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
-
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 -
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.
so how about people w obese bmi's...that is considered immensely unhealthy...should they not be able to work there either
and how about those who plow through booze on a nightly basis...immensely unhealthy right? leave them out too?
How about people w mental illnesses?7 -
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.
so how about people w obsess bmi's...that is considered immensely unhealthy...should they not get be able to work there either
and how about those who plow through booze on a nightly basis...immensely unhealthy right. them too?
If them being employed causes a safety risk, then yes. They should not be employed in those professions. It is absolutely a safety hazard to hire an alcoholic in certain lines of work. Would you want someone still drunk/hungover operating a fork lift in your general vicinity? How about power tools?
The question isn't should these people not be employed by anyone. The important thing to realize is that certain professions find it necessary to exclude certain people based on an assessment of risk.
I believe an employer has a right to exclude certain people's life choices when it directly effects the health and safety of those that employee will interact.8 -
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.
That's not how any of this works. The compensation a company pays employees is a deduction from revenues in determining the company's taxable income. The impact to the company is the same whether they compensate a person $100k in direct wages only or $70k in wages and $30k in insurance, 401k match, health club membership, etc.7 -
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 is dystopian and terrifying!Cassandraw3 wrote: »If them being employed causes a safety risk, then yes. They should not be employed in those professions. It is absolutely a safety hazard to hire an alcoholic in certain lines of work. Would you want someone still drunk/hungover operating a fork lift in your general vicinity? How about power tools?
The question isn't should these people not be employed by anyone. The important thing to realize is that certain professions find it necessary to exclude certain people based on an assessment of risk.
I believe an employer has a right to exclude certain people's life choices when it directly effects the health and safety of those that employee will interact.
Smoking on your own time (this policy prevents that even if you are off the job and there is no smoke smell present on you), having a high BMI, bad blood work, and so on does not cause a safety hazard.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?
A lot of companies have been doing the same thing for marijuana for decades. The fact of testing didn't lead to a slippery slope. Probably for several reasons like those tests aren't free. I'm curious how this works now that the stuff is legal, it's a closer analogy now.
Did they say what their reasons are? Might be concerned about the loss of productivity from smoking breaks. Which would mean obesity probably isn't next. Or it could be worry over their group rate (health insurance) and maybe you're on to something.0 -
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
Have you ever been around somebody who was ring to quit smoking? They're irritable and prone to snapping at people.
I was in the ER (hit by a car) once, somebody else came in because they "were feeling suicidal." A person who's angry because they hadn't had a cigarette in too long could be very dangerous to a suicidal person.
Nicotine IS a drug.8 -
Grimmerick wrote: »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.
That's held in check by the fact that they need employees. If they refuse to hire anybody with any issue that could be seen as any kind of flaw, nobody will work there, and they won't be able to stay in business.
Actually it's also limited by publicity. At this point, in 2019, society doesn't treat cigarette smokers as a protected class. This could be on the front page and won't hurt them. If they refused to hire black people, everybody would be protesting and boycotting.
The slope isn't that slippery.2 -
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
I'm wondering where this crosses the line into discriminating against someone because of a health condition. For example, not all high cholesterol can be prevented by lifestyle choices - some is hereditary. And while the company might prefer that people with hereditary illnesses not work there, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to discriminate against them, even for a private company.2 -
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.)2 -
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.
so how about people w obese bmi's...that is considered immensely unhealthy...should they not be able to work there either
and how about those who plow through booze on a nightly basis...immensely unhealthy right? leave them out too?
How about people w mental illnesses?
I'm pretty sure I mentioned an anesthesiologist who was an alcoholic. I'm more than willing to bet that there are jobs that require fitting into tight quarters where people who are obese wouldn't be hired, and off the top of my head being a pilot and joining the US military are out of the question depending on your mental health diagnosis.
That said, having a mental illness doesn't automatically make you a danger to others. In fact most people will mental illnesses aren't a danger to others.5 -
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.4 -
...And smokers take "smoke breaks" while non-smokers are still hard at it (a moral killer for the non-smokers)
.
Where I work (at a regional airport) its not so much the smokers (and I am not one) its the coffee drinkers. They go off to buy their coffee and can be gone up to 30 minutes at a time.
I would say the non smokers can take just as many breaks as the smokers and be away from their desks just as much if not more.
Me, I am not a smoker or coffee drinker, I go for walk / loop instead to get away from my desk.
I am always amazed that some employers can be judgemental about time employees spend away from their desk (regardless of why) but are not quick to reward those employees who come early and/or leave late.7 -
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 completely agree with this. I hate the smell of cigarette smoke and I get sick (nauseated and sore throat) everytime I smell it. So if I'm in the hospital, I really would not want my caregiver to reek of cigarette smoke that starts giving me headaches, making it hard to swallow, and making me want to throw up while I'm already sick. So it's understandable why the hospital doesn't want their employees to smoke.4 -
It is against Human Rights law as smoking is not outlawed It like saying you can not work here cause you are gay! . But this is done for safety. Like gas refinery / Driving gas trucks etc.15
-
jasonpoihegatama wrote: »It is against Human Rights law as smoking is not outlawed It like saying you can not work here cause you are gay! . But this is done for safety. Like gas refinery / Driving gas trucks etc.
That's not how that works. Smokers are not a protected class.10 -
My job doesn't have a BMI restriction but they have recently implemented a mandatory PT assessment (it's been a long time coming - they gave us well over a year's notice of the change in policy and multiple "practice" sessions where we just had to do the test itself but not within the set time limit etc). If you fail, you have 90 days to retest. As of this point, they have not determined what the impact will be on those who can't pass it (some people are saying maybe you get a reduced score on your annual performance review; I personally have pretty strong views about what the penalties should be but my opinion is not the one that counts). They don't want to use BMI as a rule because it is often such a poor predictor of health when you are considering a population with higher-than-average muscle mass (and really, whether you are "heavy" or not really doesn't matter if you can perform the tasks required; I recently lost about 10 lbs but before then I was on the low end of obese according to BMI (now I'm just considered overweight!) but was still more than capable of passing the PT tests with flying colors).
We don't get penalized for smoking or anything either but there is a policy against any tobacco use in agency vehicles (all the guys on my shift dip though rather than smoke so it doesn't impact them at all). The employer does offer programs to aid with smoking cessation, weight loss (they have some sort of free weekly online class with "lesson plans" about diet/nutrition, exercise, blah blah blah and even send people a little starter kit with a log book and some other informational material).
Employers can dictate that employees are required to wear seatbelts in company vehicles etc; not only are seatbelts required by law here (NC), but also the average medical expenses in a wreck skyrocket when seatbelts aren't worn etc. In addition to a pre-employment drug screen and being subject to randomized drug testing, any accident or wreck while on duty or in a company vehicle is automatic grounds for drug/alcohol testing.2 -
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.1
-
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.1 -
NorthCascades 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?
A lot of companies have been doing the same thing for marijuana for decades. The fact of testing didn't lead to a slippery slope. Probably for several reasons like those tests aren't free. I'm curious how this works now that the stuff is legal, it's a closer analogy now.
Did they say what their reasons are? Might be concerned about the loss of productivity from smoking breaks. Which would mean obesity probably isn't next. Or it could be worry over their group rate (health insurance) and maybe you're on to something.
Marijuana is now legal in my state, however it's still up to each company to decide their policy on if they'll allow users to work for them or not (from my understanding of the new law, explained to me by a friend who's the HR director at her company).
0 -
jasonpoihegatama wrote: »It is against Human Rights law as smoking is not outlawed It like saying you can not work here cause you are gay! . But this is done for safety. Like gas refinery / Driving gas trucks etc.
That's not how that works. Smokers are not a protected class.
Right -- if we are talking US, you can fire/refuse to hire someone for any reason unless it is a reason specifically outlawed (like race, age, etc.) or you have a contract or labor agreement that would be breached.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions