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
Replies
-
happytree923 wrote: »Is this a Seventh Day Adventist owned hospital? I've heard of SDA owned organizations getting pretty invasive asking about their potential employee's health habits because health is a part of their religion. I'm not sure how I feel about it generally but at least with the Seventh Day Adventists it's kind of like, 'oh, makes sense, it's THOSE guys' reaction. FWIW the only time I've ever heard of an employer asking about tabacco use was an SDA hospital.
My husband does not work for a hospital (he's in the HVAC field and works for a large, global company). We've been tested for tobacco/fined if used for several years now. They provide health insurance and those who smoke are in a higher risk category for needing more medical care at some point. Same with why they now do the mandatory blood work/BMI checks. They pay health insurance benefits for over 300,000 employees, so I understand why they're doing this.
eta: from talking to others who work for different companies, I think the tobacco thing is becoming pretty common now.
It's legal to charge smokers more for health insurance (in the US). I thought for other things it wasn't permitted to charge more for bad markers, but you could have a company wellness plan and so give benefits for certain things (like taking steps to improve fitness, being a healthy weight, lowering cholesterol) -- it's supposed to be framed as benefits for positive things vs. charging more for negative things (although of course they are effectively the same).0 -
happytree923 wrote: »Is this a Seventh Day Adventist owned hospital? I've heard of SDA owned organizations getting pretty invasive asking about their potential employee's health habits because health is a part of their religion. I'm not sure how I feel about it generally but at least with the Seventh Day Adventists it's kind of like, 'oh, makes sense, it's THOSE guys' reaction. FWIW the only time I've ever heard of an employer asking about tabacco use was an SDA hospital.
My husband does not work for a hospital (he's in the HVAC field and works for a large, global company). We've been tested for tobacco/fined if used for several years now. They provide health insurance and those who smoke are in a higher risk category for needing more medical care at some point. Same with why they now do the mandatory blood work/BMI checks. They pay health insurance benefits for over 300,000 employees, so I understand why they're doing this.
eta: from talking to others who work for different companies, I think the tobacco thing is becoming pretty common now.
It's legal to charge smokers more for health insurance (in the US). I thought for other things it wasn't permitted to charge more for bad markers, but you could have a company wellness plan and so give benefits for certain things (like taking steps to improve fitness, being a healthy weight, lowering cholesterol) -- it's supposed to be framed as benefits for positive things vs. charging more for negative things (although of course they are effectively the same).
It started out as an incentive program but changed a while back to surcharges on your health insurance benefits (added costs to our premiums).2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Lastly, in terms of this slippery slope idea, which I think is a red herring, there are jobs where being over X pounds would prohibit you from doing your tasks. There are also jobs where more than a minimal level of fitness is required, jobs where a minimum level of fine motor skills are required, and so on.
There are people who don't have great motor control. Some of them are very smart, I mean look at Stephen Hawking. You can't use a computer mouse or a touch pad without good motor control.
You can generally get around a computer with the tab and arrow keys. But not always. Most developers use a mouse. That means you can't have some IT jobs if you have motor issues. Not just something like Photoshop, but certain kinds of network administration jobs too, because there are things that can't be done with the keyboard alone in some of the server products.
That's really a shame, because people like Stephen Hawking don't have many options in the trades, in sports, etc.
(I just started at Microsoft, my job is 100% fixing bugs that prevent people with disabilities from working on server infrastructure.)
Of course there are people who don't have good (or any) fine motor control. That doesn't mean they'll be able to do a job that requires it. It also has nothing to do with their intellect - I didn't imply that intelligence had anything to do with this. I, for a short period of time, was seriously thinking about becoming a flute maker. The flutes I would have been making are almost entirely made by hand and come in at anywhere between $8,000 (at the very low end) and $43,000. Making and repairing flutes (among other instruments) requires very good fine motor skill and there really isn't a way around that. Sure there are mass produced flutes, but that's not the level of flute I'm talking about. Yes, being an instrument maker and/or repairer, in general, is a fairly niche job but it's a job that plenty of people have.
