Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Company tests for and will not hire smokers
Grimmerick
Posts: 3,342 Member
I was comparing salaries online and I came across a job posting for a private hospital, they tested potential employees for cotinine and stated they would not hire anyone who smokes cigarettes because it is unhealthy and preventable. I don't know how I feel about this, on the one hand it is a private company and smoking is bad for you, on the other hand where does it stop and is it really any of their business anyway? Next will they not hire morbidly obese people or people that drink too much on their time off? There is a lot of preventable things we as humans do that can be detrimental to our health, so what comes next. Thoughts?
3
Replies
-
How is this much different from testing for any drugs? As a hospital, I can understand the desire to not hire employees who smoke. There is evidence against second and third hand smoke being harmful. If this hospital deals with people who are already unhealthy, for example lung cancer, exposing them to someone who smells of smoke could potentially be harmful to that patient's health. That makes the smokers a liability to the hospital.24
-
Cassandraw3 wrote: »How is this much different from testing for any drugs? As a hospital, I can understand the desire to not hire employees who smoke. There is evidence against second and third hand smoke being harmful. If this hospital deals with people who are already unhealthy, for example lung cancer, exposing them to someone who smells of smoke could potentially be harmful to that patient's health. That makes the smokers a liability to the hospital.
Drugs are illegal though and can make you act in a way you normally wouldn't if you were on them at work and that could be dangerous, cigarettes don't do that. I would have to see the evidence on smelling smoke on someone as being harmful, do you have a link to that I would really be interested in reading it. It just seems like a slippery slope to me. They are a private company though so they could do whatever they want but I just wonder if they refused to hire morbidly obese people for example, if there would be a big backlash8 -
Grimmerick wrote: »Cassandraw3 wrote: »How is this much different from testing for any drugs? As a hospital, I can understand the desire to not hire employees who smoke. There is evidence against second and third hand smoke being harmful. If this hospital deals with people who are already unhealthy, for example lung cancer, exposing them to someone who smells of smoke could potentially be harmful to that patient's health. That makes the smokers a liability to the hospital.
Drugs are illegal though and can make you act in a way you normally wouldn't if you were on them at work and that could be dangerous, cigarettes don't do that. I would have to see the evidence on smelling smoke on someone as being harmful, do you have a link to that I would really be interested in reading it. It just seems like a slippery slope to me. They are a private company though so they could do whatever they want but I just wonder if they refused to hire morbidly obese people for example, if there would be a big backlash
For bad asthma you can 100% be set off by smells- cig smoke being one of them. The CDC has some great resources about second hand smoke- https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2006/consumer_summary/index.htm
Personally, I have a co-worker who has to leave when they clean the office upholstery- the smell of it can set off her asthma. Asthma is nothing to mess around with.
20 -
Grimmerick wrote: »I was comparing salaries online and I came across a job posting for a private hospital, they tested potential employees for cotinine and stated they would not hire anyone who smokes cigarettes because it is unhealthy and preventable. I don't know how I feel about this, on the one hand it is a private company and smoking is bad for you, on the other hand where does it stop and is it really any of their business anyway? Next will they not hire morbidly obese people or people that drink too much on their time off? There is a lot of preventable things we as humans do that can be detrimental to our health, so what comes next. Thoughts?
going to work freshly showered and not smelling like cigarette smoke is quite enough for any employer. the rest of our life is ours,13 -
Grimmerick wrote: »Cassandraw3 wrote: »How is this much different from testing for any drugs? As a hospital, I can understand the desire to not hire employees who smoke. There is evidence against second and third hand smoke being harmful. If this hospital deals with people who are already unhealthy, for example lung cancer, exposing them to someone who smells of smoke could potentially be harmful to that patient's health. That makes the smokers a liability to the hospital.
