Ohio Hospital Will No Longer Hire Smokers

[guywithashovel]

http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/i...al_hospti.html

I just saw this on the local news channel this evening.

It says that all job applicants will have to take a nicotine test, and if any is found in their system, they won't be eligible for hire. However, they will be offered resources on how to quit using tobacco, and can be retested after ninety days.

Is this a good idea?

[Vagabond]

As a smoker, I think it's a dumb idea.
What's next screening for alcohol?

Generally there are 'designated smoking areas' away from non-smokers. Usually outside away from doors and such. So, the smoke from cigarettes should not impact others.
Yes, there is a lingering smell on the clothes of smokers. But in a hospital, you have lots of funky smells or sprays to cover up funky smells. No?
Nicoteine on the fingers? Hospital workers wear gloves for just about everything.

Does smoking affect ones' health. Yes.
So does drinking. So, is that going to be next?

Also, once they pass the Nicotine screen... what's to prevent them from smoking after they get hired?
And depending on your level of smoking (http://www.ehow.com/about_4675135_lo...ay-system.html , http://howto.dcrdetox.com/how-long-d...in-your-system and http://stopsmokingonlinetoday.com/ef...n-your-system/
The nicotine can be gone from your system in under a week to about 20 days or so (from a few smokes a day to 1 pack per day). So I would also question the validity of their test.

[jackfaire]

Smoke doesn't stay inside some invisible force field in the smokers area. It travels. These people are going to be working at a hospital.

I can understand not wanting to hire smokers. Plus smokers are considered to be more prone to illnesses and sick people are more prone to them as well.

[MadMike]

As a smoker, I think it's a dumb idea.

As a non-smoker, I also think it's a dumb idea. If they don't want people to smoke while at work, fine. That's their right. But what they do on their own time off of hospital property is none of their fucking business.

I saw an article in the local paper about a hospital in my area pulling this same nonsense. I think they're even taking it a step further, with periodic nicotine screenings.

I saw this coming, and I fear it's only going to get worse. First, it was testing for illegal drugs. I got into a debate on this subject, and most of the people who argued against me did so on the basis of "It's illegal, so they shouldn't be doing it anyway, even on their own time!" I raised the point that this was the first step towards them dictating what we do on our own time, including stuff that's perfectly legal. No one seemed to believe that could happen. Sometimes I hate being right.

OK, I found the article. I could have sworn there was something in there about period screenings, but I can't seem to find it now.

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...cal&id=7131599

I'm really disappointed and disgusted by the lawyer who says it's OK because "Smokers aren't a protected class." A lot of things aren't a "protected class." Does that mean that companies should be allowed to discriminate against people who attend monster truck rallies, read romance novels, perfer Pepsi over Coke, post on CS, etc?

I'll say it again: What the employee does on his own time is none of the company's fucking business!

I can understand not wanting to hire smokers.

What if someone "doesn't want to hire gay people?" Would that be OK? In some states, sexual orientation still isn't considered a protected class.

Plus smokers are considered to be more prone to illnesses and sick people are more prone to them as well.

People who don't eat right or don't get enough sleep at night might also be prone to illnesses. Should the hospital also monitor their eating and sleep habits? Where does it end?

[jackfaire]

Not having a healthy diet and ingesting something that is toxic with no health benefits are two different things.

I don't agree with the protected class argument. My concern is the health. Certain diseases should bar people from working in hospitals as well if there is a good possibility of exposure.

I don't necessarily agree with not hiring smokers. However if they are really prone to more illnesses and it isn't just BS (which I happen to think it is) then yes the hospital should not hire them.

If it was any other type of business I would say hire away but we are talking about a hospital people don't go there hoping to get sicker.

[guywithashovel]

I don't think applicants should be screened this way, but I have to admit, it is a little weird to see health care workers who smoke and habitually do other unhealthy things. For example, the college I went to had a nursing school, and almost every day there were nursing students standing around smoking outside the building where the nursing classes were held. I kid you not, it seemed like 3/4 of the nursing students there were chain smokers. I don't think they should have been kicked out of the school for smoking or denied nursing jobs for smoking, but it did seem a little weird---to me, anyway. Then again, I happen to be a pretty big fan of practicing what you preach. If you're a nurse or doctor, you're going to have to give people advice about their health. Wouldn't it be a little strange to do that if you go out of your way to abuse your body every day?

[MadMike]

Not having a healthy diet and ingesting something that is toxic with no health benefits are two different things.

I don't see how. Pigging out on nothing but potato chips, candy bars, and sodas doesn't offer any health benefits either.

[Nyoibo]

What if someone "doesn't want to hire gay people?" Would that be OK? In some states, sexual orientation still isn't considered a protected class.

Ask Smiley, it already is "ok".

[Amina516]

I call shenanigans

As a non smoker AND a health care worker...i also feel it is bullshit.

If they want to charge them more for insurance, fine. But NOT hiring @ all ? Thats ridiculous! What you LEGALLY do on your time off should NOT affect your ability to get a job...especially in "these economic times."

If thats the case, fire all overweight, depressed, and those that have cancer if a perfect staff they desire.

And just as an FYI, Jack...there are no serious "diseases" that a smoker would end up with, due to smoking, that are communicable (that im aware of anyways, but i learn something new everyday!). Im not talking about colds and stuff. But the main concern is cancer, which is not contagious. It may lower their defenses, but that also applies to other groups of people.

[Vagabond]

I grew up around smokers, and picked up the habit myself.
So, as far as being more prone to sickness. I've only caught the common cold and/or flu, and less often than some of my non-smoking peers.
So, at least from personal experience, I disagree with smokers becoming ill more often. I haven't seen any studies to prove to me otherwise. Of course, I also believe that statistics lie, and can be bent to prove or disprove any point you want.

[Android Kaeli]

I can easily vouch for the getting serious illnesses just from watching a couple of family members get sick from it. They've gotten the flu, more horrible colds, bronchitis, and other such diseases at least three times a year and the illnesses have lasted more then normal ( at least an extra few days had be to used to get well ). And these are the same people who, by all accounts, don't/didn't smoke that much and were otherwise healthy ( outside the smoking bit ).

Honestly, I can see where this hospital is coming from. I much rather have a doctor/nurse/whoever focus on their job rather then their cigarettes. Even if they weren't allowed to smoke on hospital grounds, many doctors and nurses that I've encountered has done anywhere between 9 to 14 hour shifts and won't get to smoke until much later. I seriously doubt any hospital management is going to allow a doctor enough leeway to smoke outside in a car for ten minutes every couple of hours, then again I could be wrong and have not worked in a hospital before.

You also have to factor in that certain patients also may be allergic to cigarette smoke, or at least what's contained in cigarettes. If I had an allergy with cigarette smoke and was in the hospital, the last thing I would want is a doctor or nurse to come into my hospital room that smells like they just had three cigarettes in a row. That could cause a much more serious reaction then if there was a doctor or nurse that didn't smoke.

[Amina516]

I grew up around smokers, and picked up the habit myself.
So, as far as being more prone to sickness. I've only caught the common cold and/or flu, and less often than some of my non-smoking peers.
So, at least from personal experience, I disagree with smokers becoming ill more often. I haven't seen any studies to prove to me otherwise. Of course, I also believe that statistics lie, and can be bent to prove or disprove any point you want.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18409333

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/co...and_Health.asp

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/smoking.html

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/i...disorders.html

http://www.drmyattswellnessclub.com/smoking.htm

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ke.html?cat=70

Please dont say that smoking does nothing to people (even if it is your personal experience) and that studies have probably been made up proving otherwise. It weakens any argument made by smokers when the smokers themselves, refuse to see the truth.

I do not have an issue with smoking at all...ive been known to partake socially, but please know there ARE repercussions.

The truth shall set you free.

[Amina516]

I seriously doubt any hospital management is going to allow a doctor enough leeway to smoke outside in a car for ten minutes every couple of hours, then again I could be wrong and have not worked in a hospital before.

Would you believe me if I told you this is exactly what happens? In my neck of the woods anyways. Most times doctors are not employees of the hospital, so while they are supposed to adhere to the rules, there are truly no repercussions when they dont (as long as they dont end up killing someone that is).

The employees on the other hand, ARE tightly regluated, most times. The hospital I work for is a "smoke free campus" and supposedly there is to be no smoking within 500 feet of the building. They cant dictate what people walking around do, but god forbid, security spots someone in scrubs lighting up. There have been suspensions and firings over this policy. However, they have yet to start nicotine testing @ hire...They also started a FREE smoking cessation class/suport group where the chantix and nicorette flow free. Lots of people have taken advantage of this and actually succeeded, but theyre far from actually forcing people to quit.

[telecom_goddess]

I have to say that it's ridiculous to hire or not hire someone based on whether they smoke, no matter what the industry. I agree with the people who say what people do on their off time none of the company's goddamn business.

Also to add to the comment about nurses or nursing students smoking outside, what about all the fat nurses I see in my dr's office? They want us to be fat free and fit and they aren't, so it's the same thing.

[Lace Neil Singer]

What about the obese, promiscious and drinkers? Are they going to be persona non grata, too? After all, obesity, shagging around and boozing also are unhealthy habits; hell, shagging around could get you HIV and Hep C, both of which could feasibly be passed on to patients thru bodily fluids. How about banning people who drive or do danger sports? Fuck it, let's ban anyone over the age of fifty, too; they could die at any moment or retire and force the hospital to pay them a pension.