In the case of the place I would have apprenticed at (I spent a day there touring the factory and sitting at each of the work benches as well as trying every flute and piccolo that was finished that day), they were very transparent about hiring people with fine motor control. I mentioned that I knit and the owner's eyes lit up because I was a person who had the requisite fine motor skills and played the flute.
edit: other things that require fine motor skills - various surgical techniques (because apparently my mind is on doctors). I'd imagine there are far more vascular surgeons than instrument makers. Even then new robotic surgical techniques (like da Vinci Surgical System) require quite a lot of fine motor skill from what I understand.
Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I'm not trying to correct you and don't think you believe one who can't use their hands skillfully are dim. You seem pretty wise. I was simply expanding on a point you made. As of today, there are things you can't do it Active Directory if you have motor impairment.
The reason I brought up intellectual capabilities is specific to this example, where a happy ending is in the works. Unfortunately there's no shaky hands mode in surgery.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »Lastly, in terms of this slippery slope idea, which I think is a red herring, there are jobs where being over X pounds would prohibit you from doing your tasks. There are also jobs where more than a minimal level of fitness is required, jobs where a minimum level of fine motor skills are required, and so on.
There are people who don't have great motor control. Some of them are very smart, I mean look at Stephen Hawking. You can't use a computer mouse or a touch pad without good motor control.
You can generally get around a computer with the tab and arrow keys. But not always. Most developers use a mouse. That means you can't have some IT jobs if you have motor issues. Not just something like Photoshop, but certain kinds of network administration jobs too, because there are things that can't be done with the keyboard alone in some of the server products.
That's really a shame, because people like Stephen Hawking don't have many options in the trades, in sports, etc.
(I just started at Microsoft, my job is 100% fixing bugs that prevent people with disabilities from working on server infrastructure.)
Of course there are people who don't have good (or any) fine motor control. That doesn't mean they'll be able to do a job that requires it. It also has nothing to do with their intellect - I didn't imply that intelligence had anything to do with this. I, for a short period of time, was seriously thinking about becoming a flute maker. The flutes I would have been making are almost entirely made by hand and come in at anywhere between $8,000 (at the very low end) and $43,000. Making and repairing flutes (among other instruments) requires very good fine motor skill and there really isn't a way around that. Sure there are mass produced flutes, but that's not the level of flute I'm talking about. Yes, being an instrument maker and/or repairer, in general, is a fairly niche job but it's a job that plenty of people have.
In the case of the place I would have apprenticed at (I spent a day there touring the factory and sitting at each of the work benches as well as trying every flute and piccolo that was finished that day), they were very transparent about hiring people with fine motor control. I mentioned that I knit and the owner's eyes lit up because I was a person who had the requisite fine motor skills and played the flute.
edit: other things that require fine motor skills - various surgical techniques (because apparently my mind is on doctors). I'd imagine there are far more vascular surgeons than instrument makers. Even then new robotic surgical techniques (like da Vinci Surgical System) require quite a lot of fine motor skill from what I understand.
Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I'm not trying to correct you and don't think you believe one who can't use their hands skillfully are dim. You seem pretty wise. I was simply expanding on a point you made. As of today, there are things you can't do it Active Directory if you have motor impairment.
The reason I brought up intellectual capabilities is specific to this example, where a happy ending is in the works. Unfortunately there's no shaky hands mode in surgery.
No worries. And I meant to say, congratulations on getting the job! Accessibility is actually something that's really interesting to me in general as well as as someone who has had to apply for accommodations within an academic context due to mental health issues.
I think it's also very interesting because there are federal positions in the US/positions paid for with federal dollars (the Peace Corps being an example) where they will screen for things like depression, bipolar, and schizophrenia (among other things). You can definitely become ineligible on the basis of that, among other diagnoses. That's part of why when the topic of "isn't it bad that employers are testing for nicotine use?" comes up I kind of shrug my shoulders depending on the context.3 -
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.
I say that as long as they are upfront about it and the employee agrees to the terms, I see no problem with it.4 -
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.
I post the company’s share of employee health care costs as an operating expense that affects the net profit on which the company pays taxes.
Your comment is confusing in light of what I know about employer sponsored health care.
5 -
I was interviewing for a position within the healthcare and sports rehab at a State University. Initial interviews were fairly "normal" with most questions being comparable to other healthcare facilities. At the 3rd interview, with department heads, they presented all applicants with a sample contract for review; they went on to explain that all employees will be required to sign this contract which states that at no time during your employment with said University, whether during "contracted hours" or "personal hours" or whether on "University property" or "other" will you partake in recreational drugs (understandable), nicotine/nicotine products and/or alcohol. It went on to state that each employee will be tested, at random, at least one time per quarter and that positive findings of any of these substances would be grounds for immediate termination.
Now, I am not what you would call a party animal... I have literally never even tried pot, do not smoke and may have a margarita 2-3 times per year...but, in my opinion, that is way too intrusive! I understand random drug testing and, of course, coming to work drunk should get you fired! All if our State schools are smoke free campuses, so no smoking on campus seems reasonable. But, having a beer at your backyard barbeque or toasting your niece's wedding with a glass of champagne really is not their business.
I was invited back for 4th round interviews (final round) but opted to decline.7 -
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.
My employer does something similar. Employees who smoke pay more for health insurance premiums. Employees who do not participate or don't get a certain number of "points" in the annual wellness screening (including blood work) have to pay higher health insurance premiums as well. In the case of both smoking and a bad wellness screening, an employee would pay much more for premiums.
If you are a smoker, you can complete a smoking cessation program by the end of Dec. (the cotinine test and wellness screenings are in Aug., so this allows several months) to avoid the higher premium. If you don't get enough points on the wellness screening, you can take online classes (I believe within 14 days of the results) to get additional points and avoid the higher premiums.
I haven't smoked since 2007 and I quit because of the higher health insurance premium (different employer, but only smoking and no wellness screenings). The wellness screenings bother me more because of the ridiculous view on results. For example, when I went keto, my cholesterol improved (as many on keto experience). My LDL was down to 17... my physician thought that was great and that there is no such thing as having too low of an LDL. I missed some points, though, because it was flagged as too low. As a result, I had to take online classes to avoid paying a higher premium. By the way, the class was all about health risks associated with high LDL cholesterol. Nowhere was anything presented about "low" LDL.
Meanwhile, in the years since going keto and now carnivore, my HDL has improved. With SAD, it was always too low (30's) even when taking simvastatin. I've since stopped simvastatin and the last test (not with company wellness screening) was 101 and flagged as too high. LDL was up to 126, which was just within range (range from that lab says up to 130 is within normal range). But the "high" HDL made total cholesterol high too. I'm betting I'm going to lose some points this year and have to take classes yet again because it is going to say my HDL is too high and that total cholesterol is too high. *sigh*1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
My employer does something similar. Employees who smoke pay more for health insurance premiums. Employees who do not participate or don't get a certain number of "points" in the annual wellness screening (including blood work) have to pay higher health insurance premiums as well. In the case of both smoking and a bad wellness screening, an employee would pay much more for premiums.
If you are a smoker, you can complete a smoking cessation program by the end of Dec. (the cotinine test and wellness screenings are in Aug., so this allows several months) to avoid the higher premium. If you don't get enough points on the wellness screening, you can take online classes (I believe within 14 days of the results) to get additional points and avoid the higher premiums.
I haven't smoked since 2007 and I quit because of the higher health insurance premium (different employer, but only smoking and no wellness screenings). The wellness screenings bother me more because of the ridiculous view on results. For example, when I went keto, my cholesterol improved (as many on keto experience). My LDL was down to 17... my physician thought that was great and that there is no such thing as having too low of an LDL. I missed some points, though, because it was flagged as too low. As a result, I had to take online classes to avoid paying a higher premium. By the way, the class was all about health risks associated with high LDL cholesterol. Nowhere was anything presented about "low" LDL.