Drugs are illegal though and can make you act in a way you normally wouldn't if you were on them at work and that could be dangerous, cigarettes don't do that. I would have to see the evidence on smelling smoke on someone as being harmful, do you have a link to that I would really be interested in reading it. It just seems like a slippery slope to me. They are a private company though so they could do whatever they want but I just wonder if they refused to hire morbidly obese people for example, if there would be a big backlash
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/thirdhand-smoke-can-be-dangerous-even-if-you-cant-see-or-smell-it#3
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/expert-answers/third-hand-smoke/faq-20057791
https://www.neha.org/eh-topics/air-quality-0/third-hand-smoke
Unfortunately, there isn't much research on the direct effects on humans, because that sort of testing would be unethical. But, even just the residual smell on clothing can have harmful effects on those around, particularly elderly and infants.13 -
Cassandraw3 wrote: »Grimmerick wrote: »Cassandraw3 wrote: »How is this much different from testing for any drugs? As a hospital, I can understand the desire to not hire employees who smoke. There is evidence against second and third hand smoke being harmful. If this hospital deals with people who are already unhealthy, for example lung cancer, exposing them to someone who smells of smoke could potentially be harmful to that patient's health. That makes the smokers a liability to the hospital.
Drugs are illegal though and can make you act in a way you normally wouldn't if you were on them at work and that could be dangerous, cigarettes don't do that. I would have to see the evidence on smelling smoke on someone as being harmful, do you have a link to that I would really be interested in reading it. It just seems like a slippery slope to me. They are a private company though so they could do whatever they want but I just wonder if they refused to hire morbidly obese people for example, if there would be a big backlash
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/thirdhand-smoke-can-be-dangerous-even-if-you-cant-see-or-smell-it#3
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/expert-answers/third-hand-smoke/faq-20057791
https://www.neha.org/eh-topics/air-quality-0/third-hand-smoke
Unfortunately, there isn't much research on the direct effects on humans, because that sort of testing would be unethical. But, even just the residual smell on clothing can have harmful effects on those around, particularly elderly and infants.
Thanks for the info! for the record I don't think people should even be allowed to wear perfume in a medical atmosphere. There are some smokers however that do not smoke at work and do not go to work smelling like smoke. I could see not being allowed to smoke at work or smell like it but what you do in your off time that's legal......that's where I question things....slippery slope and all that.6 -
With my husband's company we get penalized for smoking/high BMI/bad blood work (mandatory bloodwork every fall). These are all factors that put people at higher risk for medical care so I understand why companies are starting to implement the rules/testing.10
-
With my husband's company we get penalized for smoking/high BMI/bad blood work (mandatory bloodwork every fall). These are all factors that put people at higher risk for medical care so I understand why companies are starting to implement the rules/testing.
That may be a step too far for my comfort...what can they use as "bad" in bloodwork? Thryroid? Cholesterol? Blood glucose? Alcohol or marijuana? That seems like a very slippery slope.14 -
There are many companies that test for and will fire you if you fail a cannabis test, and it is legal. How is this any different? I don't have an issue with it.
I had to sit next to a lady who smoked. She smoked outside on her breaks. I had to take EXTRA antihistamines so I could do my job and not be sick. How is that fair? Her choices (smoking) were infringing on my right to a healthy place to work.30 -
To be fair this is their business because we have increasingly made this their business.
Employer provided insurance largely took root during WWII when wages were capped and businesses implemented this as an additional incentive to entice employees. This model works with long term employment and stable growth, but fell apart as the market changed to trans-nationalism.
If you expect an employer to cover expenses, then you shouldn't be surprised when they take actions to limit these expenses.30 -
Katiebear_81 wrote: »There are many companies that test for and will fire you if you fail a cannabis test, and it is legal. How is this any different? I don't have an issue with it.
I had to sit next to a lady who smoked. She smoked outside on her breaks. I had to take EXTRA antihistamines so I could do my job and not be sick. How is that fair? Her choices (smoking) were infringing on my right to a healthy place to work.
cannabis is not legal where I live nor is it legal everywhere................yet. I also said that I don't think people should even be allowed to wear perfume to work in certain environments and I don't think they should be allowed to reek of smoke either but some smokers do not do that, they don't smoke at work or come to work smelling like smoke, this would affect them. I don't think being able to wear perfume is fair either, my friend gets horrible migraines and there is nothing she can do about it if the other person wants to wear perfume.3 -
To be fair this is their business because we have increasingly made this their business.
Employer provided insurance largely took root during WWII when wages were capped and businesses implemented this as an additional incentive to entice employees. This model works with long term employment and stable growth, but fell apart as the market changed to trans-nationalism.
If you expect an employer to cover expenses, then you shouldn't be surprised when they take actions to limit these expenses.
So my real thought with this debate which I was really hoping someone would touch on is kinda what you are alluding to right above, what happens when they say no morbidly obese people, for example?6 -
I mean, they pay for your health insurance than you do... I can completely understand why they wouldn't want you to. Plus, when you work for a company, you represent them. As a healthcare provider, you don't want to promote things that are unhealthy. It's like the "do what I say, not what I do" saying.8
-
To be fair this is their business because we have increasingly made this their business.
Employer provided insurance largely took root during WWII when wages were capped and businesses implemented this as an additional incentive to entice employees. This model works with long term employment and stable growth, but fell apart as the market changed to trans-nationalism.
If you expect an employer to cover expenses, then you shouldn't be surprised when they take actions to limit these expenses.
actually its just the cost of doing business - we are people and we have needs habits expenses - just like machines,... its the cost of doing business and i think if this is what the employer wants from employees then show all employees that everyone all the way up to stockholders do not smoke - that NO ONE AFFILIATED W THIS COMPANY SMOKES. EVERYONE.
15 -
Katiebear_81 wrote: »There are many companies that test for and will fire you if you fail a cannabis test, and it is legal. How is this any different? I don't have an issue with it.
I had to sit next to a lady who smoked. She smoked outside on her breaks. I had to take EXTRA antihistamines so I could do my job and not be sick. How is that fair? Her choices (smoking) were infringing on my right to a healthy place to work.
because its about personal freedom. The problem is that one person's free expression of their rights will automatically infringe upon the right of the person who disagrees. So who's right is more right? Or is it a right only when it doesn't bother someone else, but as soon as someone says it creates a hardship for them or they disagree or they think I'm hurting myself and therefore need someone to make me do whats good for me, I no longer have a right to live and think as I like?
Should people be fired from work because they bring peanut butter sandwiches in for lunch and have a co-worker allergic to them? Do we want someone telling us what we can and cannot eat, can and cannot wear, and can and cannot do? So does it come down to we live in a free society but only when you freely do what society says you can and don't what society says you can't? Is that really a free society?
Its a very slippery slope when the population begins calling for rules and regulations to stop others from doing things they don't like. No one lives completely isolated from others, that's true, but we also can't completely and totally live our lives so that it never ever offends or bothers anyone else unless you want to be a complete recluse. It's about tolerance and affording others the right to live their lives as they see fit, no matter if we disagree with them, because we want the same right for ourselves.
I understand we need to have rules in place for basic civility in life - I'm a firm believer that all human beings are selfish and self-centered at heart, and I realize there is truly some plain evil out there that needs rules in place to keep in check, but I also realize that the rules themselves can quickly because oppressive and stifling to humanity if they themselves are not kept in check.
At the same time, since its a private company, despite my disagreement with the policy, I fully support their right to hire or not hire whoever they want based upon whatever conditions they want.16 -
1 -
cmriverside wrote: »With my husband's company we get penalized for smoking/high BMI/bad blood work (mandatory bloodwork every fall). These are all factors that put people at higher risk for medical care so I understand why companies are starting to implement the rules/testing.
That may be a step too far for my comfort...what can they use as "bad" in bloodwork? Thryroid? Cholesterol? Blood glucose? Alcohol or marijuana? That seems like a very slippery slope.
The place I work doesn't punish those who refuse their yearly physical, it just doesn't reward them. If I do my yearly physical and the three steps in the program, my weekly pay out goes down $20 and I get a $250 good life card. If someone chooses not to do it, their pay out doesn't change.3 -
cmriverside wrote: »With my husband's company we get penalized for smoking/high BMI/bad blood work (mandatory bloodwork every fall). These are all factors that put people at higher risk for medical care so I understand why companies are starting to implement the rules/testing.
