Hospital....Smokers need not apply!

[Skull Pilot]

Drug free work place laws have been upheld. Many an employee has been fired for testing positive for cannabis even though he/she never took a joint near their workplace. So much for being free to do anything you want in your own home!

But pot is not legal.

Would you support an employer firing someone for drinking at home. Smoking and drinking are both legal.

How about firing someone because they eat too much sugar?

People HAVE been fired for drinking at home - when their drinking becomes an addiction and they miss countless days of work, or their judgment is impaired. Most have never touched a drop at work. I used to follow a nurse who drank like a fish in her off time. Her work was scattered. Her charting made no sense, and I wondered every day what she had done to hurt the patients just before I came on. Nurse manager told her to get help or she was going to be out of there - fired. Yes, absolutely, I support firing someone whose after hours drinking affects their work. And many times it does, even though drinking is legal.

The person in your example got fired for missing work for countless days and doing shoddy work. He did not get fired for having a few drinks on his off hours.

You are supporting firing a person for no other reason that they smoke a few cigarettes a day.

 

[Sunshine]

But pot is not legal.

Would you support an employer firing someone for drinking at home. Smoking and drinking are both legal.

How about firing someone because they eat too much sugar?

People HAVE been fired for drinking at home - when their drinking becomes an addiction and they miss countless days of work, or their judgment is impaired. Most have never touched a drop at work. I used to follow a nurse who drank like a fish in her off time. Her work was scattered. Her charting made no sense, and I wondered every day what she had done to hurt the patients just before I came on. Nurse manager told her to get help or she was going to be out of there - fired. Yes, absolutely, I support firing someone whose after hours drinking affects their work. And many times it does, even though drinking is legal.

The person in your example got fired for missing work for countless days and doing shoddy work. He did not get fired for having a few drinks on his off hours.

You are supporting firing a person for no other reason that they smoke a few cigarettes a day.

The person in my example was drinking to the point of impairment even though it didn't happen at work. She was dangerous. You would not want her caring for you. She was not fired. She was told to get help for her drinking or she would be fired.

This is about not HIRING people who smoke. It is one of the hard questions. When you look at health care as a resource and a limited resource, then there will be many hard questions in the days ahead. Some will be willing to deal with those questions and answer them. Others will not. For them the questions will have to be answered by someone else!

 

[gallantwarrior]

(CNN) -- A Pennsylvania hospital is expected to begin screening job applicants for signs of nicotine early next year, claiming it will not hire smokers, a hospital spokeswoman said Friday.

Geisinger Health System -- a facility located in the eastern town of Danville -- will institute its no-nicotine policy on February 1, 2012, said Marcy Marshall.

Applicants that test positive will be offered help to quit and are encouraged to re-apply after six months, she said.

Smoking has been banned on Geisinger hospital grounds since 2007, added Marshall, who said the new program is part of a plan to make the hospital staff smoke free.

Secondhand smoke, she noted, will not result in a positive test.

Hospital: Smokers need not apply - CNN.com

I remember being a nursing student thinking I would die of suffocation from the staff smoking in the tiny report room. In those days staff smoked on the units. I wasn't sure how I would make it. But I moved to Nashville where Vanderbilt had just become a 'non smoking' facility. Smoking was permitted outside only. Soon other facilities followed.

Not surprised about this bit of news. The smoker is not particularly appealing to employers on various levels. This, no doubt, has more to do with the cost of employee health care than anything else.

If it's about employee healthcare costs they should also not hire fat people, people with diabetes, or a whole host of other maladies. Something tells me they wouldn't get away with that.

But, it is not permitted to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions! [gasp!]

 

[Foxfyre]

But pot is not legal.

Would you support an employer firing someone for drinking at home. Smoking and drinking are both legal.

How about firing someone because they eat too much sugar?

People HAVE been fired for drinking at home - when their drinking becomes an addiction and they miss countless days of work, or their judgment is impaired. Most have never touched a drop at work. I used to follow a nurse who drank like a fish in her off time. Her work was scattered. Her charting made no sense, and I wondered every day what she had done to hurt the patients just before I came on. Nurse manager told her to get help or she was going to be out of there - fired. Yes, absolutely, I support firing someone whose after hours drinking affects their work. And many times it does, even though drinking is legal.

The person in your example got fired for missing work for countless days and doing shoddy work. He did not get fired for having a few drinks on his off hours.

You are supporting firing a person for no other reason that they smoke a few cigarettes a day.

Still I support any employers' right to set reasonable and necessary terms of employment and a no tolerance policy for any controlled substances can be both reasonable and/or necessary. I would prefer to hire non smokers in a non smoking environment because they can focus better for longer periods. Speaking from my own experience and the testimony of others, when the desire for a smoke hits you, just like that desire for a drink, you really aren't fully concentrating on anything else.

 

[manifold]

Hospital: Smokers need not apply - CNN.com

I remember being a nursing student thinking I would die of suffocation from the staff smoking in the tiny report room. In those days staff smoked on the units. I wasn't sure how I would make it. But I moved to Nashville where Vanderbilt had just become a 'non smoking' facility. Smoking was permitted outside only. Soon other facilities followed.

Not surprised about this bit of news. The smoker is not particularly appealing to employers on various levels. This, no doubt, has more to do with the cost of employee health care than anything else.

If it's about employee healthcare costs they should also not hire fat people, people with diabetes, or a whole host of other maladies. Something tells me they wouldn't get away with that.

But, it is not permitted to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions! [gasp!]

Unless of course that pre-existing condition is an addiction to nicotine.

 

[manifold]

People HAVE been fired for drinking at home - when their drinking becomes an addiction and they miss countless days of work, or their judgment is impaired. Most have never touched a drop at work. I used to follow a nurse who drank like a fish in her off time. Her work was scattered. Her charting made no sense, and I wondered every day what she had done to hurt the patients just before I came on. Nurse manager told her to get help or she was going to be out of there - fired. Yes, absolutely, I support firing someone whose after hours drinking affects their work. And many times it does, even though drinking is legal.

The person in your example got fired for missing work for countless days and doing shoddy work. He did not get fired for having a few drinks on his off hours.

You are supporting firing a person for no other reason that they smoke a few cigarettes a day.

Still I support any employers' right to set reasonable and necessary terms of employment and a no tolerance policy for any controlled substances can be both reasonable and/or necessary. I would prefer to hire non smokers in a non smoking environment because they can focus better for longer periods. Speaking from my own experience and the testimony of others, when the desire for a smoke hits you, just like that desire for a drink, you really aren't fully concentrating on anything else.

And If I've gone more than a day without getting some and I see a hot chick in a mini-skirt or a low cut blouse my concentration is pretty much shot for the day too.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[Zoom]

Smokers are disgusting imho. If they make laws that say they cant come within 500 feet of me and my family, then good.

If a business, BUSINESS has rules that says if you want to work here, you cant smoke, then its called free enterprise and if you dont like it, dont work there. Go work in a smoke shop for all I care, but just stay away from me.

 

[manifold]

Smokers are disgusting imho. If they make laws that say they cant some with 500 feet of me and my family, then good.

If a business, BUSINESS has rules that says if you want to work here, you cant smoke, then its called free enterprise and if you dont like it, dont work there. Go work in a smoke shop for all I care, but just stay away from me.

And if a BUSINESS has rules that say you can't work here if you're homosexual? Or if you're not Christian? Or if you're not a registered democrat? Would you be ok with that too?

 

[Zoom]

Smokers are disgusting imho. If they make laws that say they cant some with 500 feet of me and my family, then good.

If a business, BUSINESS has rules that says if you want to work here, you cant smoke, then its called free enterprise and if you dont like it, dont work there. Go work in a smoke shop for all I care, but just stay away from me.

And if a BUSINESS has rules that say you can't work here if you're homosexual? Or if you're not Christian? Or if you're not a registered democrat? Would you be ok with that too?

It is illegal to discriminate against someone for sexual preference, religion or political affiliation.

It is not illegal for a business to say, if you smoke, you cant work here.

Is this to clear for you or are you still not getting it? Can they do drug tests or is that the same as a religion to you?

I would prefer it if I never worked next to a smoker again in my life and I would seek businesses who hired non smokers over those that do to tell you the truth.

 

[manifold]

Smokers are disgusting imho. If they make laws that say they cant some with 500 feet of me and my family, then good.

If a business, BUSINESS has rules that says if you want to work here, you cant smoke, then its called free enterprise and if you dont like it, dont work there. Go work in a smoke shop for all I care, but just stay away from me.

And if a BUSINESS has rules that say you can't work here if you're homosexual? Or if you're not Christian? Or if you're not a registered democrat? Would you be ok with that too?

It is illegal to discriminate against someone for sexual preference, religion or political affiliation.

It is not illegal for a business to say, if you smoke, you cant work here.

Is this to clear for you or are you still not getting it?

My point is why is one legal and the other not Einstein.

 

[Zoom]

And if a BUSINESS has rules that say you can't work here if you're homosexual? Or if you're not Christian? Or if you're not a registered democrat? Would you be ok with that too?

It is illegal to discriminate against someone for sexual preference, religion or political affiliation.

It is not illegal for a business to say, if you smoke, you cant work here.

Is this to clear for you or are you still not getting it?

My point is why is one legal and the other not Einstein.

Then why are you not questioning why they have drug tests? Einstein would.

Here is a little lesson for you. Businesses are allowed to say yes or no to certain things. One of them is hiring non smokers. If you dont like that busineses policy, dont work there. Free enterprise! I thought you liked that concept?

That same business have contracts you sign. You will not steal from the company. You will not give certain knowledge/information to other businesses while working for that company. You will not smoke if you are an employee for that company. etc.

IF YOU SIGN, YOU ARE ACCOUNTABLE. Personal responsibility and all that jazz.

 

[manifold]

It is illegal to discriminate against someone for sexual preference, religion or political affiliation.

It is not illegal for a business to say, if you smoke, you cant work here.

Is this to clear for you or are you still not getting it?

My point is why is one legal and the other not Einstein.

Then why are you not questioning why they have drug tests? Einstein would.

Non-sequitur alert.

Perhaps the arbitrary and hypocritical nature of anti-discrimination laws is just fine with you.

 

[Zoom]

My point is why is one legal and the other not Einstein.

Then why are you not questioning why they have drug tests? Einstein would.

Non-sequitur alert.

Perhaps the arbitrary and hypocritical nature of anti-discrimination laws is just fine with you.

A business can be taken to court because they have legal laws against smokers working for them?

Non-sequitur indeed.

Here is the thing. Some people are all for big business and big business mentality. Big businesses (and small for that matter) have rules and if you sign a contract with them, you follow those rules or you get fired. Period.

If not smoking is one of those rules and you smoke, then you are gone and I will be very, very happy if it happens. Applauding as you are cleaning out your desk actually. I find smokers to be disgusting.

 

[manifold]

So you're ok with discriminating against people you don't like. I get it. You're a douche.

 

[Foxfyre]

Then why are you not questioning why they have drug tests? Einstein would.

Non-sequitur alert.

Perhaps the arbitrary and hypocritical nature of anti-discrimination laws is just fine with you.

A business can be taken to court because they have legal laws against smokers working for them?

Non-sequitur indeed.

Here is the thing. Some people are all for big business and big business mentality. Big businesses (and small for that matter) have rules and if you sign a contract with them, you follow those rules or you get fired. Period.

If not smoking is one of those rules and you smoke, then you are gone and I will be very, very happy if it happens. Applauding as you are cleaning out your desk actually. I find smokers to be disgusting.

And conversely, while any community can adopt any ordinances that it wants regarding controlled substances or just about anything else shared by the people, I would oppose any federal law banning smoking in any place other than federal property. If a local business wants to let their employees or patrons smoke, on or off premises, they should have that right as a principle of freedom of choice and as a fundamental of property rights.

 

[Zoom]

So you're ok with discriminating against people you don't like. I get it. You're a douche.

Its discrimination for a business to have rules thtat state they will not hire smokers?

Seriously, are you saying this?

 

[Zoom]

Non-sequitur alert.

Perhaps the arbitrary and hypocritical nature of anti-discrimination laws is just fine with you.

A business can be taken to court because they have legal laws against smokers working for them?

Non-sequitur indeed.

Here is the thing. Some people are all for big business and big business mentality. Big businesses (and small for that matter) have rules and if you sign a contract with them, you follow those rules or you get fired. Period.

If not smoking is one of those rules and you smoke, then you are gone and I will be very, very happy if it happens. Applauding as you are cleaning out your desk actually. I find smokers to be disgusting.

And conversely, while any community can adopt any ordinances that it wants regarding controlled substances or just about anything else shared by the people, I would oppose any federal law banning smoking in any place other than federal property. If a local business wants to let their employees or patrons smoke, on or off premises, they should have that right as a principle of freedom of choice and as a fundamental of property rights.

Again, I agree with you. Businesses have certain rights and one of them is to hire or not hire smokers. To say they are being discriminatory is just wrong.

 

[Foxfyre]

A business can be taken to court because they have legal laws against smokers working for them?

Non-sequitur indeed.

Here is the thing. Some people are all for big business and big business mentality. Big businesses (and small for that matter) have rules and if you sign a contract with them, you follow those rules or you get fired. Period.

If not smoking is one of those rules and you smoke, then you are gone and I will be very, very happy if it happens. Applauding as you are cleaning out your desk actually. I find smokers to be disgusting.

And conversely, while any community can adopt any ordinances that it wants regarding controlled substances or just about anything else shared by the people, I would oppose any federal law banning smoking in any place other than federal property. If a local business wants to let their employees or patrons smoke, on or off premises, they should have that right as a principle of freedom of choice and as a fundamental of property rights.

Again, I agree with you. Businesses have certain rights and one of them is to hire or not hire smokers. To say they are being discriminatory is just wrong.

Yup. And as smoking as become more and more socially unacceptable, there are fewer smokers. As a reformed smoker myself, I now much dislike being around cigarette smoke. (I still love the smell of a good cigar or pipe tobacco though.) I am guessing that most proprietors would cater to the tastes of the larger group of non smokers providing plenty of choices of non smoking environments. But smoking allowed establishments do not violate the rights of anybody and as long as tobacco is a legal substance, freedom of choice to smoke or not smoke is what freedom looks like.

 

[syrenn]

And If I've gone more than a day without getting some and I see a hot chick in a mini-skirt or a low cut blouse my concentration is pretty much shot for the day too.

But whatcha gonna do?

Um.... laugh at you.

 

[Sunshine]

The person in your example got fired for missing work for countless days and doing shoddy work. He did not get fired for having a few drinks on his off hours.

You are supporting firing a person for no other reason that they smoke a few cigarettes a day.

Still I support any employers' right to set reasonable and necessary terms of employment and a no tolerance policy for any controlled substances can be both reasonable and/or necessary. I would prefer to hire non smokers in a non smoking environment because they can focus better for longer periods. Speaking from my own experience and the testimony of others, when the desire for a smoke hits you, just like that desire for a drink, you really aren't fully concentrating on anything else.

And If I've gone more than a day without getting some and I see a hot chick in a mini-skirt or a low cut blouse my concentration is pretty much shot for the day too.

But whatcha gonna do?

More likely to see THIS in a hospital: