Hospital....Smokers need not apply!

[MikeK]

I started smoking in 1952 at age 16. Back then very few Americans believed it was harmful. Here's why:

Lucky for me, after 35 years of pack-a-day smoking, I was able to quit in 1985. But I wonder how much sickness and death Ronald Reagan helped to bring about.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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!

One extreme example is not a basis for policy. The person used in your anecdote was not fired for drinking but rather fired for her poor performance. The reason for her poor performance is not relevant.

And a qualified person should not be passed up because they smoke a cigarette. As I said it's not an employers business if a what a person does on their off hours. The only policy an employer can set is for what actually happens in the work place during work hours.

 

[Two Thumbs]

(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.

This strikes me as highly illegal discrimination.

 

[Foxfyre]

(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.

This strikes me as highly illegal discrimination.

It would be if the hospital is not footing the bill for the employee's healthcare. As long as it is, then what the employees do that affects that cost is fair game for the employer to regulate. Make the insurance policy the property and responsibility of the employee, however, and the hospital contribute the same amount--whatever it wants to--to help out the employees with their healthcare, and, then you have a stronger case for illegal discrimination.

Even then, I think any employer should be able be able to declare a zero tolerance policy for controlled substances if they want to.

 

[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.

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!

One extreme example is not a basis for policy. The person used in your anecdote was not fired for drinking but rather fired for her poor performance. The reason for her poor performance is not relevant.

And a qualified person should not be passed up because they smoke a cigarette. As I said it's not an employers business if a what a person does on their off hours. The only policy an employer can set is for what actually happens in the work place during work hours.

I have states TWICE she was not fired. She was told to do something about her drinking or she WOULD be fired. She took a month off and went in to treatement. Then she did AA and the 90 meetings in 90 days routine.

If what you do off hours is affecting your work you most assuredly CAN be fired.

Also, many companies have policies stating that if you behave in such a way on your own times as to reflect badly on the company you can be fired. And those policies have been upheld. When you sign on, you get a copy of the policies. If you don't like them, don't sign on.

 

[Luissa]

(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.

I would hate to work at that hospital.....A bunch of nurses trying to quit smoking at the same time, does not sound like fun.

 

[Sunshine]

(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.

I would hate to work at that hospital.....A bunch of nurses trying to quit smoking at the same time, does not sound like fun.

Well, I'm sure Vanderbilt appreciates your slam.

 

[Luissa]

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.

I would hate to work at that hospital.....A bunch of nurses trying to quit smoking at the same time, does not sound like fun.

Well, I'm sure Vanderbilt appreciates your slam.

I was talking about the Hospital in the OP, but it seems current employees might not have to take the test.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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!

One extreme example is not a basis for policy. The person used in your anecdote was not fired for drinking but rather fired for her poor performance. The reason for her poor performance is not relevant.

And a qualified person should not be passed up because they smoke a cigarette. As I said it's not an employers business if a what a person does on their off hours. The only policy an employer can set is for what actually happens in the work place during work hours.

I have states TWICE she was not fired. She was told to do something about her drinking or she WOULD be fired. She took a month off and went in to treatement. Then she did AA and the 90 meetings in 90 days routine.

If what you do off hours is affecting your work you most assuredly CAN be fired.

Also, many companies have policies stating that if you behave in such a way on your own times as to reflect badly on the company you can be fired. And those policies have been upheld. When you sign on, you get a copy of the policies. If you don't like them, don't sign on.

You can only be fired for your work performance. You cannot be fired because what you do on your off hours might affect your work performance. If one's drinking is affecting his performance then he can and should be fired for poor performance. If he is caught drinking on the job or shows up impaired then he can and should be fired for breach of company policy.


Your example does not support your claim because it ultimately was the poor work performance that got that employee in trouble.

The cause is irrelevant.

This argument is not about ethics violations and contract clauses. It is about the outright discrimination being practiced by not hiring someone who may smoke a couple cigarettes or a cigar from time to time. The last time I checked smoking was legal for adults and therefore should not factor into any hiring decisions.

 

[editec]

Land of the free and home of the brave?

Not hardly, folks.

 

[auditor0007]

It's not an employer's business if one takes part in a legal activity outside of work hours.

This is true. However, smokers smoke during the entire day. It is rare to find a smoker who can make it all day without a smoke break. When working with patients who do not want to smell the stench of someone who has just smoked a cigarette, there is a conflict. If the employee can go without smoking all day long, so that they do not smell like an ashtray, then what they do outside of work should not be held against them. However, if they smell like a stale cigarette all day long, they can and should be removed from the workplace. It's the same as having someone come to work who has not taken a shower in a month. It just stinks and it's plain disgusting.

BTW, I just quit smoking five months ago. I now understand how bad that smell really is from those who smoke. When people come inside from break at work, they just wreak of cigarettes. I really don't want to smell that anymore. I don't have an issue with what they do on their own time, whether they smoke or not, or whether they do drugs or not. I just don't want to smell it, and my rights to breath clean fresh air are as important as their rights to do what they want. So at some point, someone has to draw a line, and since non-smokers outnumber smokers 5 to 1, the non-smokers win.

One last thing while we are on the subject. Quitting was much easier than I ever thought it would be, although I will not say it was a cake walk. For 30 plus years I convinced myself that I actually enjoyed smoking. Yea, right. I really enjoyed inhaling that shit into my lungs. The taste was great too. NOT!!! The worst thing is that the physical addiction is nowhere near as great as people think. It is the mental addiction and the repetitive habit of inhaling smoke into the lungs that is so hard to break. I still will pretend smoke a straw every now and then when something triggers me to want a cigarette, although that is happening less and less as time moves on. Anyway, the argument that people say they enjoy smoking is just an excuse to keep them smoking.

Since I quit smoking five months ago, I also joined a gym and began lifting weights and doing a good deal of cardio plus some running. I spend one hour per day in the gym or outside running, and I take one day off per week. That is less time than I spent smoking 20 cigarettes per day over the last 32 years. I have not gained any weight, and my blood pressure is down to 110/65 with a resting heart rate of 51. I ran a 5K on Thanksgiving when I was only a little over three months out and finished in just under 27 minutes. By next summer, my goal is to be around 20 minutes.

Anyway, sorry for getting off subject, but the truth is that smoking sucks. On top of all the physical benefits from quitting, I'm saving over $150 per month on the smokes, plus my health insurance premiums are going to drop by over $100 per month as soon as I hit six months smoke free which will be next month. My life insurance premiums will also be adjusted downward. So for anyone who smokes, keep telling yourself how much you really enjoy it. If you want to know how I quit, let me know, and I'll be glad to tell you and help you if I can.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Someday tobacco will be banned as a dangerous drug.

No it won't the fucking government makes too much money off of it.

As long as smoking is legal no one should be discriminated against for partaking.

I cannot be forced to hire someone who never baths themselves and stinks to high heaven. Therefore I cannot be forced to hire someone who smells like a used ashtray. I understand your frustration, but I have to disagree.

 

[auditor0007]

Can't have a tatoo at our local hospital either...

My girlfriend can't either, nor her daughter. They work at different hospitals.

 

[auditor0007]

What about those who use nicotene patches or chew nicotene gum? Are they discriminated against?

Nicotine itself has never been proven to cause cancer. Smoke from cigarettes has, and now studies are showing that even lingering smoke on clothes can be passed on to others and cause health problems.

 

[auditor0007]

It is unfair and discrimination. The health insurance industry has been charging me higher premiums. Life insurance cost more. Yet fat is where its at.

Obesity is a bigger problem, and yes, fat people should be charged more for health insurance. That does not remove the fact that you as a smoker are a higher risk than a healthy non-smoker. Therefore the higher premiums. If you want lower premiums, then quit. It isn't that hard.

 

[Foxfyre]

Land of the free and home of the brave?

Not hardly, folks.

But doesn't the land of the free and home of the brave allow an employer to set conditions for the kind of people he or she intends to employ? Should an employer be disallowed from banning all controlled substances for his/her employees? Or is the employer required to automatically assume the risk until something bad happens or the employee screws up on the job?

 

[auditor0007]

All too often smoking enfringes on the rights of nonsmokers. Smokers think that they can control the smoke and residue, so somehow others are not effected by it. That is a myth.

100% hit the nail on the head. You have two groups of people who both have rights. If a smoker smokes anywhere near a non-smoker, it infringes on the right of the non-smoker to breath clean air. The non-smoker is not infringing on the right of the smoker by not smoking. But the non-smoker does have first right to breath clean air.

During all the years that I smoked, I never had a problem with the ban on smoking in restaurants for this very reason. Bottom line is that while a smoker does have the right to smoke, the non-smoker's right to clean air takes precedent, so the smoker can be legally limited as to where he/she can and cannot smoke.

 

[Zoom]

What about those who use nicotene patches or chew nicotene gum? Are they discriminated against?

Nicotine itself has never been proven to cause cancer. Smoke from cigarettes has, and now studies are showing that even lingering smoke on clothes can be passed on to others and cause health problems.

Then how do you explain people getting cancer from chewing tabacco? It has nothing to do with smoke correct?

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's not an employer's business if one takes part in a legal activity outside of work hours.

This is true. However, smokers smoke during the entire day. It is rare to find a smoker who can make it all day without a smoke break. When working with patients who do not want to smell the stench of someone who has just smoked a cigarette, there is a conflict. If the employee can go without smoking all day long, so that they do not smell like an ashtray, then what they do outside of work should not be held against them. However, if they smell like a stale cigarette all day long, they can and should be removed from the workplace. It's the same as having someone come to work who has not taken a shower in a month. It just stinks and it's plain disgusting.

BTW, I just quit smoking five months ago. I now understand how bad that smell really is from those who smoke. When people come inside from break at work, they just wreak of cigarettes. I really don't want to smell that anymore. I don't have an issue with what they do on their own time, whether they smoke or not, or whether they do drugs or not. I just don't want to smell it, and my rights to breath clean fresh air are as important as their rights to do what they want. So at some point, someone has to draw a line, and since non-smokers outnumber smokers 5 to 1, the non-smokers win.

One last thing while we are on the subject. Quitting was much easier than I ever thought it would be, although I will not say it was a cake walk. For 30 plus years I convinced myself that I actually enjoyed smoking. Yea, right. I really enjoyed inhaling that shit into my lungs. The taste was great too. NOT!!! The worst thing is that the physical addiction is nowhere near as great as people think. It is the mental addiction and the repetitive habit of inhaling smoke into the lungs that is so hard to break. I still will pretend smoke a straw every now and then when something triggers me to want a cigarette, although that is happening less and less as time moves on. Anyway, the argument that people say they enjoy smoking is just an excuse to keep them smoking.

Since I quit smoking five months ago, I also joined a gym and began lifting weights and doing a good deal of cardio plus some running. I spend one hour per day in the gym or outside running, and I take one day off per week. That is less time than I spent smoking 20 cigarettes per day over the last 32 years. I have not gained any weight, and my blood pressure is down to 110/65 with a resting heart rate of 51. I ran a 5K on Thanksgiving when I was only a little over three months out and finished in just under 27 minutes. By next summer, my goal is to be around 20 minutes.

Anyway, sorry for getting off subject, but the truth is that smoking sucks. On top of all the physical benefits from quitting, I'm saving over $150 per month on the smokes, plus my health insurance premiums are going to drop by over $100 per month as soon as I hit six months smoke free which will be next month. My life insurance premiums will also be adjusted downward. So for anyone who smokes, keep telling yourself how much you really enjoy it. If you want to know how I quit, let me know, and I'll be glad to tell you and help you if I can.

An employer can ban smoking on his property and effectively stop all employees from smoking while they are at work.

Basing hiring or termination on the fact that a person may smoke in the privacy of their own home and on their own time is out of bounds.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Someday tobacco will be banned as a dangerous drug.

No it won't the fucking government makes too much money off of it.

As long as smoking is legal no one should be discriminated against for partaking.

I cannot be forced to hire someone who never baths themselves and stinks to high heaven. Therefore I cannot be forced to hire someone who smells like a used ashtray. I understand your frustration, but I have to disagree.

Then I can refuse to hire you because I don't like your cologne right?