Meanwhile, in the years since going keto and now carnivore, my HDL has improved. With SAD, it was always too low (30's) even when taking simvastatin. I've since stopped simvastatin and the last test (not with company wellness screening) was 101 and flagged as too high. LDL was up to 126, which was just within range (range from that lab says up to 130 is within normal range). But the "high" HDL made total cholesterol high too. I'm betting I'm going to lose some points this year and have to take classes yet again because it is going to say my HDL is too high and that total cholesterol is too high. *sigh*
Is there a "ding" for those that are exposed to 2nd hand smoke? I am not a smoker, but my spouse smokes 2 packs per day! I would guess that my blood work would show the presence of nicotine (another reason I declined going further in above-mentioned post). I have a wellness program at my workplace, too so we have yearly screenings and blood work; I had to get paperwork from my surgeon explaining that I was less than 2 weeks post-surgical from sinus surgery and may still have X and Y in my system! A one day snapshot can be skewed by so many things!0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
My employer does something similar. Employees who smoke pay more for health insurance premiums. Employees who do not participate or don't get a certain number of "points" in the annual wellness screening (including blood work) have to pay higher health insurance premiums as well. In the case of both smoking and a bad wellness screening, an employee would pay much more for premiums.
If you are a smoker, you can complete a smoking cessation program by the end of Dec. (the cotinine test and wellness screenings are in Aug., so this allows several months) to avoid the higher premium. If you don't get enough points on the wellness screening, you can take online classes (I believe within 14 days of the results) to get additional points and avoid the higher premiums.
I haven't smoked since 2007 and I quit because of the higher health insurance premium (different employer, but only smoking and no wellness screenings). The wellness screenings bother me more because of the ridiculous view on results. For example, when I went keto, my cholesterol improved (as many on keto experience). My LDL was down to 17... my physician thought that was great and that there is no such thing as having too low of an LDL. I missed some points, though, because it was flagged as too low. As a result, I had to take online classes to avoid paying a higher premium. By the way, the class was all about health risks associated with high LDL cholesterol. Nowhere was anything presented about "low" LDL.
Meanwhile, in the years since going keto and now carnivore, my HDL has improved. With SAD, it was always too low (30's) even when taking simvastatin. I've since stopped simvastatin and the last test (not with company wellness screening) was 101 and flagged as too high. LDL was up to 126, which was just within range (range from that lab says up to 130 is within normal range). But the "high" HDL made total cholesterol high too. I'm betting I'm going to lose some points this year and have to take classes yet again because it is going to say my HDL is too high and that total cholesterol is too high. *sigh*
Is there a "ding" for those that are exposed to 2nd hand smoke? I am not a smoker, but my spouse smokes 2 packs per day! I would guess that my blood work would show the presence of nicotine (another reason I declined going further in above-mentioned post). I have a wellness program at my workplace, too so we have yearly screenings and blood work; I had to get paperwork from my surgeon explaining that I was less than 2 weeks post-surgical from sinus surgery and may still have X and Y in my system! A one day snapshot can be skewed by so many things!
I have asked about 2nd hand smoke (because casinos still allow people to smoke and I occasionally visit... sometimes shortly before a wellness screening). What I've been told is that 2nd hand smoke doesn't affect it. I've never failed the test, but also have maybe only spent a few hours in heavy smoke on a night 2-3 days before the test.0 -
It definitely sounds like a slippery slope. Next it's going to be obese people, as you say, and/or type 2 diabetics, etc. What if you skydive on the weekends? This is also potentially unhealthy and preventable. It does seem as if this company is overreaching into applicants' personal lives.3
-
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.
I agree, to a point. I can't be a UPS delivery driver because I can't lift 75 lb. Fair enough. Sometimes life works that way.1 -
In the UK we pay for our health care vie our national insurance contributions. There are no penalties for bad lifestyle choices. However if you pay for private healthcare then I think they charge a higher premium for certain lifestyle choices.
As far as a company stating what they don't want in an employee I personally think that is fine as long as you are made aware before the interview of that this would rule you out as being suitable for the job.
I find it more worrying that companies are penalising employees for health markers that could be genetic or could occur without warning that have nothing to do with lifestyle choices. What if they find you have the gene that makes it more likely that you will get breast cancer? Would they charge you more just in case? Or would they request that to remain employed you have a mastectomy to preclude you getting it in the first place so you won't have to have time off in the future. How far will it go?
In the UK most companies allow a break in the morning, then lunch, then a break in the afternoon. No reason why you can't smoke on those breaks,(unless they have a strict no smoking policy) None of the companies I have worked for allowed smokers extra breaks above and beyond what the other employers had just because they smoked.
Being a smoker (on again off again) I can understand completely why people hate it so much. It is a disgusting smelly, unhealthy habit that affects others in the workplace and I wish I could quit completely because I am ashamed and embarrassed that I smoke.
On a side note re smoking: It is ok to shame smokers, to ban them from smoking in public, to call them disgusting, filthy, a danger to others, to refuse to employ them and to put gross pictures on the product they buy (from which the govenment coins it in by the way) because it is for our own good. But if the government really cared about us smoking they would ban the sale of cigarettes in the same way they would ban any other thing that was found to poison people. Sorry off topic and a bit of a rant so to sum up.
Yes even as a smoker (on again at the moment) I believe that companies have the right to state "Non smokers only" when considering employing someone and if it is clear that random testing will be done then you have the choice to apply or not apply for a job at that company.
3 -
ultra_violets wrote: »It definitely sounds like a slippery slope. Next it's going to be obese people, as you say, and/or type 2 diabetics, etc. What if you skydive on the weekends? This is also potentially unhealthy and preventable. It does seem as if this company is overreaching into applicants' personal lives.
I mean for what it's worth, there are plenty of professions, including ones directly related to the US military, that won't allow a whole host of people with various physical and mental health conditions to get a job with them. This isn't new. That doesn't mean that I agree with it across the board, but it's definitely not new.2 -
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?
I expect the not hiring of the morbidly obese has been going on longer than most of us have been alive. Even getting "free" surgery through one's health insurance today is the new norm if morbidly obese unless they lose down to a specified weight. It all boils down to $$$ and sense today.5 -
Where I work we get discounts off our weekly insurance premium by signing up for up to 3 incentives. $10 a week off for each, yearly physical, no smoking and BMI 30 or under. You can choose any ones you want with the understanding that if you don't accomplish everything you signed up for in the calendar year you are not qualified for any the next year. My husband and I do 2 of them because we both tend to straddle the 30 BMI mark and don't want to loose the $20 dollars off a week we get easily for a random high sodium day.
Also the problem with some (most) of the smokers I work with isn't just that they reek its that they have no idea because they can't smell it anymore. Growing up my dad smoked and my grandmother used to complain that I smelled really bad and I didn't know it. She used to wash my coat and everything when I went to visit.
eta. One smoker was complaining that his 16 yr old was starting to pick up smoking, you should have seen his face whenIi told him his 16 yr old had been smoking since birth.2 -
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.
How is this much different from testing for any drugs?
Because right now at this moment...
Nicotine is legal... and “drugs” ain’t. (Well some states have decriminalized pot)
A pre employment drug screening looking for (illegal) controlled substances is reasonable.
You aren’t supposed to use those period.
A pre employment screening for (legal) substances used on your own time is not.
Can they say smoking during work hours on property is against the rules? They sure can. That’s reasonable. Same as a zero tolerance policy concerning alcohol in the work place.
But telling people what legal activities they can indulge in off property and off hours is pretty questionable.
What’s next?
Zero tolerance alcohol testing? - oh you like a glass of Merlot with dinner? You lush! No job for you!
Bacon testing? - your sodium and nitrate levels are too high...you pig! no job for you!
How about dangerous pastimes?
Hey, we see you like to ride a bicycle, that’s risky you might be hit by a car, and actually USE that health insurance you pay for.
No job for you!
Oh, we see you enjoy surfing...
well we don’t want any potential shark attack victims in our office - no job for you!4 -
stinkyfungus 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.
How is this much different from testing for any drugs?
Because right now at this moment...
Nicotine is legal... and “drugs” ain’t. (Well some states have decriminalized pot)
A pre employment drug screening looking for (illegal) controlled substances is reasonable.
You aren’t supposed to use those period.
A pre employment screening for (legal) substances used on your own time is not.
Can they say smoking during work hours on property is against the rules? They sure can. That’s reasonable. Same as a zero tolerance policy concerning alcohol in the work place.
But telling people what legal activities they can indulge in off property and off hours is pretty questionable.
What’s next?
Zero tolerance alcohol testing? - oh you like a glass of Merlot with dinner? You lush! No job for you!
Bacon testing? - your sodium and nitrate levels are too high...you pig! no job for you!
How about dangerous pastimes?
