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
-
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 -
mburgess458 wrote: »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.
This is a very good point and I am sure this is true, but I think testing people for a legal substance because you can't outwardly tell if they are a smoker or not is where I would draw the line. If they can keep it their business it should stay their business, I have no problem with having them sign an agreement stating that if they are a smoker that they cannot smoke at work or smell like smoke at work, or they may be penalized and lose their job, this I could get behind, but there are too many unhealthy behaviors and problems out their that could come under fire next and this is one more step in the direction of limiting personal freedom in your off time. Drinking alcohol is unhealthy and causes a host of issues, and I believe now is considered to not have a safe lower limit, why shouldn't that be next.7 -
I don't think i would want to work at a place like that. it feels like they are intruding too much on my life.
former regular smoker-current social smoker.
i used to work at places that rewarded you for having good results on annual exams. and taking a few random health classes. they would credit you money towards your deductible2 -
Grimmerick wrote: »mburgess458 wrote: »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.
This is a very good point and I am sure this is true, but I think testing people for a legal substance because you can't outwardly tell if they are a smoker or not is where I would draw the line. If they can keep it their business it should stay their business, I have no problem with having them sign an agreement stating that if they are a smoker that they cannot smoke at work or smell like smoke at work, or they may be penalized and lose their job, this I could get behind, but there are too many unhealthy behaviors and problems out their that could come under fire next and this is one more step in the direction of limiting personal freedom in your off time. Drinking alcohol is unhealthy and causes a host of issues, and I believe now is considered to not have a safe lower limit, why shouldn't that be next.
It could be, so it's not a slippery slope thing.
I'm sure there are places where they won't hire you if you drink.
The way employment law works is that you can refuse to hire someone for basically any reason or none, unless it's something forbidden by law (like considering race, sex, religion (in most cases), disability (if it doesn't affect the job), sexual orientation (in some states), so on).
If I want to refuse to hire people because they are Ohio State fans, I can.
The general idea is that if someone is the best candidate, using unreasonable criteria that have nothing to do with the job will hurt the employer and benefit their competitors, so generally people won't do it unless there's some overarching societal discrimination that requires the law to combat. I don't think this is the case for smokers, and certainly not for the overweight, who are the majority.
With the smoker thing, probably they are screening out lots of non smokers who wouldn't like having to take drug tests, so their loss.3 -
Third hand smoke, also called passive smoke (what is on skin and clothes of a smoker long after the cigarette is extinguished) is dangerous to anyone exposed, especially children. Here's a link describing the reasons why.
http://stopcancerfund.org/pz-diet-habits-behaviors/third-hand-smoke/
And here is a link to a study about 'glue ear' and how third hand smoke can cause issues.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1458623/
Beyond the obvious problems it causes for respiratory diseases like asthma, COPD and chronic bronchitis, it has other deleterious effects like the one outlined in the study above. I am not surprised at all that a medical facility, especially a private one, would have this stipulation for employment.
I wish this were a requirement for all healthcare workers. Besides the irony of a healthcare worker engaging in such an immensely unhealthy habit, it can have negative health consequences for the people they are caring for.
And just because it highlights the 'glue ear' in one of the vignettes (starting around the 8:40 mark), here's a program on horrible parenting: obese kids, rotten teeth and parents who refuse to stop smoking despite a disease suffered by the kids as a result of that smoking.
6 -
I can understand why they want non-smokers. Who wants a pack-a-day medical person working on them, who's going through a now 4-hour nicotine withdrawl. I don't. Besides the health issues, most hospitals now are large campuses that are staffed for maximum efficiency and getting out of the building for a smoke wastes time. And, to the hospital administrators, time is money.
On another note, my wife and I like to go out to reataurants at least a couple times a week. Our state (Arizona) outlawed smoking in public buildings about 10 years ago. It's great now. Restaurants that used to allow smoking stunk, literally.
Having a smoking section in a restaurant, or any enclosed building, is like having a peeing section in the pool.14 -
The employer may be paying a portion of the health insurance costs which are higher for smokers.
It’s a business decision.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.
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.
Unintentionally pointing out that businesses and government profit by managing health care?
You want to fix pretty much all of our problems - remove government.
Those who want to work for such a company will do so and love it. Another firm may grow and entice smokers. Let the market decide who wins.8 -
For those who have said that employers don't test for alcohol - some do. Especially if the job has anything to do with transportation or working in dangerous conditions. Having met an alcoholic who was in treatment at the time, you can bet that I'm glad this is the case. What was his job? He was a pediatric anesthesiologist at the time.
Someone already mentioned the third hand smoke bit so on to the perfume/cologne to mask the smell of cigarette smoke. First - that doesn't always work. Second, it would be safe to assume that a hospital is a fragrance free workplace. Even if it isn't, I would think it would be a common courtesy not to wear fragrances in that environment given that you're in a health care setting and there are plenty of people with allergies and sensitivities to perfume/cologne. Also you are working with various vulnerable populations.
With regards to the person who asked if their employer would be able to fire them if they brought a peanut butter sandwich into work and didn't tell their co-worker who had a peanut allergy. Assuming you knew about the allergy and you were sitting next to them, I would imagine that HR could have a field day with that. If the workplace is peanut free, like a number of primary and secondary schools in the US, I'm more than willing to bet that you would, at minimum, be heavily disciplined. If the workplace peanut-free because it specifically produced and/or sold peanut-free foods I would expect that you would be fired.
Never mind the increased health risks to smokers that people have already be laid out. Said risks can and do affect your ability to work and employers are not ignorant to that.
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.8 -
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!
2 -
Any employer can screen for any criteria they deem necessary to reduce risk/cost.
Easier to target smokers than the obese. The obese might have a better chance with an ADA law suit so long as the job doesn't have fitness requirements.
An employer might also choose no to hire people who race motorcycles or participate in extreme sports on weekends due to increased risk of expensive bodily injury.
Such screenings wil only get tougher as government health coverage mandates increase. Obama care in the US had this effect. Companies laid off employees over 50 at a substantially higher rate after Ocare.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 386 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions