Hospital....Smokers need not apply!

[manifold]

Smoking is not a protected status.

Smoking tobacco isn't. But smoking pole is.

 

[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.

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.

But that does not address the issue of smokers impeding on non-smoker's rights to breath clean air. Apparently you missed that point.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

I smoked over a pack per day for 32 years. You can argue about withdrawal being physical or psychological, but to me it was mostly psychological. And my point is that whatever physical withdrawal exists, it is minimal and can easily be overcome. Yes, you may be agitated a bit, but you aren't going to get cold sweats, start throwing up violently or going into convulsions. If you want to know what addiction has much worse withdrawal reactions, try giving up caffeine if you are addicted.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

But that does not address the issue of smokers impeding on non-smoker's rights to breath clean air. Apparently you missed that point.

How does a person smoking in their own home impede any of your rights?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

And again how would they know what you do when you're not at work?

An employer can have a no smoking policy at the workplace. But what you do when not at work is no one's business but yours.

 

[editec]

Note that this is an invasion of the workers' private lifes?

Not smoking ON THE JOB, that we can probably all sign onto.

But seriously. Are we all sanguine with an employer who thinks they have the right to tell you what you can do off the job?

Apparently some of you don't find that a problem.

Get off your knees, Americans.

 

[lizzie]

Note that this is an invasion of the workers' private lifes?

Not smoking ON THE JOB, that we can probably all sign onto.

But seriously. Are we all sanguine with an employer who thinks they have the right to tell you what you can do off the job?

Apparently some of you don't find that a problem.

Get off your knees, Americans.

Plenty of people will probably think that's cool until companies decide not to hire people who need to shed a few pounds or people who are certified to scuba or skydive or ride motorcylces.

 

[manifold]

No skiers need apply. Too risky.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Seems to me that smokaphobics are seriously nasty people more interested in making others miserable than anything else. The only diference between discrimination against smokers and discrimination against race, religeon, or gender orientation is a matter of PCness and what you can get away with.

Smokers are more prone health problems? Great! Lets make 'em go outsider and stand around in a thunderstorm. And if they happen to be patients make sure they have a nice lightning ro... er, I mean IV pole and lots of nice dry gauze to absorb the rain!

 

[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.

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.

If you can smoke at home and not smell like cigarettes AT ALL, then be my guest. But it is very difficult to do that.

 

[lizzie]

Smokers are more prone health problems? Great! Lets make 'em go outsider and stand around in a thunderstorm. And if they happen to be patients make sure they have a nice lightning ro... er, I mean IV pole and lots of nice dry gauze to absorb the rain!

My observation from being in the health care profession for almost 30 years, is that we see many more obesity-related problems than smoking-related.

 

[Foxfyre]

Note that this is an invasion of the workers' private lifes?

Not smoking ON THE JOB, that we can probably all sign onto.

But seriously. Are we all sanguine with an employer who thinks they have the right to tell you what you can do off the job?

Apparently some of you don't find that a problem.

Get off your knees, Americans.

Plenty of people will probably think that's cool until companies decide not to hire people who need to shed a few pounds or people who are certified to scuba or skydive or ride motorcylces.

The issue of health problems unrelated to their job performance is easily remedied by the insured person owning the insurance policy. There is still a risk that the person will make himself/herself sick or be injured and be unable to work at all, but that risk exists in all circumstances so it really isn't an issue unless the employer is required to pay the medical bills.

Otherwise it is simply a matter of personnel policy. I once ran an agency that depended on community good will and support to survive. That resulted in writing a morals clause into the personnel policy; i.e. employees were expected to not show up in the newspaper or on television in some embarrassing or scandalous or illegal situation due to their own actions. Those who reflected badly on the agency would be discharged.

Certainly an employer now can institute a zero tolerance policy for employees using controlled substances. As has always been the case, employees will violate the policy in hopes they won't be caught and probably most aren't caught. But those who are can't then say they weren't warned.

 

[Zoom]

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.

And again how would they know what you do when you're not at work?

An employer can have a no smoking policy at the workplace. But what you do when not at work is no one's business but yours.

If the business (a free market is something the right loves to say) says they do not want to hire anyone who smokes, they have the right to do so. If you dont like it, dont work there. Period. It is a legal request.

If they ask you to sign something that says you will not give confidential material to the competitors, and you do it from your home, not from work, are you wrong? Should you be fired?

If they ask you to sign something that says you will not smoke, ever and you sign it and smoke anyway, should you be fired?

 

[alan1]

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.

But that does not address the issue of smokers impeding on non-smoker's rights to breath clean air. Apparently you missed that point.

And apparently you missed the point about tyranny by majority.
Something you seem to be in favor of.

 

[auditor0007]

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.

But that does not address the issue of smokers impeding on non-smoker's rights to breath clean air. Apparently you missed that point.

And apparently you missed the point about tyranny by majority.
Something you seem to be in favor of.

Apparently you believe you have the right to blow smoke in my face since everyone should be permitted to do whatever they please. Right?

 

[9thIDdoc]

People seek employment; not enslavement. Matters not directly related to the job are none of the employer's business. Those determined to discriminate by race, creed, sex, age, etc. may well be in violation of the law and subject to serious penalties. And rightly so. Smoking should be included.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

And again how would they know what you do when you're not at work?

An employer can have a no smoking policy at the workplace. But what you do when not at work is no one's business but yours.

If the business (a free market is something the right loves to say) says they do not want to hire anyone who smokes, they have the right to do so. If you dont like it, dont work there. Period. It is a legal request.

If they ask you to sign something that says you will not give confidential material to the competitors, and you do it from your home, not from work, are you wrong? Should you be fired?

If they ask you to sign something that says you will not smoke, ever and you sign it and smoke anyway, should you be fired?

So I can ask a woman if she will ever get pregnant and if she says yes I can refuse to hire her or fire her if I get her to sign a contract?

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

But that does not address the issue of smokers impeding on non-smoker's rights to breath clean air. Apparently you missed that point.

And apparently you missed the point about tyranny by majority.
Something you seem to be in favor of.

Or......looking at it another way....if you have an office of mostly smokers and one person is allergic to smoke, should that one person be able to say that nobody can smoke? Would that be a tyranny of a minority?

Or if you have an office of non smokers except for one person who wants to smoke on the job, is it a tyranny of the majority to deny that one person permission to smoke on the job?

Anarchy looks good from one perspective, but with anarchy, nobody's rights are secure because there is no law, no expectations of anybody, no process by which a free and efficient society can be maintained.

The will of the majority, short of denying somebody his/her unalienable rights, is what social contract is and how free people organize an aesthetically pleasing, safe, compatible, and efficient society. Where social contract ends is where my unalienable rights begin. There is no unalienable right to smoke on somebody else's property.

 

[earlycuyler]

(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.

As a relapsed smoker I dont see anything wrong with this. Smoking areas smell bad, and smokers tend to throw buts all over the place and ugly up an area to.

 

[earlycuyler]

'First they came for the smokers, and I said nothing, because I did not smoke"...

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves." -Abraham Lincoln

Our local hospital campus is smoke-free now, and during break time the smokers have to cross a busy highway to light up. Walking to the corner a half block away takes too much time, so they jaywalk in large groups. I'm waiting for someone to get killed.

But it's for their own good, right?

They will not die from not having a cigarette, and no one forces them to be stupid when crossing the road. If one gets hit by a car its on them, not the facility. My employer does not allow us to smoke on the premises, yet say nothing if we do it in our cars. I smoke on collage campus in my car all the time with no issue.