Hey, we see you like to ride a bicycle, that’s risky you might be hit by a car, and actually USE that health insurance you pay for.
No job for you!
Oh, we see you enjoy surfing...
well we don’t want any potential shark attack victims in our office - no job for you!
In addition to your statement that "drugs ain't [legal]" save for various states that have decriminalized pot, you might also want to mention that there are various states where it's perfectly legal to test for nicotine. Yes that would poke holes in your post, but who said transparency was bad?1 -
I'm all for it, for the simple reason, that I have found that smokers are able to take more breaks then non smokers.
Smokers leave every few hours for a 5 minute break, non smokers don't get that.
Of course, I only have my present job to go from, maybe other more structured jobs aren't like that....
But I agree, If I owned a company, and didn't want smokers, it's my right to not hire them, same as it's my right to not hire people to do drugs or drink too much, or if being too fat keeps one from doing the job that they are being hired for.....
I've long held the belief that police, firefighters, those in the military, anyone whose job is to protect and serve the public, should be held to a higher fitness standard then the rest of us. They should have fitness tests every year or so, to decide if they are still fit enough to do their job, and if they are not, they are put on desk duty in till they pass that fitness test.
How can a policeman catch a robber if he is to fat and out of shape to chase after him, how can we expect a firefighter to carry someone down a ladder if he's to tired when he hits the top?
I'm sure I'll get many "woo" for this politically incorrect view, but that's my right....5 -
I'm all for it, for the simple reason, that I have found that smokers are able to take more breaks then non smokers.
Smokers leave every few hours for a 5 minute break, non smokers don't get that.
Of course, I only have my present job to go from, maybe other more structured jobs aren't like that....
But I agree, If I owned a company, and didn't want smokers, it's my right to not hire them, same as it's my right to not hire people to do drugs or drink too much, or if being too fat keeps one from doing the job that they are being hired for.....
I've long held the belief that police, firefighters, those in the military, anyone whose job is to protect and serve the public, should be held to a higher fitness standard then the rest of us. They should have fitness tests every year or so, to decide if they are still fit enough to do their job, and if they are not, they are put on desk duty in till they pass that fitness test.
How can a policeman catch a robber if he is to fat and out of shape to chase after him, how can we expect a firefighter to carry someone down a ladder if he's to tired when he hits the top?
I'm sure I'll get many "woo" for this politically incorrect view, but that's my right....
I think this is an indication that a company needs to be less strict. For smokers and nonsmokers alike, a short break every few hours can help people recharge, especially when a job calls for 7+ hours of work in a day. It's like the pomodoro technique of the working world.0 -
sugaraddict4321 wrote: »RachelElser wrote: »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.
Wait, I'm confused. If you accept and pass the physical your paycheck goes DOWN by $20 a week? But they make it up to you by giving you $250??? $20 a week x 52 weeks is $1,040 so if I'm reading this right that's not a good deal at all...
Or do you mean that your insurance premium goes down by $20 a week? That would be fantastic!
Sorry for not being clear, yes my insurance goes down by $20 a paycheck (so every two weeks, my mistake) so I pay out less then someone who has the same plan but doens't do the wellness checks.0 -
stinkyfungus 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.
How is this much different from testing for any drugs?
Because right now at this moment...
Nicotine is legal... and “drugs” ain’t. (Well some states have decriminalized pot)
A pre employment drug screening looking for (illegal) controlled substances is reasonable.
You aren’t supposed to use those period.
A pre employment screening for (legal) substances used on your own time is not.
Can they say smoking during work hours on property is against the rules? They sure can. That’s reasonable. Same as a zero tolerance policy concerning alcohol in the work place.
But telling people what legal activities they can indulge in off property and off hours is pretty questionable.
What’s next?
Zero tolerance alcohol testing? - oh you like a glass of Merlot with dinner? You lush! No job for you!
Bacon testing? - your sodium and nitrate levels are too high...you pig! no job for you!
How about dangerous pastimes?
Hey, we see you like to ride a bicycle, that’s risky you might be hit by a car, and actually USE that health insurance you pay for.
No job for you!
Oh, we see you enjoy surfing...
well we don’t want any potential shark attack victims in our office - no job for you!
In addition to your statement that "drugs ain't [legal]" save for various states that have decriminalized pot, you might also want to mention that there are various states where it's perfectly legal to test for nicotine. Yes that would poke holes in your post, but who said transparency was bad?
Ummm, I never said some states permit employers to test for nicotine during a pre employment drug screen. Or that the practice was illegal.
This fact Is moot.
My point (which you seem to have missed) was
That evidently what one does these days on their own time, off property, is becoming the business of the employers we work for. (And is being facilitated by our own legislatures)
Does that not strike you as maybe just a little disconcerting?
Maybe a little invasive?
Is “your” time truly your own off the clock?
It seems that for some folks... it’s not.
I don’t like it. It scares me a little.
It should scare everyone.
Pity it does not.
6 -
stinkyfungus wrote: »stinkyfungus 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.
How is this much different from testing for any drugs?
Because right now at this moment...
Nicotine is legal... and “drugs” ain’t. (Well some states have decriminalized pot)
A pre employment drug screening looking for (illegal) controlled substances is reasonable.
You aren’t supposed to use those period.
A pre employment screening for (legal) substances used on your own time is not.
Can they say smoking during work hours on property is against the rules? They sure can. That’s reasonable. Same as a zero tolerance policy concerning alcohol in the work place.
But telling people what legal activities they can indulge in off property and off hours is pretty questionable.
What’s next?
Zero tolerance alcohol testing? - oh you like a glass of Merlot with dinner? You lush! No job for you!
Bacon testing? - your sodium and nitrate levels are too high...you pig! no job for you!
How about dangerous pastimes?
Hey, we see you like to ride a bicycle, that’s risky you might be hit by a car, and actually USE that health insurance you pay for.
No job for you!
Oh, we see you enjoy surfing...
well we don’t want any potential shark attack victims in our office - no job for you!
In addition to your statement that "drugs ain't [legal]" save for various states that have decriminalized pot, you might also want to mention that there are various states where it's perfectly legal to test for nicotine. Yes that would poke holes in your post, but who said transparency was bad?
Ummm, I never said some states permit employers to test for nicotine during a pre employment drug screen. Or that the practice was illegal.
This fact Is moot.
My point (which you seem to have missed) was
That evidently what one does these days on their own time, off property, is becoming the business of the employers we work for. (And is being facilitated by our own legislatures)
Does that not strike you as maybe just a little disconcerting?
Maybe a little invasive?
Is “your” time truly your own off the clock?
It seems that for some folks... it’s not.
I don’t like it. It scares me a little.
It should scare everyone.
Pity it does not.
My point, which went right over your head, is that in some states it is perfectly legal to test for nicotine in the same way that it's legal to test for opioids.
This doesn't scare me because, as I already said, there are plenty of jobs that won't hire people due to various very benign health issues. This includes some US governmental positions (actually a large swath of them). In some cases I think this is reasonable. It makes sense to have a high threshold for commercial pilots. In some cases it isn't.
Whereas you seem to be scared because of what might happen with regards to a slippery slope, I already know what's going on. I am well aware that there are plenty of things related to medical issues and employees' personal choices that would get them fired, not hired (legally or not), or make them ineligible for employment. As I've said many a time outside of this website, the US government would probably really want someone with metalinguistic skills like mine to be a linguist in the military. It's too bad their own rules make that impossible (there are three things that would make me ineligible, only one of which is at all reasonable given the position).0 -
stinkyfungus wrote: »stinkyfungus 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.
How is this much different from testing for any drugs?
Because right now at this moment...
Nicotine is legal... and “drugs” ain’t. (Well some states have decriminalized pot)
A pre employment drug screening looking for (illegal) controlled substances is reasonable.
You aren’t supposed to use those period.
A pre employment screening for (legal) substances used on your own time is not.
Can they say smoking during work hours on property is against the rules? They sure can. That’s reasonable. Same as a zero tolerance policy concerning alcohol in the work place.
But telling people what legal activities they can indulge in off property and off hours is pretty questionable.
What’s next?
Zero tolerance alcohol testing? - oh you like a glass of Merlot with dinner? You lush! No job for you!
Bacon testing? - your sodium and nitrate levels are too high...you pig! no job for you!
How about dangerous pastimes?
Hey, we see you like to ride a bicycle, that’s risky you might be hit by a car, and actually USE that health insurance you pay for.
No job for you!
Oh, we see you enjoy surfing...
well we don’t want any potential shark attack victims in our office - no job for you!
In addition to your statement that "drugs ain't [legal]" save for various states that have decriminalized pot, you might also want to mention that there are various states where it's perfectly legal to test for nicotine. Yes that would poke holes in your post, but who said transparency was bad?
Ummm, I never said some states permit employers to test for nicotine during a pre employment drug screen. Or that the practice was illegal.
This fact Is moot.
My point (which you seem to have missed) was
That evidently what one does these days on their own time, off property, is becoming the business of the employers we work for. (And is being facilitated by our own legislatures)
Does that not strike you as maybe just a little disconcerting?
Maybe a little invasive?
Is “your” time truly your own off the clock?
It seems that for some folks... it’s not.
I don’t like it. It scares me a little.
It should scare everyone.
Pity it does not.
My point, which went right over your head, is that in some states it is perfectly legal to test for nicotine in the same way that it's legal to test for opioids.
This doesn't scare me because, as I already said, there are plenty of jobs that won't hire people due to various very benign health issues. This includes some US governmental positions (actually a large swath of them). In some cases I think this is reasonable. It makes sense to have a high threshold for commercial pilots. In some cases it isn't.
Whereas you seem to be scared because of what might happen with regards to a slippery slope, I already know what's going on. I am well aware that there are plenty of things related to medical issues and employees' personal choices that would get them fired, not hired (legally or not), or make them ineligible for employment. As I've said many a time outside of this website, the US government would probably really want someone with metalinguistic skills like mine to be a linguist in the military. It's too bad their own rules make that impossible (there are three things that would make me ineligible, only one of which is at all reasonable given the position).
It's similar for me. This was years ago, before MFP existed, but I did really well on the ASVAB in high school and was getting recruited by every branch (even the Coast Guard, Navy, and Marines, maybe because they didn't know that I can't swim). I have type 1 diabetes, which is not related to weight / lifestyle (as is type 2) and not something that I could have prevented in any way. Because of this, I can't join the military. I also can't be a commercial pilot, nor a federal agent (I actually did want to be an IRS agent working in the CID at one point, but couldn't pursue that career path). It used to be that I could not get a CDL and drive a truck, though now it is possible for type 1's to get a CDL as long as they meet a bunch of extra restrictions. There was a time when I would not have been able to get a normal driver's license, though fortunately that changed before it affected me. And all of these things are because of a medical condition that I did not choose to have, nor could have prevented. Smoking is a choice.4 -
I used to work for a company that did the same thing. The guys I ride with would meet at my house every third Thursday of the month for "Cigar Night." Been doing this for 20 years. 11 years ago I left for a job with the company I now work for. Soon after my old company banned tobacco.
We still all meet at my house every third Thursday of the month. Only the meeting reminder is for "Book Club."
4 -
Personally, I'd love to work for a company like that, or be a patient in that hospital. I went for an eye exam recently and the doctor had just come in from a smoke break. I literally had to hold my breath as he leaned into my face. The smell was nauseating.
6 -
lbsansouci wrote: »Personally, I'd love to work for a company like that, or be a patient in that hospital. I went for an eye exam recently and the doctor had just come in from a smoke break. I literally had to hold my breath as he leaned into my face. The smell was nauseating.
I hope you told him. I would have.1 -
lbsansouci wrote: »Personally, I'd love to work for a company like that, or be a patient in that hospital. I went for an eye exam recently and the doctor had just come in from a smoke break. I literally had to hold my breath as he leaned into my face. The smell was nauseating.
I have no problem banning smoking in the workplace, but I'll do as I please in my own home.5 -
My response to this entire thing is... do people really still smoke???? LOL! No one smokes anymore around where I live. All the cool kids vape now!2
-
lbsansouci wrote: »Personally, I'd love to work for a company like that, or be a patient in that hospital. I went for an eye exam recently and the doctor had just come in from a smoke break. I literally had to hold my breath as he leaned into my face. The smell was nauseating.
I hope you told him. I would have.
I told him after he was done putting things in my eyes.
4
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