Pennsylvania Hospital Will No Longer...

[PollyannaMom]

It definitely seems unfair to me! (And I've never smoked in my life.)

If you start things like this, where will it end? Sure, smokers cost more to insure than non-smokers. But 45-year-olds also cost more than 26-year-olds. - Does that mean we should hire the person with less experience to run the company? Or should we hire only nice-looking people, because the other people have to look at them? Or only people who don't have children? (After all, people with kids might have to go home early if the school nurse calls, and that costs the company money, too.) I just think we're setting ourselves up for one of those "If you give up freedom for security, you'll eventually have neither" sort of things.

 

[MerMom60_94]

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.

ITA.

I am also of the mind set that this is a slippery slope. I work out at least five days a week and eat minimal junk. I also am a non-smoker, monogamous, and rarely drink alcohol. The point being, I am doing all I can to maintain my health. That is my choice, though. If we go this route, where does it end? I would rather see a system of incentives to stay healthy rather than banishment. So far as I know, smoking cigarettes is still legal. It may be a poor choice, but it is a free choice. So long as you don't smoke near me I'm fine with it. As far as it costing society more, I wonder if they have factored in that smoking shortens a persons life span and therefore we won't be paying for them for as long a duration as someone who stays healthy and lives to 100. And for those of us who work out intensely or run, don't knee replacements and sports injuries cost money? When they test these employees for nicotene, is it possible second hand smoke could impact the results? What if the person lives with a smoker but they themselves don't smoke? That could throw their test and even if it doesn't they will still come to work smelling like cigarettes so you haven't eliminated that problem.

I think this society has grown overly intolerant and it's time to start focusing in on our own behaviors. I am not into dictating what other adults do with their lives, so long as they aren't hurting me or my family.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

This is definitely not the first hospital to do this. My SIL went back to Nursing School to expand her credentials. She spent all of this money to go back to school, and moved to a new area only to find out that, as a smoker, she was going to be unable to get a job in the local hospital system.

Now, my opinions of my SIL aren't that great, so I kind of laughed about the whole situation, but this is something that is becoming commonplace across the country with health systems.

 

[Eeyore'sthebest]

I'm surprised this is even legal. I know most hospitals have policies that no one is allowed to smoke on the property, even in their own cars. So if someone has to leave the grounds on their designated lunch break and has a quick smoke, I don't see the issue. And for the record, I don't smoke.
Yes, I can see them increasing insurance premiums for smokers. But to all out ban them as employees seems a little radical to me.

And heck, I work for a French company. If we banned smokers the building would be empty. Smoking is alive and well among the French!

 

[jazzielady]

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

For the first time last night I was affected by someone's perfume. I was at my daughter's talent show, and I was at least 2 seats and 2 rows away from another person. Their smell was so bad that I started to wheeze.

After intermission (my daughter's performance was close to the end of the first half), I moved to the last row on the opposite end of the auditorium.

 

[Tink888]

I think it's a little ridiculous and a form of discrimination.

Yes, charge smokers higher insurance premiums. Yes, impose rules that prohibit smoking in or around the workplace during work hours.

Bad credit? No job. Smoke? No job. Where does it end? Overweight? Doesn't promote a healthy lifestyle. Taking meds for a psychological disorder? No way to be sure a person is taking their meds, might cause a problem. Ever drank alcohol? How does an employer know they're not drinking during lunch or on the job? Going through a divorce? Could result in a domestic disturbance at work. Old? Alternative lifestyles? Disabled? The list goes on and on.

As long as a person is competent and capable of doing the job, give them the opportunity until they prove otherwise.

 

[DrCavin]

Surprised this is even news anymore.

I worked for a company 20 years ago that would not hire anyone who smoked & job applicants were tested before being hired.

 

[momof5boys]

Not that it really matters. That hospital and almost every other one in the area are on a hiring freeze. It will effect the new facility they are building, but since all of the hospitals in the area are smoke free those employees would have to go out onto a main road without sidewalks to smoke.
Look at it from the patient's point of view, if you are admitted to the hospital you are NOT allowed to go outside and smoke anymore(around here anyway) You will get a nicotine patch and/or gum. If you insisted on going outside you would have to leave the hospital property and you would have to sign out of the hospital, insurance could deny payment for that! It's not fair to them if they are needing that cigarette, can't have it and then an employee comes in from their break smelling like smoke.
I work in a hospital and it is annoying when the smokers need to go out, their breaks get longer since they have to leave the property, nearby home owners are not happy with the cigarette butts left on the ground and it just looks bad when you have groups of employees standing around the entrances to the hospital smoking. And God forbid if we are busy and they can't go out, they get very irritable and that filters down into patient care.

 

[It'sWDW4me]

I heard about this on the radio driving home last night and, I must admit, my jaw dropped. First thought - WOW, can they do that? Second thought - What the heck is the next thing they won't hire you for doing? Now - So what happens if you used to smoke, successfully quit for some time, get a job with St. Luke's, and then, as does happen pretty often, you start smoking again? Would you be fired? Will they have Gestapo-like officers coming around to check your breath? Random smoke/nicotine tests?

I hate cigarette smoke. HATE it. I'm developing asthma so I'm sure I'll hate it more as time goes on. But I think this is just going too far. Sure, ban smoking on property. Provide all kinds of incentives for employees to quit. But to not hire someone on the basis that they engage in this completely. legal. activity. is scary.

 

[happygirl]

This is a stupid rule. It next to impossible to enforce. I'm a non smoker as well

 

[HelenePA]

This is a stupid rule. It next to impossible to enforce. I'm a non smoker as well

Nope its not impossible.. they test you randomly. If your caught with nicotine in your system your fired.. how is that hard to enforce?

 

[eliza61]

This is a stupid rule. It next to impossible to enforce. I'm a non smoker as well

Nope its not impossible.. they test you randomly. If your caught with nicotine in your system your fired.. how is that hard to enforce?

Helene has it right. very easy to enforce. We have random checks all the time. I get a call from medical to report within 2 hours for a drug test. If I don't report (or a valid reason why) disciplinary actions are begun. I think the current employees are grandfather in. It's for new hires effective this summer.

On the morning shows most legal analyst also say hospital doesn't have to worry about any discrimination cases as smoking is not a protective class like race or gender. I'm not an attorney, just repeated what a few law scholars are saying.

 

[happygirl]

Nope its not impossible.. they test you randomly. If your caught with nicotine in your system your fired.. how is that hard to enforce?

LOL I have never heard of nicotine test. I still think it's stupid

 

[luvmy3]

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.

Exactly, which is why I have no problem with a policy like this. This is a private facility and can hire who they feel will best serve them. A smoker is not the best choice to be working in a healthcare facility for reasons already pointed out in other posts.

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.

I highly doubt that this hospital will hire an incompetent doctor, but I'm sure you and others who say this really do know that.

 

[chisnpeke]

Smoking affects others. Being overweight does not harm other people as far as their health goes. That is why they won't ban people who are overweight, etc. Smoking is a choice that can be stopped and it affects other people.

 

[chisnpeke]

Why do people see this as a slippery slope? Smoking is a choice that affects other people. THAT is why they won't hire smokers.

 

[HelenePA]

LOL I have never heard of nicotine test. I still think it's stupid

You never knew they could test your blood for nicotine? Its a drug. Just like any other drug it will show up in your blood system and working in a hospital I'm pretty sure those tests are readily available. As much as smokers dont think they smell like smoke.. they do. Us non smokers can smell you in the next room

 

[PlutosFriend]

hire smokers.

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



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....

I like it! I work at a hospital, that is smoke free, but most of the smokers, and there aren't many left, but they sneak outside to smoke, and in the winter go to their car and stink so bad when they come back in
I am sure the patients don't want to smell that on their nurse or respiratory therapist.............

 

[JessicaR]

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.

Exactly, this is a no brainer.Having been in hospitals for numerous stays with a child that has severe asthma is where my perspective comes from. It just makes sense.

 

[MerMom60_94]

Why do people see this as a slippery slope? Smoking is a choice that affects other people. THAT is why they won't hire smokers.

If you look back through this thread at the various responses as to why this is a good idea, you will find a variety of reasons. Some of them I can buy into (i.e. impact on patient health). There are others, though, who are citing the costs to society because smokers tend toward having more health issues. If that is the rationale behind this decision, then it is a slippery slope because most, if not all, of us have some risky behavior that we engage in that could be seen as having the potential to cost employers and insurers money. Even those of us who are trying to be healthy are engaging in risky behaviors (ie. broken bones and torn ligaments or getting hit by a car because we are running outdoors). There are some respondents who work for companies that aren't in the business of healthcare who are saying this has been instituted in their workplaces. If this is about impact on the patients, then why is it all hospital employees? Why not only front line hospital employees? If somebody is working in a lab away from patients, then they aren't causing patient discomfort. Don't get me wrong, I think smoking is disgusting and I don't get why some people enjoy it, but it's their choice and as long as they aren't smoking anywhere near me they are free to go to town.