Hospital....Smokers need not apply!

[masquerade]

The group of healthcare facilities I work with went smoke-free yesterday. There is no smoking on any inch of the property. That goes for staff, patients and visitors alike.

What I find repulsive are the respiratory therapists who did step outside for one of several smokes through out their shift, only to come back in and take care of patients with breathing problems, or patients intubated in the ICU.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

The employer should have the right to ban perfume and cologne for everybody, not for just one individual unless that person is slathering it on enough to be offensive to most. The employer should not be required to hire somebody unwilling to comply with that personnel rule.

 

[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.

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

There are a number of carcinogens in tobacco. Nicotine is not one of them. It is just the drug that gives you a small buzz if you aren't used to it and helps with the addiction.

 

[Foxfyre]

The group of healthcare facilities I work with went smoke-free yesterday. There is no smoking on any inch of the property. That goes for staff, patients and visitors alike.

What I find repulsive are the respiratory therapists who did step outside for one of several smokes through out their shift, only to come back in and take care of patients with breathing problems, or patients intubated in the ICU.

And that is why an employer would be motivated to have zero tolerance for all controlled substances. The addicted smoker will either have to smoke or will not be fully concentrating on his/her task at hand just as any other addict whether the addiction is pot, heroin, crack, alcohol, or amphetamines. Admittedly smoking does not alter behavior or ability to reason, react, or think coherently as most other addictive substances do, but that focus, concentration, and being on the job are not inconsequential issues either especially in this high tech world in which a small lack of concentration can cause problems.

I support the right of an employer to set the standards for his/her workforce including personal hygiene and not smelling bad to customers and coworkers. Nobody is required to work for him/her, but those who do should do so under the rules established by that employer. Employers who require unreasonable standards will have a hard time finding good people to work.

 

[auditor0007]

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?

I would imagine so, if you told me to stop wearing it because it was effecting yourself or other employees due to allergies, just as a for instance. If I refused, then it would be within your right to fire me, or let me go.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

To me, the real proof comes from nonsmokers who used to smoke. Ever spand some time with thema nd ask what they think? I have two people that I know well and both of them report that it is unbelievable how bad the smoke is and they had no concept of how they were effecting others and themselves until they stopped.

Health care professionals pledge to do no harm to their patients. Certainly this policy fits. I know of few people that smoke, who can go an entire working day without smoking, so if they smoke, they smoke at work.

Until I quit, I had no idea how bad I smelled when I was smoking. And, a tip to smokers: Please don't pour on perfume or chew gum to "cover" the stench. It not only doesn't work, it makes it smell worse.

Smokers have the right to smoke and I have the right not to have to smell them or inhale their second hand smoke.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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?

The employer should have the right to ban perfume and cologne for everybody, not for just one individual unless that person is slathering it on enough to be offensive to most. The employer should not be required to hire somebody unwilling to comply with that personnel rule.

But I could not hire you because you use a cologne that I don't like even on your own time right?

It's the same thing as not hiring someone because they smoke at home.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Skull Pilot

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.

I remember a story done by 60 Minutes that described employers actually watching their employees during their off time and being able to legally fire them for their off-hours activities.

Laws may vary from state to state but in my state, an employer can fire you for no reason at all. Fat people are fired for being fat but they may not be told that's the reason they were fired.

 

[manifold]

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.

I've heard that too. But I suspect it's a load of horseshit.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

The employer should have the right to ban perfume and cologne for everybody, not for just one individual unless that person is slathering it on enough to be offensive to most. The employer should not be required to hire somebody unwilling to comply with that personnel rule.

But I could not hire you because you use a cologne that I don't like even on your own time right?

It's the same thing as not hiring someone because they smoke at home.

Cologne that you wear at home does not affect your performance on the job except in the highly unlikely event that you were somehow addicted to that cologne. A smoking addiction can affect your performance on the job as previously explained. Therein is the difference.

 

[Luissa]

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?

The employer should have the right to ban perfume and cologne for everybody, not for just one individual unless that person is slathering it on enough to be offensive to most. The employer should not be required to hire somebody unwilling to comply with that personnel rule.

It is banned where I work, but they tell us not to wear perfumes and lotion that might bother the residents. I understand why, though. Some people are allergic or are bothered by certain smells.

We are allowed to smoke on our break though, I think they realize they don't want to deal with the nicotine withdrawals. LOL

 

[auditor0007]

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

The employer should have the right to ban perfume and cologne for everybody, not for just one individual unless that person is slathering it on enough to be offensive to most. The employer should not be required to hire somebody unwilling to comply with that personnel rule.

It is banned where I work, but they tell us not to wear perfumes and lotion that might bother the residents. I understand why, though. Some people are allergic or are bothered by certain smells.

We are allowed to smoke on our break though, I think they realize they don't want to deal with the nicotine withdrawals. LOL

Isn't it funny how a smoker has such horrible nicotine withdrawal while awake but when sleeping is not effected at all by nicotine withdrawal? By the time a person has slept a full eight hours, nicotine levels in the bloodstream are almost non-existent.

 

[Foxfyre]

The employer should have the right to ban perfume and cologne for everybody, not for just one individual unless that person is slathering it on enough to be offensive to most. The employer should not be required to hire somebody unwilling to comply with that personnel rule.

It is banned where I work, but they tell us not to wear perfumes and lotion that might bother the residents. I understand why, though. Some people are allergic or are bothered by certain smells.

We are allowed to smoke on our break though, I think they realize they don't want to deal with the nicotine withdrawals. LOL

Isn't it funny how a smoker has such horrible nicotine withdrawal while awake but when sleeping is not effected at all by nicotine withdrawal? By the time a person has slept a full eight hours, nicotine levels in the bloodstream are almost non-existent.

Ummm, a couple of gentle corrections. A severely addicted individual CAN awaken from sleep with a need to smoke. Others will be reaching for the cigarette pack immediately upon awakening, sometimes before getting out of bed. They will also become anxious if their supply becomes low or is exhausted. How many times have you heavy smokers made a midnight run for cigarettes when you were running low or were out?

It takes a minimum of two full days and for the severely addicted up to seven days for the nicotine to clear your system--those who smoke menthol cigarettes can double thehalf life of nicotine in their system--and there have been traces of nicotine found in the system for two to four weeks following heavy smoking.

Once the body is free of the nicotine, withdrawal symptoms can last for one to four weeks--intermittant nervousness, irritability, and cravings that can take you to your knees for a few minutes, but if we refocus and don't give in, these will pass in a half hour or less and as time passes will occur with less severity and less frequency until they stop altogether. From that point on, the desire to smoke will be triggered by pleasant memories--the wish to have something to do with your hands, the ability to pause and delay for a minute while you get out a smoke, light up, take the first puff, etc. For some folks, such moments can occur for years but again become less in intensity and frequency until you don't even think about it any more.

Quitting smoking is as difficult as breaking any other addiction, but generally doesn't have the severe dibilitating withdrawal symptoms that you sometimes have with alcohol or other drugs.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The employer should have the right to ban perfume and cologne for everybody, not for just one individual unless that person is slathering it on enough to be offensive to most. The employer should not be required to hire somebody unwilling to comply with that personnel rule.

But I could not hire you because you use a cologne that I don't like even on your own time right?

It's the same thing as not hiring someone because they smoke at home.

Cologne that you wear at home does not affect your performance on the job except in the highly unlikely event that you were somehow addicted to that cologne. A smoking addiction can affect your performance on the job as previously explained. Therein is the difference.

Smoking at home does not affect your job performance. I have not seen any "explanation" of how a person smoking a few cigarettes or a cigar at home affects their job performance negatively.

 

[xotoxi]

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

Nor is it the business of anyone else who an employer decides or decides not to hire.

Smoking is not a protected status.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Nor is it the business of anyone else who an employer decides or decides not to hire.

Smoking is not a protected status.

I generally agree but how would an employer know if you smoked a butt or a cigar at home?

Hey if I wanted to hire only Blondes with big tits I'd get in trouble for discrimination. There is no difference here.

 

[alan1]

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.

Yes, and heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals 10 to 1 and whites outnumber blacks 6 to 1. Here is the deal, homosexuals have more health problems than heterosexuals, blacks have more health problems than whites.
According to your logic, that means it's ok to discriminate against them because they have more health problems (the reason cited in the OP), and they are outnumbered (your reason).

Screw it, let's just discriminate against anybody that is outnumbered.

 

[lizzie]

The employer should have the right to ban perfume and cologne for everybody, not for just one individual unless that person is slathering it on enough to be offensive to most. The employer should not be required to hire somebody unwilling to comply with that personnel rule.

It is banned where I work, but they tell us not to wear perfumes and lotion that might bother the residents. I understand why, though. Some people are allergic or are bothered by certain smells.

We are allowed to smoke on our break though, I think they realize they don't want to deal with the nicotine withdrawals. LOL

Isn't it funny how a smoker has such horrible nicotine withdrawal while awake but when sleeping is not effected at all by nicotine withdrawal? By the time a person has slept a full eight hours, nicotine levels in the bloodstream are almost non-existent.

That's most likely because nicotine is a mild stimulant, and you wouldn't notice it when you are sleeping (you don't need it. )

You may awaken with low nicotine levels, but it takes about two weeks for it to completely disappear, and during that time, it's common to feel half-comatose and fuzzy-headed.

 

[lizzie]

I'm wondering when it's going to be okay to discriminate against fat people by refusing to hire them.

 

[Zoom]

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?

The employer should have the right to ban perfume and cologne for everybody, not for just one individual unless that person is slathering it on enough to be offensive to most. The employer should not be required to hire somebody unwilling to comply with that personnel rule.

My last job, no smoking even close to the building and recently, they would not hire you if you smoked. Addionally, no one is allowed to use any kind of perfume. Period.

No one seems to mind and if so, quit. America can be great sometimes.