Pennsylvania Hospital Will No Longer...

[Mickey's Minion]

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....

Comparing smoking and cholesterol is comparing apples and oranges.

High Cholesterol is a medical condition. Even people who adhere to a strict low-fat, low cholesterol diet can still end up with high cholesterol.

Smoking is 100% voluntary.

I don't think companies should restrict what employs do on their own time, but I do think they can and should restrict it on company time. And that includes smelling of smoke. So, if an employee is smoking on the way to work, they may need to shower and change before reporting to their shift.

 

[bimshire]

It's about time. Smoking is a choice and it directly effects other people. I once was at an optician and this guy sat next to me in the small waiting room. He seemed like a nice guy who tried to talk to me about sports which is a fave of mine. But he smelled so baddddddddddddddddd. Reeked big time. I made an excuse, went over and told the receptionist that I would be standing outside when it was my turn. I just don't understand why smokers aren't aware of the offensive odor.

 

[doxdogy]

I am a smoker and believe it or not in pretty good health. I have been on my job for 8 years and have called in sick a grand total of 5 days. My last job, the non smokers were actually out sick more than the smokers in our group. We all have disgusting habits. I feel about drinking the way most feel about smoking. Perfume does to me what smoking does to some. One lady came to our office last year and her perfume was so strong that when she left I had to open the door to the office. It took 30 minutes for the smell to dissipate and then ended the day with the worse headache. All smokers are not the spawn of Satan.

 

[marcyinPA]

St. Luke's is right here in my town...

I don't smoke, but I find this crazy. What next? They test your blood sugar or BMI and refuse to hire you if either is too high?

I think the smokers should be able to be hired, but need to pay higher health insurance premiums. You want to smoke? Fine. You can still have a job, but your bennies will cost you more.

 

[N.Bailey]

Comparing smoking and cholesterol is comparing apples and oranges.

High Cholesterol is a medical condition. Even people who adhere to a strict low-fat, low cholesterol diet can still end up with high cholesterol.

Smoking is 100% voluntary.

I don't think companies should restrict what employs do on their own time, but I do think they can and should restrict it on company time. And that includes smelling of smoke. So, if an employee is smoking on the way to work, they may need to shower and change before reporting to their shift.

Sure it's comparing apples to oranges because they are 2 separate issues, but keeping one's bad cholesterol in check is attainable IF the individual WANTS to keep his bad cholesterol in check. It is diet related.

BOTH are 100% voluntary.

Both are also medical issues.

 

[N.Bailey]

St. Luke's is right here in my town...

I don't smoke, but I find this crazy. What next? They test your blood sugar or BMI and refuse to hire you if either is too high?

I think the smokers should be able to be hired, but need to pay higher health insurance premiums. You want to smoke? Fine. You can still have a job, but your bennies will cost you more.

I know this because I have to hear it ALL the time, but smoker's are actually funding programs (not related to their personal health), that the general population doesn't help fund at all.

Why is that ok? I'm not saying it's ok with you, I'm just saying, it passed, so it must be ok with some. Why not put those taxes into the health care program for those who smoke? Why are our elected officials allowed to get away with targeting a specific group to fund a program they need funded?

 

[Kathi OD]

Sorry I've been MIA since starting this thread. Sometimes real life interferes with DIS time..

I've read all the posts and think that Metro West best sums up my thoughts on the issue.

I work at a hospital too and back in 2008, they banned tobacco use on campus. Further...you could not smoke during your shift but before or after work and off property is your business.

I think that's the problem with this mind set of hiring practices. The employer is telling what you can and can not do on your own time...which is not right in any instance. For example...If I still smoked and I smoked in my car on the way to work and off property, there is nothing they can say about it. By the time I got parked and into the office, I don't see how my smoking would affect anyone else's health. This hospital in PA can do whatever they want since it's their company but pay attention to this...If employers are allowed to tell you what you can and can't do AWAY from work, this could lead to other "habits" people have like coffee, cell phones, etc. being scrutinized. Sound silly? As Judy Tenuta used to say..."It could happen."

We're not talking about people smoking while they are working at the hospital. We're talking about not hiring people who smoke at any time, in any place. Personally, I don't know that I think this is a good thing. It's more than just a little Owellian to me.

 

[Mickey's Minion]

Sure it's comparing apples to oranges because they are 2 separate issues, but keeping one's bad cholesterol in check is attainable IF the individual WANTS to keep his bad cholesterol in check. It is diet related.

BOTH are 100% voluntary.

Both are also medical issues.

I beg to differ. Keeping your cholesterol in check is not always attainable. High cholesterol is rampant in our family. And several of the relatives have been on every cholesterol drug on the market, every doctor supervised diet, one even participated for quite some time in a cholesterol clinic.

The drugs actually made the cholesterol numbers go up. I know of at least 3 relatives that struggle unsuccessfully everyday to try to bring those numbers down.

Smoking is not a medical issue. The results of smoking are.
One would not have medical issues if one never put a cigarette in their mouth in the first place.

High Cholesterol is not voluntary.
Putting a cigarette in your mouth and lighting a match to it - 100% voluntary.

And I am a former smoker.

 

[FireDancer]

I am a smoker and believe it or not in pretty good health. I have been on my job for 8 years and have called in sick a grand total of 5 days. My last job, the non smokers were actually out sick more than the smokers in our group. We all have disgusting habits. I feel about drinking the way most feel about smoking. Perfume does to me what smoking does to some. One lady came to our office last year and her perfume was so strong that when she left I had to open the door to the office. It took 30 minutes for the smell to dissipate and then ended the day with the worse headache. All smokers are not the spawn of Satan.

It isn't a value judgment on the morality of smokers nor is it isn't a matter of who calls off work more. That doesn't really cost the health insurer anything. I don't get paid PTO from my health insurer. The question is 10, 20, 30 years down the road who is more likely to cost the insurer more? That factors into what the employer has to pay in premiums which factors into their cost structure which factors into their bottom line.

The underlying motivation is not health but cost, at least that is my take. The heavily perfumed may be as annoying to the sense of smell as smokers are to some but I don't think that it has any effect on long term health or costs.

 

[rie'smom]

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.

Many smokers are healthy too. Heredity plays a big role in people's health. My mom is a 1-2 pack/ day smoker, is 72 years old and as healthy as anyone. My paternal great grandfather and grandfather smoked and enjoyed great health until their 90's when they died. 1 of my husband's brothers died from lung cancer- he never smoked and was 50 when he died. His dad and another brother died from different types of cancers and neither of them ever smoked either. His brother was in his early 40's.
Will businesses start demanding health records from potential or existing employees?

It's about time. Smoking is a choice and it directly effects other people. I once was at an optician and this guy sat next to me in the small waiting room. He seemed like a nice guy who tried to talk to me about sports which is a fave of mine. But he smelled so baddddddddddddddddd. Reeked big time. I made an excuse, went over and told the receptionist that I would be standing outside when it was my turn. I just don't understand why smokers aren't aware of the offensive odor.

Overeating is also a choice and it directly affects me. Honestly, I get nauseated when I see obese people. Other people stink too besides smokers.

Yes, I smoke- one half of 1 cigarette a day. I enjoy it. My health is great.

 

[Sparx]

I'm currently writing a persuasive research paper about smoking being banned on college campuses. Most of the research that I come across is repetitive and unhelpful(Smoking causes cancer, second hand smoke causes cancer, smoking causes cancer, smoking is bad, and so and and so forth), but one particular bit stood out to me. Smokers who work in a place that doesn't allow smoking (smoke breaks/smoking on the grounds of the work place) actually quit at almost 30-40% higher than smokers who are permitted to smoke at work. It makes sense in retrospect, but I guess I had never thought about it before.

Of course, then the argument comes that its not my place to make someone quit smoking. Thats very true.

And then people say that heredity means more than smoking, in health conditions. Thats also very true.


However, while it is your decision to smoke, it is not mine. I do not want to smell it, or be around it. And for all you know, it may be damaging to my health, even if it "isn't" to yours. The Americans With Disabilities Act, and the United States Supreme Court all agree that there is no constitutional right to smoke. There is nothing prohibiting complete smoking bans. There has never been a lawsuit raised against a smoking ban that was won in favor of the smoker.

Based on my research, I feel that this hospital is completely within its rights to choose to not hire smokers.

 

[N.Bailey]

I beg to differ. Keeping your cholesterol in check is not always attainable. High cholesterol is rampant in our family. And several of the relatives have been on every cholesterol drug on the market, every doctor supervised diet, one even participated for quite some time in a cholesterol clinic.

The drugs actually made the cholesterol numbers go up. I know of at least 3 relatives that struggle unsuccessfully everyday to try to bring those numbers down.

Smoking is not a medical issue. The results of smoking are.
One would not have medical issues if one never put a cigarette in their mouth in the first place.

High Cholesterol is not voluntary.
Putting a cigarette in your mouth and lighting a match to it - 100% voluntary.

And I am a former smoker.

The results of high cholesterol are the results of eating. You may show me a case here or there that may not be the case (though I'd prefer actual medical research to your family history), but for the most part, maintaining a low bad cholesterol level can be obtained thru proper diet.

In not doing so, those who eat as they wish force others to supplement their medical insurance premiums as much as smokers. Diabetes is directly (for the most part) in the same category. It's a fact that drinking soda GREATLY increases your risk of developing diabetes (and that's 1 example).

These conditions ALL fall into the same category.

While our genetics come into play where ALL of the above are concerned (even smoking, I've known smokers that lived to 100 with no ill effects from smoking), our choices are a bigger contributor. If you want to attack 1, you should be attacking all.

 

[joviroxx]

Admittedly, I havent read this entire thread but..My BIL is a smoker and while not obese, is a tad overweight. My husband is an athlete. Runs, cycles, does marathons. Funny thing is , my medical bills have been much higher than BIL.. Broken bones, pulled muscles, I can't begin to tell you the amount of money our insurance has paid out due to "athletic" injuries and rehabs AND he has high cholesterol! My BIL, on the other hand, is always pretty healthy and has lower cholesterol than my husband.. go figure.

Not saying this for any kind of point, just an observation....

But for the record, if we ban people from getting work who have any kind of unhealthy habits at home and in their private lives, that might cost more or bother other people, thats an extremely slippery slope.

 

[N.Bailey]

Based on my research, I feel that this hospital is completely within its rights to choose to not hire smokers.

I don't think anyone disagrees with this. That wasn't the question however. Yes, they are within their rights, but that doesn't mean we have to agree that they should have ever had that right to begin with.

I think we walk a slippery slope when government is allowed to dictate such intricacies of our daily lives. I prefer freedom, and unfortunately, our government is leaning more toward dictatorship on several levels. They use ignorance and fear to strip us of our rights. Little by little, we're losing more and more all the time.

And all we do is, turn our head and refuse to see it.

 

[OceanAnnie]

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?

I'm not a smoker, but that just seems wrong to me. I'm wondering some of the same things as you. Smoking is addictive. So is alcohol. What's next? Employers won't hire people that drink and if so, would the criteria for not hiring be, 1 drink a week or 20?

 

[PollyannaMom]

....those who eat as they wish force others to supplement their medical insurance premiums as much as smokers. Diabetes is directly (for the most part) in the same category. It's a fact that drinking soda GREATLY increases your risk of developing diabetes (and that's 1 example).

These conditions ALL fall into the same category.

While our genetics come into play where ALL of the above are concerned (even smoking, I've known smokers that lived to 100 with no ill effects from smoking), our choices are a bigger contributor. If you want to attack 1, you should be attacking all.

Actually, I'm one of the ones who voted not to attack any, but I just had to post to defend the three children I know with diabetes. None of them has had time in their short lives to drink that much soda! They were born with bodies that don't produce enough insulin (or immune systems that attack what is produced) and that is NOT their fault. I think you're being unfair by lumping real diseases in with smoking.

 

[OceanAnnie]

St. Luke's is right here in my town...

I don't smoke, but I find this crazy. What next? They test your blood sugar or BMI and refuse to hire you if either is too high?

I think the smokers should be able to be hired, but need to pay higher health insurance premiums. You want to smoke? Fine. You can still have a job, but your bennies will cost you more.

I agree. Why would it be okay for one cost effective maneuver and not others?

 

[joviroxx]

I'm not a smoker, but that just seems wrong to me. I'm wondering some of the same things as you. Smoking is addictive. So is alcohol. What's next? Employers won't hire people that drink and if so, would the criteria for not hiring be, 1 drink a week or 20?

You know whats funny, they call addiction to drugs and alcohol, a disease. We feel for these people, we have interventions, we give them jobs and help them so that they can overcome. Smoking is addictive as well, hence all those lawsuits. But smokers are called names like gross, smelly , disgusting, rude, inconsiderate. What makes one addiction more "compassion inducing" than another?

 

[Mickey's Minion]

The results of high cholesterol are the results of eating. You may show me a case here or there that may not be the case (though I'd prefer actual medical research to your family history), but for the most part, maintaining a low bad cholesterol level can be obtained thru proper diet.

High cholesterol is not always the result of eating. Hereditary cholesterol has been linked to a genetic defect in the molecule apoprotein.

I am not going to hijack the OP's thread any longer, so if you want more info on hereditary cholesterol, I am sure you can google it.

 

[PollyannaMom]

....Yes, they are within their rights, but that doesn't mean we have to agree that they should have ever had that right to begin with.

I think we walk a slippery slope when government is allowed to dictate such intricacies of our daily lives....Little by little, we're losing more and more all the time....

Now, this part, I agree with! I do think it's a case of "If we let them do this to the person next to us, what will they do to us next?"