experienced. I should know, my father has been a heavy smoker all his life.

So from a health care facilities point of view, I can understand. If this were, say, an IT company enforcing this rule I would think it was silly.

Just my two cents.

 

[FireDancer]

The trouble is using such a simplistic thing as weight to decide that someone is unhealty. For example I am over weight but loosing it, but in the last 20 years the only medical work I have had is the usual health checks and taking stuff to prevent the monthy cycle disrupting a holiday. One of my collegues at work is a healthy weight yet has had more time of work on the sick and more operations than anyone I know.

I'm talking about using smoking to determine cost, not weight.

In the end most active healthy people will cost less to insure and treat over their life then inactive unhealthy people. The law of averages will play out with a large enough sample. If I am trying to keep costs down this is one place it can be done, even if it wasn't a hospital.

Statistically men get in more accidents and receive more tickets then women so they cost more to insure. This is also an imperfect measure the takes many other variables out of the equation but in a large sample it plays out and men pay more. I don't like it but sometimes the stats are against you but I can't quit being male with a patch or some gum.

Corporate culture and image can also come into the picture. If a company is trying to project an image of health and fitness they are going to look for people who are not only qualified but meet their image. It just is what it is.

 

[HelenePA]

I could be wrong but I dont think they are the first hospital to do this. I read about another hospital doing it a few months ago...

here ya go Ohio http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...-system-says-it-wont-hire-smokers-550381.html

and Tenn. has some too. that was just a quick search. I dont know why the PA one made the news and all these others did not.

 

[TheDisneyGirl02]

I live in the area where this hospital is located. I have to admit, when I saw the cover of the newspaper this morning and what they were doing, I was kind of shocked. I understand that smokers maybe considered 'unhealthy', but what if the most qualified candidate is a smoker and doesn't get the job because of that fact? I mean, many sucessful and intelligent people have smoked and made amazing discoveries at the same time.

It does worry me because like a PP said, when will employers draw the line?

It should be interesting to see how this pans out and to read the editorials in the newspaper over the next couple of weeks.

By the way, I'm a non-smoker who can't stand the smell of smoke (it bothers my allergies), but I don't think this is fair.

 

[aprilgail2]

The place I work part time for hasn't hired smokers in 20 years! This is not a new thing for some businesses.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

I hate to say it but I am glad. There is nothing worse than being in the hospital and then having the nurse or doctor examine you when they stink like an ashtray.
As for this being something new- Fortunoff used to use lie detector tests to weed out smokers when they were hiring when I was a kid. They did not want smokers as employees. They even had a sign up where you go and apply.

 

[eliza61]

I saw this. I'm on the fence about this one. Smoking has got to be the absolute most detrimental thing that one can do as far as health goes, outside of illegal drugs. So I can understand the reasoning but it does make one pause and say "When will it end" or are we on a slippery slope?

 

[Mouse House Mama]

I saw this. I'm on the fence about this one. Smoking has got to be the absolute most detrimental thing that one can do as far as health goes, outside of illegal drugs. So I can understand the reasoning but it does make one pause and say "When will it end" or are we on a slippery slope?

See now I don't see it that way because someone smoking does effect other people's health. Most if not all other things don't.

 

[eliza61]

See now I don't see it that way because someone smoking does effect other people's health. Most if not all other things don't.

Dang, totally forgot about that. Great point.

 

[DVC~OKW~96]

Whew. It is a complex issue.

I hate the smell of smoke, and yes that stink does linger on someone's clothing, skin, hair and breath. I have an assistant who smokes and I have to force myself not to recoil when she speaks to me as her breath is foul with old smoke.

I think it's important for a health facility to control exposure to that sort of known carcinogen. It's also a source of allergy for many people.

Could we start on perfume and colongne and aftershave next? In health facilities only, of course!!

 

[DebbieB]

It's not only the health issue. I traveled with a coworker who smokes. We were doing a training class and every chance she got she was going outside to grab a smoke. Plus it doesn't look good when you have employees gathered outside smoking.

 

[Acklander]

I don't know, when it comes to health care I'd kind of like the most qualified person taking care of me.
An incompetent Doctor can do a lot more harm than a Doctor who smokes in his off hours.

 

[princesspumpkin]

Ok, when I first saw this thread, I thought it was talking about THE Pennsylvania Hospital (as in the first hospital in the country), not A Pennsylvania Hospital. Ok, not confused anymore.

Not sure that i agree with this. I do like things like lower health insurance premiums for healthier lifestyles (non-smoking, etc.)

My job has not allowed smoking on the entire premises for a few years now - we used to have to walk thru the smokers to get to the front door. Now they have to go down or across the street - I do like that