That may be a step too far for my comfort...what can they use as "bad" in bloodwork? Thryroid? Cholesterol? Blood glucose? Alcohol or marijuana? That seems like a very slippery slope.
They've done it for a few years now-the blood test checks for smoking, cholesterol panel and glucose number. We also have to have our blood pressure checked, our waist, weight and height measured (it's all done at a lab). The numbers are pretty generous but if you go over them you get penalized on your insurance premiums (there's surcharges added-$500 for smoking (spouse too) etc).
eta: the first year it bothered us, but I can understand why they do it so now it's not a big deal. I also like it because I get a second blood test panel done for free every year and I'm a data geek
6 -
Grimmerick wrote: »To be fair this is their business because we have increasingly made this their business.
Employer provided insurance largely took root during WWII when wages were capped and businesses implemented this as an additional incentive to entice employees. This model works with long term employment and stable growth, but fell apart as the market changed to trans-nationalism.
If you expect an employer to cover expenses, then you shouldn't be surprised when they take actions to limit these expenses.
So my real thought with this debate which I was really hoping someone would touch on is kinda what you are alluding to right above, what happens when they say no morbidly obese people, for example?
All of this goes away if we started paying for our own healthcare and insurance and taking responsibility for our behavior. This would resolve a whole host of manufactured problems, such as the rising cost of healthcare.17 -
Grimmerick wrote: »To be fair this is their business because we have increasingly made this their business.
Employer provided insurance largely took root during WWII when wages were capped and businesses implemented this as an additional incentive to entice employees. This model works with long term employment and stable growth, but fell apart as the market changed to trans-nationalism.
If you expect an employer to cover expenses, then you shouldn't be surprised when they take actions to limit these expenses.
So my real thought with this debate which I was really hoping someone would touch on is kinda what you are alluding to right above, what happens when they say no morbidly obese people, for example?
The last job I had was very physical and a morbidly obese person would not have been able to do it (literally crawling on the floor underneath tables and such on a regular basis). My husband's job would be very difficult for someone who was obese, pretty much impossible for someone morbidly obese (climbing up and down ladders, fitting in very tight spaces etc). I see nothing wrong with not hiring people who cannot physically do a certain job.16 -
Grimmerick wrote: »To be fair this is their business because we have increasingly made this their business.
Employer provided insurance largely took root during WWII when wages were capped and businesses implemented this as an additional incentive to entice employees. This model works with long term employment and stable growth, but fell apart as the market changed to trans-nationalism.
If you expect an employer to cover expenses, then you shouldn't be surprised when they take actions to limit these expenses.
So my real thought with this debate which I was really hoping someone would touch on is kinda what you are alluding to right above, what happens when they say no morbidly obese people, for example?
All of this goes away if we started paying for our own healthcare and insurance and taking responsibility for our behavior. This would resolve a whole host of manufactured problems, such as the rising cost of healthcare.
this is not true at all...the companies don't give up control of things - and give us higher paychecks so we can handle things ourselves bc the companies get a huge tax break to handle it...and companies will not give up that revenue stream sorry.
10 -
Grimmerick wrote: »To be fair this is their business because we have increasingly made this their business.
Employer provided insurance largely took root during WWII when wages were capped and businesses implemented this as an additional incentive to entice employees. This model works with long term employment and stable growth, but fell apart as the market changed to trans-nationalism.
If you expect an employer to cover expenses, then you shouldn't be surprised when they take actions to limit these expenses.
So my real thought with this debate which I was really hoping someone would touch on is kinda what you are alluding to right above, what happens when they say no morbidly obese people, for example?
The last job I had was very physical and a morbidly obese person would not have been able to do it (literally crawling on the floor underneath tables and such on a regular basis). My husband's job would be very difficult for someone who was obese, pretty much impossible for someone morbidly obese (climbing up and down ladders, fitting in very tight spaces etc). I see nothing wrong with not hiring people who cannot physically do a certain job.
but what happens when they say no, not because of it being too physical but because being morbidly obese is unhealthy and causes a host of health problems that can be prevented by not being morbidly obese(this was one of their reasons for the smoking initiative) or they want to be represented by "healthy looking" people. Where is the line of when it is about health and when it is considered discrimination? I agree with you on your point though, be it fit or fat, man or woman I do not believe ANYONE should lower the bar just to have forced diversity. I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.8 -
OP - I own a business and pay for 100% of my employees health and dental insurance.
ALSO - Smoking/vaping is legal and I get the point you are trying to make -
BUT
...It is known that smokers, on average, take 2 or 3 more sick days per year than non-smokers.
...And smokers take "smoke breaks" while non-smokers are still hard at it (a moral killer for the non-smokers)
So, instead of testing for it, we simply have a no smoking policy on the company property, company vehicles and on our clients property...and that takes care of that.
What you do on your own time is your own business.25 -
Grimmerick wrote: »Cassandraw3 wrote: »How is this much different from testing for any drugs? As a hospital, I can understand the desire to not hire employees who smoke. There is evidence against second and third hand smoke being harmful. If this hospital deals with people who are already unhealthy, for example lung cancer, exposing them to someone who smells of smoke could potentially be harmful to that patient's health. That makes the smokers a liability to the hospital.
Drugs are illegal though and can make you act in a way you normally wouldn't if you were on them at work and that could be dangerous, cigarettes don't do that. I would have to see the evidence on smelling smoke on someone as being harmful, do you have a link to that I would really be interested in reading it. It just seems like a slippery slope to me. They are a private company though so they could do whatever they want but I just wonder if they refused to hire morbidly obese people for example, if there would be a big backlash
If it is a smoking prohibited campus as I imagine all hospitals are now, it can certainly have an effect on a smoker. Try working with one under pressure or in a high stress environment for 10-12 hours while they would not be able to smoke. It can certainly impair critical thinking and decidion making skills and cause erratic behaviour.16 -
george5911 wrote: »Grimmerick wrote: »Cassandraw3 wrote: »How is this much different from testing for any drugs? As a hospital, I can understand the desire to not hire employees who smoke. There is evidence against second and third hand smoke being harmful. If this hospital deals with people who are already unhealthy, for example lung cancer, exposing them to someone who smells of smoke could potentially be harmful to that patient's health. That makes the smokers a liability to the hospital.
Drugs are illegal though and can make you act in a way you normally wouldn't if you were on them at work and that could be dangerous, cigarettes don't do that. I would have to see the evidence on smelling smoke on someone as being harmful, do you have a link to that I would really be interested in reading it. It just seems like a slippery slope to me. They are a private company though so they could do whatever they want but I just wonder if they refused to hire morbidly obese people for example, if there would be a big backlash
If it is a smoking prohibited campus as I imagine all hospitals are now, it can certainly have an effect on a smoker. Try working with one under pressure or in a high stress environment for 10-12 hours while they would not be able to smoke. It can certainly impair critical thinking and decidion making skills and cause erratic behaviour.
I don't know that I would compare the behavior of someone on drugs (and I don't mean MJ) with someone who hasn't had a cigarette in 10-12 hours, you could easily say lack of sleep would do this as well and lack of adequate sleep at a hospital is pretty common especially among important decision making doctors and residents who work long long shifts and some working another job as well or still going to school on top of that. I would even argue that not enough sleep is more dangerous to the brain and decision making skills than not having a cigarette. I'm just saying if we have concerns about things that affect decision making and erratic behavior, I would be more worried about lack of sleep than cigarette withdrawal. I also see patients here that fill out forms stating they have 1 or 2 cigarettes a day so not everyone that smokes does it all day everyday. Some people treat it like a beer at the end of a long day.6 -
OP - I own a business and pay for 100% of my employees health and dental insurance.
ALSO - Smoking/vaping is legal and I get the point you are trying to make -
BUT
...It is known that smokers, on average, take 2 or 3 more sick days per year than non-smokers.
...And smokers take "smoke breaks" while non-smokers are still hard at it (a moral killer for the non-smokers)
So, instead of testing for it, we simply have a no smoking policy on the company property, company vehicles and on our clients property...and that takes care of that.
What you do on your own time is your own business.
That's a smart solution, on your company time it's your business, on their time it's their business.5 -
Grimmerick wrote: »I was comparing salaries online and I came across a job posting for a private hospital, they tested potential employees for cotinine and stated they would not hire anyone who smokes cigarettes because it is unhealthy and preventable. I don't know how I feel about this, on the one hand it is a private company and smoking is bad for you, on the other hand where does it stop and is it really any of their business anyway? Next will they not hire morbidly obese people or people that drink too much on their time off? There is a lot of preventable things we as humans do that can be detrimental to our health, so what comes next. Thoughts?
going to work freshly showered and not smelling like cigarette smoke is quite enough for any employer. the rest of our life is ours,
Of course if the person has a cig on the way to work or one during the workday all the fresh shower goes out the window.7 -
george5911 wrote: »Grimmerick wrote: »Cassandraw3 wrote: »How is this much different from testing for any drugs? As a hospital, I can understand the desire to not hire employees who smoke. There is evidence against second and third hand smoke being harmful. If this hospital deals with people who are already unhealthy, for example lung cancer, exposing them to someone who smells of smoke could potentially be harmful to that patient's health. That makes the smokers a liability to the hospital.
Drugs are illegal though and can make you act in a way you normally wouldn't if you were on them at work and that could be dangerous, cigarettes don't do that. I would have to see the evidence on smelling smoke on someone as being harmful, do you have a link to that I would really be interested in reading it. It just seems like a slippery slope to me. They are a private company though so they could do whatever they want but I just wonder if they refused to hire morbidly obese people for example, if there would be a big backlash
If it is a smoking prohibited campus as I imagine all hospitals are now, it can certainly have an effect on a smoker. Try working with one under pressure or in a high stress environment for 10-12 hours while they would not be able to smoke. It can certainly impair critical thinking and decidion making skills and cause erratic behaviour.
and this is not true at all. a smoker adjust to the reduced intake pretty quickly and then the craving arrives during the new time its allowed. been there done that.
6 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Grimmerick wrote: »I was comparing salaries online and I came across a job posting for a private hospital, they tested potential employees for cotinine and stated they would not hire anyone who smokes cigarettes because it is unhealthy and preventable. I don't know how I feel about this, on the one hand it is a private company and smoking is bad for you, on the other hand where does it stop and is it really any of their business anyway? Next will they not hire morbidly obese people or people that drink too much on their time off? There is a lot of preventable things we as humans do that can be detrimental to our health, so what comes next. Thoughts?
going to work freshly showered and not smelling like cigarette smoke is quite enough for any employer. the rest of our life is ours,
Of course if the person has a cig on the way to work or one during the workday all the fresh shower goes out the window.
maybe, when my husband was a smoker my parents never knew and he would smoke a cigarette a little before getting to my parents house, and then give my mom a hug (he used mint gum and a little body spray). As a respiratory therapist she hates smoking and would have definitely said something......she still doesn't know. I never knew a coworker of mine smoked at lunch for years until she mentioned she was proud she finally quit. Usually the people that reek are people that smoke all of the time and in their homes and it get's in their hair, skin and clothes.6 -
Those of you who are worried about "slippery slopes" need to remember that most of the things mentioned are already being held against people, companies just don't have official hiring policies for them. For example, I have read studies that say it is much easier to get a job if you are good looking, tall, thin, etc. The company doesn't say "we don't hire fat ugly people" but they are much more likely to think the better looking people are better candidates, probably subconsciously.
Companies can't have formal policies that state "we don't hire people over age X" but that doesn't mean that a 40 year old and a 60 year old are equally likely to get a job.
The company's ban on hiring smokers is just being more open about not wanting smokers as employees. I'm sure plenty of people have not gotten job offers because they smelled of smoke during the interview.11
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions