If you smoke, you won't be hired....

Barb - posted on 12/12/2011

I thought of this thread today. As most of you know, i'm disabled. I can't clean my house the way i want or need to. Our solution is to hire a lady, who is a single mom, who has become friends with my husband through the factory he has worked at as a contractor.



We pay her $100.00 to clean the house. Takes her about 6 hrs, so that comes to about 16.50 an hr we are paying. She smokes and she apparently drinks really well, as the last time i used her services, she was well hungover and had to sit down and take several breaks. I gave her coffee and water, trying to get her back up to cleaning again, but i have to admit, she did a half assed job because she was so horribly hungover. Plus, she was also out smoking the other half the time.



I want to have my house done again before Christmas and Doug is wanting to use her again.. i'm not so fond of that idea and thought of writing in my request for her to not be hungover when she comes on Sunday.



Granted, i can't dictate what she does in her off time, but when it affects the time i'm paying her to work, i can dictate who comes to help clean my house.



See that whole cause and effect thing?

Barb - posted on 12/09/2011

People have a right to smoke, and businesses have a right to hire who they want as long as it is not against the discrimination laws.

Tah - posted on 12/03/2011

thats easier said then done, we don't have lockers any longer, we have a rack outside the room that used to be our breakroom so its like first come first serve with the 3 little hooks, so people double their coats and i cant coat watch because im working,. It is def, not that easy in healthcare, i may need someone to come in and help me with a patient, roll them over, help me position them to so that i can cath them, dress a wound in an obscure place, in healthcare we have to work together. I shouldn't have to go out of my way to avoid someone who smells of smoke. What about the patients who don't have a choice, we never go in and ask them if they want a smoker or a non-smoker, they get what we assign them and i have had patients complain, which may also be a reason they made this rule.

Beautiful - posted on 12/02/2011

They have a right to smoke in their car. They should at the very least try to keep it away as much as possible from non smokers, keeping their stuff away, washing their hands. Or non smokers can also do the same, if you know someone has been out smoking try to avoid them and go about your day, keep your stuff away from theirs (not you personally just generally)

Beautiful - posted on 12/02/2011

Oh I totally get that Tah. When I did smoke, I would get pissed at the other smokers that would go out every ten minutes, there is no need for that. I would go out on my scheduled breaks and lunch and that was it. When they implemented a no smoking on grounds policy I think I was the ONLY smoker that didn't freak out lol. For those that are constantly going out and are making it a priority over their job they should be fired.

Nurses--- If they are working in the maternity ward I think no smoking during business hours is is just fine.

Tah - posted on 12/02/2011

ive had my jacket smell like smoke from sharing a hook with smokers who come in and put their coats over yours..smokers smell like smoke, even if they smoke on the way in, their clothes and hair smell of it so how would you enforce it just on that, they can say i smoked in my vehicle on the way in...

Teresa - posted on 12/02/2011

But if they didn't... then they could be fired, right? If they signed an agreement about the policy. Smell like smoke on the job and lose the job. Theoretically it wouldn't be too difficult to enforce (I would imagine... since I can smell it from just about anywhere).

I'll tell you though.... nurses that smoke disgust me (at least if they smell like smoke on duty)... especially when they are caring for newborn babies! :(

Tah - posted on 12/02/2011

its not just in private time though. how many smokers really refrain from smoking during an 8,12,16 hour shift. the nurses and aides i work with call over to the other unit and say to their smoking buddies at least 3 times in an 8 hour shift..hey you want to go outside...meaning have a smoke, they come back smelling of it and then care for the patients and are around us non-smokers. i can't tell you how many times im looking for my aide to help with patients and she and others are outside having a smoke. so it's more than just saying they do it at home or in their personal lives, very few only do it then..

Beautiful - posted on 12/02/2011

Ok, I forgot you mentioned that. :)

Teresa - posted on 12/02/2011

Which is why I said I don't know how I feel about the blood test portion. ;)

Beautiful - posted on 12/02/2011

Teresa, that is a much more reasonable request/policy. That is something I could wrap my mind around more than just flat out "you can't work here period if you smoke"
I get that smoking kills, its harmful to the people around you. MY issue with this is simply, If this spills over into other "non private" companies then its opens the door to so much more than just banning cigarettes. Now some may have no problem at all being told how to live their lives daily, I am not one of those people, its my life i'll make the decisions about what I (the general public, I) do daily.

Teresa - posted on 12/02/2011

I'm in favor of it, but I don't suppose that surprises anyone. ;)

Smoking doesn't just effect you... even if you don't smoke during work hours... did you smoke before work? I'm not sure about the blood test ramifications though.

Before my ex was my husband he was a smoker. He had a job washing windows (where he would go in people's houses) and he was not allowed to smoke before or during work. AFTER work was a different story, but if he smoked before work he would smell like smoke and that would've gotten him fired.

Beautiful - posted on 12/01/2011

Teresa--So.. what an employee does outside of work on their own PERSONAL and private time should now be dictated by their employer? I don't think so. A "NO smoking on grounds" policy is much more reasonable.

What if someone wanted to work in a non religious setting and was told "If you go to church then you can't work here" or vice versa? Or something else just as ridiculous.

Teresa - posted on 12/01/2011

It's the company's call. Being a healthcare company, I can see this. Smokng is not healthy for a person so as a compnay dedicated to a person's health I can see this.

Beautiful - posted on 11/25/2011

Jenni--- If only things were like that here... I would like living here lol. I have been telling my husband for months I want to get out of the us and move to Canada.

I love that Canada focuses on people and not just the company, it is after all the people that in fact "make"the company in a sense, so the people should be focused on as well as the company.

Jurnee - posted on 11/25/2011

I can understand not smoking during business hours, but an employees personal time is just that, their time. I know they will say its for insurance purposes, but where does that end, overweight people, people over a certain age, women of childbearing age, or those genetically predisposed to certain conditions. It is certainly a slippery slope, and can snowball into so much. Since it is a private company, Im not sure if it would be considered discrriminatory through a legal perspective, but it seems to be entirely wrong from a moral perspective.

Jenni - posted on 11/25/2011

While I do agree people shouldn't be under the influence while doing certain jobs. I think it's discriminatory to subject potential applicants or employees to blood/urine tests unless drug/alcohol use is suspected, let alone cigarettes.



If an employee engages in alcohol/cigarette use outside of work. It doesn't affect the company. It has nothing to do with how well they can preform their job while at work. It infringes on their freedoms to engage in *legal* activities outside work. Until cigarettes become *illegal*, an employer should not have the right to discriminate against an employee based on their lifestyle. (and yes, I'd consider religion to be a lifestyle as well).



Now that doesn't me that if I go into an interview reeking of cigarette smoke.... or BO even. That the interviewer isn't going to pass up on my application. It probably would inhibit me from getting a job. But it is not legal to subject applicants to a cigarette blood test.



They open up this door and it's a slippery slope. What's to say that obesity isn't a lifestyle choice and measuring applicants BMI. Ok, maybe that's absurd but both are humiliating. All I'm saying is that it's a slippery slope to discrimination over employee's lifestyles outside work.



Also, alcohol/drug abuse is now considered a "disease". This label was given in order to treat addiction as a medical condition. I believe rightly so, as treating addiction as a medical condition allows for more successful treatment of it. As a result, an employer cannot treat it as a lifestyle choice... it is beyond that, it is an addiction... a legal medical condition and must be approached as such.



In society would I rather keep a person addicted to drugs employed and seeking treatment. (As I stated earlier if an employee has a drug/alcohol addiction the employer must find a suitable job for them within the company.) Or would I rather them be on assistance/unemployment.. not contributing and not seeking rehabilitation.



Canada tends to have more socialist ideologies than America. We tend to look at things as for the collective good of society. And less about the good of the company. We see people over profits. Favour and accomidate people over companies. I'm sure this comes with its own share of detrimentalities. But it's just how we do.

Barb - posted on 11/25/2011

Here is Massachusetts: http://www.wbur.org/2010/11/02/employer-...



First paragraph, they also don't hire smoking cops or smoking firemen. (no pun intended on the smoking firemen)



This is dated Nov, 2, 2010:



"BOSTON — No Smokers Need Apply.



That’s the message you’ll hear from the Massachusetts Hospital Association (MHA) starting Jan. 1. A ban on hiring smokers as police officers or firefighters has been in place in Massachusetts since 1997, but the hospital association could be the first to take restrictions in the private sector to a new level. It hopes to become the model as employers get more involved in their employees’ health care."



Here is Arizona's: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries...



This is dated 7-1-2011



This story also reports that The Cleveland Clinic stopped hiring smokers in 2007.



This is interesting to read.. further down in the USATODAY link is this:

"The policy does not apply to employees at the company's headquarters in Louisville, Ky. Kentucky has declared smokers a "protected class," making it illegal to discriminate against people because they smoke. Other states have similar laws."



So i guess it's a state by state law type thing. I would wonder if Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee have similar laws where Tobacco is grown and a lot of government money comes off the back of smokers either in taxes or from the cigarette makers.



Oh, and for the record, i smoked for about 10 years.. i haven't smoked for the last 7 years.



I can't find an actual policy of a healthcare facility not hiring because of obesity. There does seem to be an unwritten policy about it, however.



The only policy i found was for skywest airlines where it just said a flight attendant needed to be height weight proportional. Nothing for hospitals, though.

Barb - posted on 11/25/2011

The more i hear about Canada the more i wonder which country is really the "home of the free"

That being said, you can do dangers to others while on drugs without driving or operating heavy machinery. Let's just say i don't want my nurse high on crack when she's figuring out my dosage. (i'm using Doug's ex wife, former headnurse of the cardiology dept, turned crackhead as an example)

As an electrician, i've worked with others who were high on drugs or going through alcohol withdrawal. I had one guy, if he didn't have a drink at lunch, he was shaking and worthless by 2pm. I'm sorry, i don't want shaky working with me around high voltage. No, i'm not going to let you pass 1/0 to me through copper bars carrying 100kva. I'd like to go home alive or at least with all my appendages, thank you very much.

This isn't discrimination though. Employers have a right to hire who they want for any or no reason at all. Discrimination is not hiring you based on unchangeable characteristics. Race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, handicap, and i think religion is in there too.
Smoking is non of these things.

The incentive for employers to do this is, like Tah said, because of insurance. They buy bulk rates of insurance, and they get cheaper insurance based on who they hire. The less someone is prone to use the insurance, the cheaper the insurance rate will be. Hopefully a good employer will pass down these cheaper rates to the employees.
At the hospital in town, they have an incentive program. Your insurance gets cheaper if you quit smoking, if you lose weight, if you maintain a healthy weight, you get a rebate if you had a yearly checkup and no other visits. So instead of making it mandatory, they made it an incentive.

Weren't there two cases of this? one hospital in Arizona that was hiring based on smoking and weight, and then one in Boston i think, that was also hiring non smokers.. i'll google.

But bottom line is.. they won't be sued for discrimination because smoking is not something someone can't change.. it's a choice, and if you chose to smoke, you are choosing to not work at this facility.

Beautiful - posted on 11/24/2011

" It actually makes me quite angry that an employer would attempt to control employees lives outside of work. You already "own" us, 8-12 hours a day... what we do with our personal lives is none of your business."


I am 100% with Jenni on this. This whole "need" to control what people do on their own time is just insane.

Stifler's - posted on 11/24/2011

p.s Tah you know you're a nurse when you wash your hands before AND after the toilet.

Stifler's - posted on 11/24/2011

No since smoking isn't illegal. My husband gets drug tested all the time, being on drugs is a danger to other staff.

Tah - posted on 11/24/2011

I'm starting to think this company doesn't like us. maybe we need a union. they have come to our units and done some things.

a) no raise this year

b)no staff bathroom for nursing staff, we use the visitor bathrooms and we have to carry clorox wipes to the bathroom with us because patients also use them moving around the post-op area and i can't tell you the things we clean off the toilet and sink before we use it.so if you see us walking up the step-down/post-op hallways with clorox wipes and gloves, we just have to tinkle, i may just cath myself and use a leg bag....

c) they changed our chart system to something that is ergonomically incorrect and now we are bending low and fighting to pull charts off a low shelf with no chart dividers, we are passing around extra strength tylenol and motrin like candy and we have all been to our doctors for increased shoulder and back pain in the last 2 months.

d) they took away our lockers and then teased us by putting a sign up saying they would build us more lockers and then when people signed up they lied and said that none signed up, one of the CNAs made a copy but is trying to find it to prove they are lying.



I say this to say that yes, this is exactly the type of policy this company would adopt. i would only hope that they consulted with their legal counsel before they put it in place to tell them they have a legal leg to stand on with it.

Jenni - posted on 11/24/2011

In Canada even illegal drug tests are frowned upon. There are exceptions but very few. It is considered discrimination and an infringement on civil rights to subject applicants or employees to drug tests. It can be done but only in situations where being under the influence of drug/alcohol use while at work puts the employee or others in danger. (an example: operating heavy machinery or driving).



In these cases the employer must have "evidence" the employee is under the influence at work. Not during an application process or randomly. If it is found the employee is using drugs/alcohol they cannot legally be dismissed without much red tape. Including rehabilitation. It is treated as a disability/disease and must be dealt with as such. This could be finding a more suitable job within the company that doesn't involve, for example driving or operating heavy equipment, while the employee is undergoing rehabilitation.



So yeah... could never see it happen with smoking here. And no, I wouldn't support this policy *anywhere*. I support employee rights. And one of those rights is to engage in whatever "legal" recreational activities they please outside of work. It actually makes me quite angry that an employer would attempt to control employees lives outside of work. You already "own" us, 8-12 hours a day... what we do with our personal lives is none of your business.

Tah - posted on 11/24/2011

im thinking they probably did it for insurance reasons, thats probably part of it. Of course you have the smokers that run out every hour for a smoke. if i have to tell you how many things i have had to do for Nurses whose patients needed somethng and they were out smoking or couldn't find my CNA because she and some from the unit or another unit were out in their cars smoking i would be here all day. I don't however know if i agree with not allowing someone to have a job because of it. It doesn't affect others and smokers do have more health issues because of it. I will say i would rather have a kick ass co-worker that smokes then one who sucks and doesn't.

Beautiful - posted on 11/23/2011

You started a thread on that policy :) I was wondering if you would.

I am an ex smoker (hoping like hell it stays that way). Even when I did smoke I hated the smell, taste and how it managed to seep into everything. But is was a bad habit I formed at 13.
I do agree with a "no smoking during business hours" policy a "no smoking On grounds" policy. This retirement home I worked in had a "no smoking on grounds" policy for employees. And I was just fine with that.

But not being hired because someone smokes, to me is discrimination. Its not illegal, it does not impair your judgment in anyway so to me it is just ridiculous.

Wendy - posted on 11/23/2011

Sounds like discrimination to me ........I wonder if they will adapt a blood test for alcohol next?...or maybe they will require all employes refrain from risk taking sports......whats next? This is just the begining if we allow this kind of thing what next i ask....What we do in our own time should not be held in judjment by our employers

Barb - posted on 11/23/2011

A debate like this is where i got to be friends with Mary and Marina, even though we disagreed. It was one of my favorite debates!

Denikka - posted on 11/23/2011

I have mixed feelings on this.
I think that tobacco should be as illegal as marijuana. So in that respect, I totally agree with it.
I remember in school, sitting close to smokers, and I could hardly breathe because the smog around them was so thick. And that was only for about 1.5 hours at a time. I can only imagine what it would be like to be in an office or something with someone like that.
I personally think that smoking is a disgusting habit. And there is no way to keep it entirely to yourself. It gets into your hair, your pores, your clothes. . .everything.

On the other hand though, smoking is NOT currently illegal and the company should not be able to dictate what legal activities a person chooses to do on their own time. I can understand perhaps no smoking during working hours (similar to no drinking during working hours), but to tell someone that they cannot smoke at all, every, anywhere, if they want to work for a particular company is ridiculous. Kind of like telling people that if they want to work for a company that they can't ride roller coasters, or have to buy a particular flavor and brand of coffee for their home.

So, I guess while I agree with it on a personal level, on a social level, I'll have to disagree and think that, in principle, it's kind of ridiculous.

Jane - posted on 11/23/2011

As someone who doesn't smoke, who is allergic to tobacco smoke, and who has seen what smoking does, I would love to work there.

However, I can foresee a lot of court cases if they persist. Unlike drug use, smoking is not illegal and so there is nothing other than company preference that would allow setting such a hiring limitation. As a private company they may be allowed to have such a ruling, but it may take a lot of lawyers to defend that right.

I would love it if there were no more smoking, but that is my personal peculiarity. I can enforce it only in my demesne, namely in my house, and in my vehicle.

I doubt this policy will stand for long.