Smokers won't be hired at Sparrow Hosp.-New applicants will test for tobacco

[The Straight Story]

Smokers won't be hired at Sparrow Hosp.
New applicants will test for tobacco


LANSING, Mich. (WOOD) - Sparrow Health will no longer hire anyone who uses tobacco, the Lansing hospital announced Friday.

Current smokers can retain their jobs, but will have to keep paying more for health insurance, 24 Hour News 8 affiliate WILX reports.

The policy will take effect for new hires beginning May 1.

Job applicants who test positive for nicotine can reapply for a position after 90 days. It's the latest move, the hospital said, to promote healthy living.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/health/Smokers-wont-be-hired-at-Sparrow-Hospital

[MadBadger]

1. Its too early for Popcorn...ahh well

:popcorn:

[madmax]

25. Move over

I'll eat popcorn anytime. :popcorn:

[TheManInTheMac]

105. It's too late for me, but I think I'll sit out the rest of it

With a :smoke: and a :popcorn:.

[ejpoeta]

2. i'm sorry but that is wrong. cigarettes are still legal. they should not be able to

discriminate against anyone including smokers.

[The Straight Story]

3. Uh...not just smokes - the patch, chewing, e-cigs - all have nicotine (nt)

[ejpoeta]

4. and all those are legal too. some think that just because they don't like smoking

and it's unhealthy, then it's ok to discriminate. anything anyone does in the name of not allowing smoking is ok.

[inademv]

15. And it is the hopeful employee's decision

whether or not they continue using a harmful substance that just happens to be legal and used by the users own volition, not by any need of the user.

Same argument here can be applied to the use of alcohol and it would stand to reason that individuals who imbibe alcohol are at risk to use the substance in a window which would coincide with the hours they work.

Point is, its a private company and the product in question is a completely voluntary one that has no positive medical benefits.

[ejpoeta]

18. it is not their place to decide or to be able to base hiring on such things.

it is irrelevant whether it has no positive medical benefit. Discrimination is wrong. period. And this idea that it is 'voluntary' is crap. Alcohol impairs you. smoking does not. One could make arguments about lots of things as having no medical benefit or being harmful. It is not the place of the employer to be able to decide that for you.

There was a time in this country where employers could impose all kinds of things on their workers. It's wrong whether you think it is a bad habit or not. Whether they are a private business or not.

[Maru Kitteh]

80. Oh but it IS their place to decide. That's rather the point.

The practice of denying or terminating employment based on the use of drugs not prescribed by a healthcare provider is very well established.

[MattBaggins]

87. that would be incorrect

ILLEGAL drugs yes.

Can't fire someone for taking a tums or an aspirin

[TheManInTheMac]

104. Sure you can.

Read the anti-discrimination laws. They vary from state to state, but on the federal level it's limited to discrimination based on race, religion, marital status, parental status, and age (if you are over a certain age). Here in Ohio, if your boss tells you can only wear black shoes, s/he can fire you for wearing brown.

[Lance_Boyle]

28. Nicotine in and of itself is not really a harmful substance, and actually has medical uses.

It relaxes the smooth muscle of the gut more safely than most prescriptions designed to do the same thing. This alone makes this ban harmful. Banning smoking is OK, I suppose. But just testing for nicotine is way off base. That dragnet also catches people who are quitting smoking with nicotine aids like gum or patches, as well as e-cig users. None of whom should be presumed a "health risk" on the basis of nicotine or its metabolites alone.

[Ferret Annica]

56. You sound like an apologizing addict.

Smoking returns people to the calmness of non-smokers. The perspective that it calms is a false one and typical rationalizations of addicts in denial.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ferret Annica]

65. We are having a nice fit, yes? Go out and take a smoke break

Oh I understood your point, and it's pointless. Nicotine has zero medical use, sweet pea. I know I am dealing with a denial junkie when I hear that or any other of the claims of what nicotine is good for.

I see you have an affectation for White Anglo-Protestant style insults of epithets and a fixation on my ass. That can be cured with more reading, writing and a better grasp of the language, sweet heart.

I've been posting online since 1995, and have been tempered from the blasts I've gotten when I was on conservative forums; so you would have to work to piss me off. Thanks for the entertaining whine when your drug of choice is knocked.

By the way; I don't think it should be banned and if people want to smoke and kill themselves, that's their problem.

Have a nice day, and thanks for the post. I am much amused.

[Mimosa]

59. Lance, a med prof had shown me studies showing the benefits of nicotine

I've known several MDs who smoke in moderation. One introduced me to cigar smoking which positively isn't addictive. I may 'remember' to enjoy a cigar every 6 weeks or so.

We had discussed these issues a lot long ago on another board. Things like the paper in cigarette is more toxic than tobacco itself. Cigars are usually (at least the handrolled products* pure tobacco. I don't like cigarettes but since 1997 I now and then enjoy a cigar. Nicotine has a calming and energising effect.

My med prof friend suspects the increase in substance abuse has tracked with the anti-smoking movement.

[madinmaryland]

70. Nicotine is not a harmful substance???

:wtf:

I don't know whether to laugh at that or cry that someone actually believes that.

[Lance_Boyle]

81. No more harmful than water, in moderation. Just like water.

Nicotine is a drug like any other - it can be used safely, and it has physiological effects that make it useful.

[MattBaggins]

86. So we can all add to that list things we personally don't like?

If you had a drink on the weekend... fired
Test people for nitrates...had some bacon lose your job
Don't like gun owners test their fingers for residual powder
Can we fire people for being christian
I'm a diabetic.. can we have people take glucose tests on Monday morning and if it's above 150 fire them?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

55. So is Alcohol, but you can't drink and work at the same time.

I think this is awesome! Who wants their health care worker unhealthy and stinky?

[Capitalocracy]

78. No alcohol on the job I can agree with.

Testing people for any traces of it as a condition for employment would just be fascist.

[LAGC]

5. So what?

Smoking is a choice.

Employers have good reason to not want to have to accomodate employees who need constant smoking breaks.

Tough nuggets. Don't like it? Quit. It's a nasty habit anyway.

[The Straight Story]

6. Again - not just smoking (the patch, etc). Religion is a choice too. So is abortion

You, of course, are on board with companies that want to not hire based on those choices as well I presume.

[LAGC]

7. Actually, do patches involve tobacco?

I thought that was only nicotine?

And no, sorry, I don't see private employers selectively choosing non-smokers as anything equivalent to a woman's choice over her own body ON HER OWN TIME, not her employer's.

Religion shouldn't be an issue in the workplace either, and anyone who vocally makes their religion an issue during an interview, deserves not to be hired.

[sarge43]

13. "Job applicants who test positive for nicotine ..."

So can't hire a highly qualified RN-PA because he wears a patch?

There's a very simple alternative that has worked well for years. No smoking on hospital, school, government, etc property. Get caught and bye-bye.

Cynical old bat that I am, I suspect someone is making money off the testing.

[LAGC]

14. My bad. I misread the article too fast.

Yes, this would seem a bit excessive.

I would hope they would give exceptions to people who demonstrate that they are using a patch.

[Mariana]

39. I don't know how they could do that.

Any smoker can buy some patches and slap one on before the interview or test or any other time they need to "demonstrate that they are using a patch". Or, they can buy some gum and show that they're "using" that.

I think they'll have to exclude people who are honestly not smoking but are using patches or gum or e-cigs.

[sarge43]

40. The strongest patch delivers 21mg of nicotine, gum 4mg.

A pack of cigs dumps much more nick. Think the test should show quantity of nicotine? Further, really want to test smokers: Check the nasal sinuses, a smoker's will look like the La Brea Tar Pits, a patch/gum user's not so much.

Besides, don't have to test, just sniff. Anyone who has never smoked or has stopped smoking can smell tobacco or its scent up wind and smokers reek of it.

Who would I want reading my X-ray? The person wearing a patch or the person with a five alarm hangover.

An insurance company is just bullying the hospital -- qual surprise. In turn the hospital is bullying employees.

Finally, don't mix patches/gum and smokes. Good way to get sick. Do it enough and you're sucking around for a MI.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

71. I have never smoked.

I can smell smokers when they pass by me in a store. From about five feet away.

They smell bad and don't realize it.

I have scar tissue in my lungs from my parents smoking when I was a little kid. Smokers are in denial about the harmful effects of smoke and second-hand smoke. This is not the first thread on DU where smokers tell us misguided non-smokers that tobacco is good for you!!

:wtf:

My parents quit smoking after the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans came out with facts about smoking causing lung cancer in the mid-60s.

I was ten when my mom quit smoking after an operation.

[Aerows]

82. I've switched to e-cigarettes

And it is a LOT better than smoking. Eliminating everyone who tests positive for nicotine is a bit too draconian.

[KharmaTrain]

33. Also mandated by Insurance Companies

Smoking or the addiction to nicotine (which is what this testing appears to be targeting) is considered a "pre-existing" condition. Smokers are charged higher premiums that surely employers are looking at and seeing a way to keep their insurance costs down. The cynical old bat that I am knows that these things always go to the bottom line...

[sarge43]

38. Follow the money. It's always a safe bet. n/t

[cleanhippie]

46. If that standard was applied across the board, I would agree.

What one does on personal time is of no concern to an employer, but if we are going to screen peoples pee for drug use, then lets make it consistent across the board.

[sarge43]

47. Agree

But another sure bet: A LPN applicant will be tested, the hospital administrator won't.

[cleanhippie]

52. Of course not, we can't have the "rulers" having to live up to the same standards.

[rustydog]

88. The patch is used to QUIT! That would be one of the questions

the prospective employer would or should ask the applicant on the disclosure form they sign before submitting to the testing.

I would be a bit nervous though if one frequented casinos where smoking is allowed and overwhelmingly sickening. One may show up positive for tobacco.

[boston bean]

8. drinking alcohol and calling out the next day due to a bender is a choice too. nt

[WatsonT]

31. Do that too often and you will be fired

try to sue because of discrimination against your lifestyle choice and you will be tossed out of court.

[pipoman]

10. Next will be fatties

who actually cost employers more than tobacco users....wait and see..

[JVS]

24. You don't think that already happens through the interview process?

[Texasgal]

42. Having children is a choice.

Good luck getting a job now that covers pregnancy has part of the health benefits!

Tough nuggets huh.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. but they are controlling what legal substance you can take in your free time

which is what is disturbing

[pipoman]

9. This is a growing movement

the claim being that smokers cost the health insurance more money, thus raising the cost of administering the insurance. Many, many places are upcharging smokers for health insurance.

On another related not, the same places which are charging smokers more are also initiating "wellness programs" which they ask or require employees to submit to blood pressure, cholesterol, weight/height assessment, etc. Then aggressively push employees to a diet, exercise program, or even medication to address any perceived issues. I believe the movement will begin by banning smokers, then when people have accepted the 'reasonableness' of this exclusion, they will move on the far more costly employees who are overweight.

Also, this will set the stage for continued denial of employment for people who enjoy the occasional weekend spliff even as states begin to legalize.

[eridani]

76. But they don't.--the exact opposite is true

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html

Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it does not save money, according to a new report.

It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in the Netherlands, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

Van Baal and colleagues create Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it does not save money, according to a new report.

[pipoman]

106. This is over the coarse of a lifetime

not merely working years. It would be hard to dispute the claims above. It would also be hard to dispute that people 35 to 60 who smoke or are obese (I suggest the latter more than the former) cost more than healthy weight non-smokers. Employers are mainly concerned with the here and now, not overall lifetime healthcare costs. They are also concerned with pre-65 year old employees. Post-65ers are eligible for medicare, the cost of a medicare supplement policy (which some provide for 65+ employees) is a fraction of the cost of a 64 yo insurance policy.

[RandomThoughts]

11. Private sector govenance enforcing laws on people.

By using economic exclusion.

They have no right to say what a person should do when not at work and not getting paid.

If a person has to take a drug test or smoking test, then they should be paid for 24 hours of every day. Since they are claiming to be able to decide what a person should do during their entire day. Note paying someone 24 hours a day is also a claim of ownership, since all a person's time would then be under the rules of a company, and is also illegal based on laws of things like required lunch breaks.

That may even be illegal, setting a restriction on employment is demanding a behavior while a person is not getting paid. That is a requirement of off the clock work.

[Tesha]

16. Of course they have "the right"; it says so in our current laws.

If you don't like this situation, go about changing our laws.

By the way, in some industries (such as semiconductor
manufacturing), your smoking, even hours before, harms
the product because you continue breathing out detectable
levels of particulates for hours afterwards and your particulates
screw up their products.

Tesha

[RandomThoughts]

19. Heh, in clean rooms they have respitory covers.

They do not have the right to tell a person what they have to do when not being paid, and if every company sets that rule, that is use of monopoly style rule setting.

The law in our society is not in sync with rights, we are currently in worse then anarchy, so using the 'current laws' as a defense of a position has no meaning.

As far as changing laws, they don't exist, look at the criminals not prosecuted. Your actual statement is not 'go about changing the laws' but go about instituting a form of governance that will move from worse then anarchy two tier justice, to some form of justice.

That action is not done by 'creating laws' when laws are already not enforced equally. It is a matter of removing or changing those that are illegal by not enforcing laws legally.

And actually the fix is removing laws not enforced, and correct enforcement, to establish justice

We currently live in a might makes right state, not a state of laws. That might is usually thorough information control or PR, but is also used by some unequal enforcement.

You are way off the issue to even make such a statement.

I assume you are under the delusion that the system works or is in some form just, it is geared to help a few people control and steal from many people.



And my smoking is not part of the issue, they owe me beer and travel money, and have not paid that, so how could they even make any claim to any of my actions?

They have gone so far, according to the way you phrase it, to make demands even when they don't pay. As I said we are in might makes right, worse then anarchy, not any system of justice.

[Tesha]

21. Laws DO exist; I'd suggest you read the laws around "employee at will".

Just because you don't like the current laws doesn't mean
that they don't exist.

Tesha

[RandomThoughts]

27. It is not a matter of me liking them or not.

They do not exist if not enforced equally, then they are not laws, they are forms of actions that can be selectively taken against some group.

They are not laws, they are things someone wrote to move power to some group, since they are not enforced equally.

By you thinking they are laws, you give them authority over you, when those that write them, and they are not enforced on, do not, by having a two tier system.

Laws have to apply to everyone, or they are functions of some group to be used for some speicific reason.

For that reason, changing the law has no effect, if they are not enforced.

What if I got a law that said it is illegal to torture, what difference would that make, what difference did it make.

Saying making laws means nothing if they are not enforced.

Your statement is very naive, and what those that take advantage of you count on, you thinking that society is just. Then you do not correct the injustice in society.


I have no problem personally with any 'laws' on the books, it is not about me, that is crazy, I don't plan on working, or quitting smoking, becuase I am already due beer and travel money. So none of that has any effect on me.


It is not becuase I don't like them, it is becuase they are ignored, that they do not exist as laws

[MattBaggins]

90. nonsense

and nonsense

[Tesha]

102. Which part is nonsense? Got any cites to prove that? (NT)

[pintobean]

12. I can't help but wonder

For the people who are ok with this; what legal, personal choices should catholic hospitals be allowed to discriminate against?

[LAGC]

17. Why, again, do we allow particular religious "charities" to run hospitals in the first place?

Something as important as emergency medical care shouldn't be entrusted into a particular creed, it brings up ethical conflicts of interest.

Every so often you hear about these religious hospitals that won't perform certain procedures because its a violation of their faith. So the patient has to be transported off to somewhere else, sometimes a secular hospital in a neighboring state!

Ridiculous.

[pmorlan1]

20. What's Next?

What's next, people who eat junk food? We won't hire overweight people because they promote unhealthy eating? This is so wrong.

[MilesColtrane]

22. Can they test for fast food consumption yet?

Or, will they just stop hiring people who are 25 pounds, or more, overweight?

[pmorlan1]

23. FREEDOM

Here we go again with the classic divide and conquer strategy. Some people who don't like smoking let their personal view get in the way of the larger question. Why do you want to give employers who discriminate support to do so? Do you not realize that discriminating against smokers is just the beginning? Smokers are used to start the ball rolling to discriminate against others. Good grief, wake up and stop letting your dislike of smoking blind you.

[Horse with no Name]

36. Important point. Thank you. n/t

[Mimosa]

60. More corporate power over people's private lives is unacceptable to me! n/t

[greenbird]

26. Not that it has anything to do with the OP

but I worked there 35 years ago, graveyard shift pharmacy tech while a student at MSU. My oldest daughter was born there 32 years ago.

[Donnachaidh]

29. And Sparrow Health should be boycotted by smokers and their families

Let's praise discrimination, shall we? :sarcasm:

Nicotine is LEGAL - it's also addictive. And for a health venue to out and out DISCRIMINATE - and not expect blowback?

:rofl:

[WatsonT]

30. It does cost them a lot more for health insurance

although I'd prefer just charging smokers more for their health coverage than not hiring them at all.

[Pathwalker]

32. The Sparrow Hospital SYSTEM is EVIL incarnate! DON'T go there!!!

Their doctors will give you several thousand dollars worth of tests, then give you a diagnosis of "I don't know". Before your insurance company can process the bills, they will send your account to a collection company - without first sending you a bill. Their collection company is one of those you read about - threats, calling your employers, calling at midnight, taking you to court, but unable to provide documentation...been there, done that!

Far better to go to the "other" hospital in town, where a 30 minute wait in the ER, and several hundred dollars worth od tests will give you an ACTUAL diagnosis, then treatment.

SPARROW IS EVIL!!!!!

[SOS]

85. Sparrow "Health" - LOL

These mercantile medical operations don't give a damn about their employees or their patients.
They exist only to enrich the executives and the shareholders.

The announcement of this policy adjusted to reality:

April 26 - For immediate release

Sparrow Medical Profit Corporation will no longer hire people who test positive for nicotine.
SMPC accountants calculate that this new policy will generate and additional 0.2% return on investment.
The CEO will receive and additional $12 million in stock options for his pioneering vision.
Patients with lifestyle-related illness will be instantly dropped from coverage to insure maximum profits.

[Fuzz]

34. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you. Everyone knows eating badly is bad for you.

Everyone knows not getting enough exercise is bad for you.
Everyone knows being overweight is bad for you.

How much are we, the public, going to accept employers forcing certain behaviors on employees for behavior that 'everyone knows' can improve health and at what point do we say that's a step too far?

People don't have much sympathy for smokers now, so it's kind of easy to support this. But soon the restriction might be something you enjoy, or don't enjoy doing or hell, you just don't want to be told what to do by someone just to make a living.

[BIGFOOTSDADDY333]

35. 1st they came for the smokers but isaid nothing for i'm not a smoker...end.

those

[YellowRubberDuckie]

57. I think this is a lame scare tactic and is a bit ridiculous.

Tobacco kills. Comparing them to Jews is absolutely insane!
Duckie

[Romulox]

69. Um, they came for the pot-heads WAY before the smokers...

:hi:

[JoeyT]

37. I think they should take it a step further.

Random involuntary searches of employees houses/apartments and cars. Anyone caught with any unhealthy or immoral substances or objects should be fired on the spot.

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. It does seem like that's what we're headed for, though.

[woo me with science]

48. Maybe a middle ground....webcams in the employees' bedrooms.

Some people here were completely fine with school systems' doing that.

[Texasgal]

41. The issue does not fall squarely on smoking

My husband who has a bad liver ( from he c, treated and no longer has it ) is in good working health was denied a job through the city because he could not pass the physical.

Why did he not pass the physical? Oh no, not because he couldn't lift a box over 30 pounds...because he had trace amounts of protein in his urine due to his liver issue which is perfectly maintained by small non-expensive amounts of meds! He is perfectly HEALTHY. Has no issues getting to work, doing work etc.

Healthy living my ass! This isn't about smoking! This is all about denying perfectly CAPABLE people a JOB with HEALTH BENEFITS!

[L0oniX]

43. ...and if they use alcohol?

[bluestate10]

44. Good. nt

[WinkyDink]

45. I'd screen for "votes Republican."

[Scout]

49. well, alcohol is legal too, and you aren't supposed to be under the influence

at work.

why should the drug nicotine be allowed?

[Mimosa]

64. Companies don't tell people they can't drink beer or wine at home, do they? n/t

[Thegonagle]

50. What about the simple productivity issue? (So many smoke breaks...)

Smokers "need" to leave their work to go outside for 5 or 10 minutes every 60 to 120.

[jp11]

53. The obvious answer there is until you hire someone you can't claim to

know what they will do or not do. How productive they are going to be compared to someone else, whether or not they 'need' those breaks or can get through the day without them. Just because it might be typical, it might even seem anecdotal to say they need frequent breaks doesn't mean that people can't do without them and there might even be people who perform better than non-smokers.

How about a religious person who needs to pray several times a day, or a diabetic who needs to eat regularly or take an insulin shot, or any other person who 'needs' to do something that interrupts an employer wanting to chain them to desk/work station for the whole shift? The argument about 'so many breaks' is in large part an argument about working conditions that employees are given/allowed less breaks from work which does not necessarily help anyone with productivity.

[Mimosa]

62. Those are 'the old days'

Most companies no longer allow smoking on premises. It's been decades since most companies allowed 'breaks' like you describe.

[sarge43]

68. The hospital in our area doesn't allow smoking on its grounds,

let alone in the buildings and there's a lot of ground. Any employee who smokes would have a hike that would use up all the break. I'm sure the hospital isn't unique or even rare.

Any patient who smokes is put on the patch during hospitalization.

[Xithras]

91. I don't think ANY companies offer smoke breaks nowadays.

Certainly none that I've seen in the past 15 years.

My current employer bans it anywhere on the premises, including the lawns and parking lots (not even in your own car, in their parking lot). Employees are required to walk all the way out to the sidewalk by the street to smoke (with no windbreaks or rain structures to hide under). Employees are also prohibited from leaving the premises during the two paid 15-minute breaks, which includes walking out to the sidewalk by the street. Smoking costs you work hours, which costs you money in your paycheck (an average of 10 work-hours a month, if you clock out to smoke during all of your breaks).

People who "need" their fix every 60 minutes usually quit within a couple days of being hired.

[jillan]

51. Guess I won't be applying there anytime soon.

[SidDithers]

54. Good...

smokers shouldn't get jobs in health care.

Sid

[Yo_Mama]

84. But they aren't discriminating against smokers

The test will just show nicotine. So someone who uses gum or whatever would also test positive. Theoretically someone who lived with a smoker might. Nicotine also occurs naturally in some vegetables like eggplant, peppers, tomatillos and potatoes. Depending on how sensitive the test is, I suppose a person who had eaten eggplant with peppers and hung out with a smoking friend the night before could potentially test positive. It seems to have happened:
http://forums.webmd.com/3/smoking-cessation-exchange/forum/535

You can say that nicotine use is unhealthy, but that just depends. It is certainly healthier than smoking.

I just see this as crossing the line. Obviously they can't smoke on the job, and I think that all hospitals have a no-campus rule? Patients and workers alike don't smoke there.

I have grown increasingly concerned about all drug testing. It's not always accurate. (Yes, eating poppy seeds will make you test positive for opiates on many drug screens.) It can follow the employee forever. I suppose a very tightly coupled business/reg/testing regime could be justifiable, such as drivers being tested for drugs. But something like this just seems arbitrary.

In a way, it reminds me of the bathroom thread last week. Some poor soul wrote in and described a work situation with no short breaks and the first scheduled break being seven hours into her shift, and being threatened with a written reprimand for using the toilet before then.

It troubles me deeply when any employer gets away with this sort of thing. It is essentially arbitrary and capricious.

[MattBaggins]

92. Nor anyone who uses alcohol at all

or sodium levels above a certain level
or glucose above 150
or nitrates in the blood from bacon
or cholesterol levels above 130

[Blue_In_AK]

61. I don't like this.

No smoking in the hospital, of course, but what people do in their private time is none of their employers' business.

[Hannah Bell]

63. anti-smoking nazis will soon be hoist on their own petard, as the excuse to poke

into everyone's private lives to determine employment-worthiness extends to larger & larger domains.

[Keith Bee]

66. K&R

It's a hospital, for Pete's sake!

[bhikkhu]

67. I wouldn't hire an addict myself, and drug tests are pretty standard

...I've had to take drug tests many times in my employment, usually because the health insurance providers gave discounts for testing to weed out drug users. I always thought it was a little ironic that one of the most addictive and harmful drugs was ignored, so I'm not surprised that someone's deciding not to ignore it.

Also, I've had a good long life full of experiences with addicts of many sorts. For the most part its been a learning process - the various drugs screwing up and altering the mind and body in particular ways. Nicotine has a persistent and characteristic effect on the brain processes, to the extent of introducing a certain "full of shit" aspect into otherwise reasonable characters. It sounds unkind (and probably it is), but many might understand what its like to have had enough, and to lose all curiosity and interest in addicts.

[MattBaggins]

93. LEGAL versus ILLEGAL

[bhikkhu]

101. Addicts vs. non-addicts is more the issue to me

...and admittedly its my biased opinion, based on way more problems with addicts of all sorts over the years than I'd like to think about. Legal or not makes no difference to me, any more than it made any difference to the wrecked minds and lives I've seen.

[Poll_Blind]

72. I swear to god it was the Marlboro muffin I had for breakfast!

PB

[Rage for Order]

74. I'd discriminate against fat people before I discriminated against smokers

From a health care cost perspective, fat people are way more expensive than smokers. Eating too much, or eating junk food, is just as much a choice as smoking, probably more so since smoking is an addiction. I'm waiting for the inevitable, "what about people with thyroid conditions???". Fie, exempt them; I'll only charge extra to the 95% who are fat due to reasons other than a thyroid condition.

[LAGC]

77. Actually, did you see the post upthread?

There have been studies that obese people actually cost less than healthy people, because they tend not to live nearly as long.

Live longer = more health-care needed.

I don't think we can compare discriminating against fat people (which already happens, employers just don't admit it) with selectively only hiring non-smokers.

Apples and oranges.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

100. How do you know how many have thyroid problems?

There may be up to 30 million people in the US with a dead or underactive thyroid. Women are told it's all in their heads because they are fat, tired and mad about not having energy.

It's not just middle aged women. I acquired Hashimoto's disease when I was ten or eleven years old. It's an autoimmune disease, and those run in families. My mother got Hashimoto's disease when she was ten or eleven, and she was put on Armour Thyroid back in the Depression, when she was a kid. Her sister had a thyroid where half worked and the other half did not.

It is probably fairly common in preteen and teenage girls, but nobody talks about thyroid disease in the media.

There are some men who have thyroid deficiency too. There are usually one man for every ten women with a thyroid problem.

You should read up on glandular disorders. Millions of people have them--diabetes, adrenal exhaustion, thyroid disease, and many more. There are many factors that affect metabolism.

I am waiting for some physics major to come in here and tell me that metabolism is like simple thermodynamics (thermogoddamnics I hear that it's called), where energy in = energy out. Human metabolism is not that simple.

[eridani]

75. This bullshit needs to stop ASAP

Not allowing them to smoke on the job is one thing, but what people do on their off hours is no one's damned business.

[Capitalocracy]

79. I hate cigarettes with a passion. Highly addictive, repulsive, and deadly.

But I am 100% against this fascist bullshit.

[Phoenix63]

83. Wow..

Surprised to see so much venom here. While I understand people not wanting to be around smoke, hasn't that problem been addressed? I'm hard pressed to find a single place where you can smoke indoors and I know many places where you can't even smoke outdoors. Yet people are still angry at smokers.

If this was done to promote healthy living, then are they hiring Twinkie eaters? Soda drinkers? What about people who eat McDonalds? Seems like a slippery slope to me.

[ecstatic]

89. They probably did the math and realized smokers are making their health insurance

costs sky high. But if they get away with this, I'm guessing fat employees will be the next group to be banned. Then groups with a higher rate for heart disease, etc. I could see this being a slippery slope.

That being said, if this rule encourages people to stop smoking, that would be a good thing.

[louslobbs]

94. Why don't they just get it over with and require a DNA test with all applications for employment?

Also, they can change all the applications to ask all the questions necessary to make an informed hiring decision.
1.Do you smoke?
2.Do you drink alcohol, ever?
3.Are you now or have you ever chosen to be gay?
4.What is your religion?
5.Do you vote Republican or Democrat?
6.Are you in an interracial marriage?
7.Does your family have a history of any health issues you want to tell us about before we run your DNA test?
8.How ofter do you have sex?
9.Are you now or have you ever chosen to be a lesbian?
10.Have you ever filed for bankruptcy?
11.When we run a credit check on you, will we find any financial issues or problems?
12.Do you have a regular bowel movement?
13.What medications do you take?
14.Do you use recreational drugs? Please be honest, as we are running tests on your blood and urine.
15.Do you exercise regularly?
16.What is your current caloric intake? Please be specific: Proteins, fats etc.
17.Are you an American citizen and can you prove it?
18.To the best of your ability, tell us what foods are in your home right now? We could do a random check at any time in the future should you be hired.
19.Do you own your own home?
20.Have you ever been pregnant? Males can skip this question.
21.How many children do you have that you know of?
22.Are both of your parents white?
23.When was the last time you smoked marijuana?
24.What was your GPA in high school, college, other?
25.Do you drink bottled water or from the tap?
26.What sports activities are you currently involved in?
27.If married, how ofter do you fight with your spouse?
28.Do you drink coffee?
29.What kind of music do you listen to and who are your favorite artists.
30.What do you do for fun?
31.Why should we hire you?
32.If we ask to see your private computer hard drive or drives, would that be a problem for you?
33.What social networks do you belong to?
34.List all screen names and email addresses you use on your personal computer, give all passwords.
35.If we ask to see the contacts in your cell phone, would that be a problem for you?
36.Do you now, or have you ever suffered from a mental illness.
37.How often do you get your period?
38.What year did you pass through menopause?
39.How often do you get an erection?
40.If impotent, do you take any erectile medications?
41.Were you molested as a child?
42.Do you leave the toilet seat up or down?
43.How often do you clip your nails and toe nails.
44.When was the last time you went to the doctor?
45.Have you ever visited an emergency room and why?
46.Have you ever had an abortion?
47.Have you ever been charged with a crime?
48.Do you masturbate, how often, and when was the last time?
49.Have you ever heard of the Koch Brothers?
50.If we asked you to vote for a political candidate of our choosing, would you?
51.Do you believe in God?
52.When was the last time you attended church?
53.Do you have any Muslim friends?
54.If we hire you, will you do what you are told and not question our authority?
55.Do you sleep on the Right or left side of the bed?
56.Do you sleep in the buff or wear some type of clothing?
57.How old is your mattress?
58.How many people currently live in your home? Please give name and ages.
59.How many cars do you own? Give make, model, yr and whether owned, leased or financed.
60.Do you currently have health insurance, if so, with who and how many times have you used the policy?
61.Do you own any firearms? If so, give make and model and serial number, where and when purchased.
62.Do you belong to any organizations such as NRA, Americans for Prosperity etc?
63.How many words can you type?
64.Do you have a problem with starting the day by saying the pledge of allegiance?
65.When did you file your last tax return? Did you receive a refund or have to write a check?
66.How many car accidents have you been involved in? How many were your fault?
67.Are your teeth their natural white or have you had them whitened?
68.Do you have breast implants?
69.Have you ever had liposuction?
70.Do you suffer from halitosis?
71.Do you shower or bathe?
72.Do you douche regularly?
73.Do you have any corns, bunions or hammer toes?
74.Have you ever served in the military?
75.What did your father do for a living?
76.Where were you born? Give hospital name, date, time, weight, length, natural or cesarean.
77.How many parking tickets have you received?
78.When you fill up your tank, which gasoline do you use?
79.Have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh? How about Glenn Beck?
80.When was the last time you tuned into Fox News?
81.Have you ever heard of Rachel Maddow?
82.Do you believe in the separation of church and state.
83.If we hire you and our company asks, what things would you have a problem doing for the cause?
84.If we hire you, will you submit to regular searches of your personal and private property?
85.When you are alone, what do you think about?
86.Use one word to describe yourself.
87.If we asked you to buy specific products instead of those you currently use, would that be a problem?
88.This job has a lot of unpaid overtime, is that a problem?
89.Will you sign a confidentiality agreement?
90.If we ask you to join certain organizations on behalf of the company, would that be a problem?
91.If you should gain weight while employed here and we ask you to lose it asap, any problem with that?
92.We do random blood draws to check cholesterol levels, would that trouble you?
93.Some of our managers believe in corporal punishment for those who break rules, any problems with that?
94.We provide a company lunch, everyone eats the same well balanced lunch each day, any issues with that?
95.If we ran your TRW right now, what would we find?
96.What are your current savings, checking and investment balances?
97.Why did you leave your last job?
98.All of our employees start at minimum wage and work their way up, is that a problem?
99.The work day here is a 12hr day as opposed to 8hrs, does that pose a problem?
100.You do realize that this is at will employment, that if you don't perform, we can fire you at will without any reason what so ever?
Lou

[Blue_In_AK]

96. That should just about cover all the relevant questions I would think.

[louslobbs]

98. If you can think of any I missed, just add them on. Thanks

Lou

[Ron Green]

95. I remember the smoky world that used to be, and I like this less smoky one

much better.

Movie theaters
Airplanes
Bank lobbies
Offices
Restaurants
Hospitals

It's hard to imagine how foul the public indoor spaces used to be.

[Blue_In_AK]

97. But do you have a problem with someone

smoking at their own home on their back porch, for instance? Employers AND the government should stay out of people's private lives.

[Ron Green]

99. I don't have a problem (as long as they're not upwind from my porch), but an employer may.

I support not only public policy but also business decisions that curtail and diminish behavior that is clearly harmful. At the same time, people are free to do what they want at home. I DON'T see an employer's hiring decision as a problem if it's made clear in advance. Any incentive for people to quit smoking is a good incentive.

I don't think it's analagous to when the Nazis "first came for the ________ ."

[TK421]

103. Screw how qualified they would have been for the position

that obviously doesn't mean squat anyways