Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anybody that knows me knows that I hate smoking with a passion, but still this is not right. I could understand if they said you cannot smoke at work, but what someone does in their own home (if legal) is their own business. As the OP said, whats next. It could be alcohol (I would be devastated).
I agree. I don't smoke, and cannot stand even being near someone smoking as it bothers me so much. But, this is getting ridiculous. It doesn't affect me yet, but if it keeps going it is just a matter of time 'til I'm screened for something that will. IE, I have to much caffeine in my system, or my cholesterol is off or who knows what. It needs to stop. This last statement from the article sums it up nicely:
Quote:
"Everything you do in your private life affects your health," Maltby added. "If an employer is allowed to control your private life, how it relates to health, you can kiss your private life goodbye."
Bigotry marches on. I wish someone affected by this would sue the hell out of 'em.
Bigotry. Are they also bigots for testing for crack cocaine? Smoking is unsanitary, and as such they don't want employees who smoke(in a hospital), nothing wrong or illegal with that.
Bigotry. Are they also bigots for testing for crack cocaine? Smoking is unsanitary, and as such they don't want employees who smoke(in a hospital), nothing wrong or illegal with that.
Yes, it's bigotry. Tobacco, unlike cocaine, is still a legal substance and the use of it is still legal. To single out the use of one legal substance which might cause "unsanitary" conditions, or for ANY reason, to the exclusion of all others, is bigotry at it's finest.
And, by the way, if smoking makes the smoker "unsanitary," the use of a little soap and water can cure that. If that's the reason for this nonsense, why not also test employees to see how often they bathe? That's even more unsanitary, yet nobody is testing job applicants for that, are they?
But, this isn't about hygiene. It's about making a statement against smoking, whether it trods on anyones liberties or not, and it's unacceptable in a free country.
Let me give you another example of anti-smoking bigotry and see how you feel about that:
Pizza Hut recently started a new smoking policy for its employees. While there has been no smoking in the stores for quite awhile (nothing wrong with that), smoking employees are now required to completely leave company property to smoke. No more stepping out the back door to smoke. Now, they have to go stand in the street or alleyway, not even on the parking lot.
Why? What's to be gained by that other than to make a corporate statement about how much management hates smoking? Is an employee standing around back having a cigarette a danger to the customers? How many customers enter by the back door?
And, consider this: A good many Pizza Hut employees are teenaged girls and not every store is in a good neighborhood. The new policy means that those young women will be standing outside, usually by themselves and in the dark, away from the store and the easy escape route back into the store, in locations where they can be assaulted, kidnapped, raped or even murdered. Do you think that's a risk worth taking to make a statement about tobacco?
I don't and have told Pizza Hut I won't buy another one of their pizza's until that policy is changed. How about you? Are you good with that exercise in corporate prejudice, no matter how much it might endanger their employees?
Bigotry. Are they also bigots for testing for crack cocaine? Smoking is unsanitary, and as such they don't want employees who smoke(in a hospital), nothing wrong or illegal with that.
Except that people who are addicted to crack cocaine will use on the job and if they work in a hospital, they're more likely to try to steal from patients and from the hospital's pharmacy. People using crack cocaine represent a liability to the business because they are under the influence of a controlled nartoctic drug that changes behavior to dangerous levels, especially when on a job site. Smoking doesn't alter a person's behavior to commit dangerous acts. Smoking pot on the job leads to delayed reaction and a lack of caring what's going on around you. This could be very dangerous for some jobs. Many companies now require a drug test anytime you're involved in an accident on the job. They do this to cut cost. If you come up positive for being under the influence of drugs and alcohol then they don't have to pay your medical bills and can fire you on the spot. Why should they cover the medical cost of someone who's addiction led to their personal injury on the job? You'd be surprised at the number of chain smokers who work in hospitals. They include doctors, nurses, and even respitory therapist who give patients breathing treatments. Instead of offering a blanket ban on employees who smoke, our hospital offers programs to help employees to quit smoking.
Let me give you another example of anti-smoking bigotry and see how you feel about that:
Pizza Hut recently started a new smoking policy for its employees. While there has been no smoking in the stores for quite awhile (nothing wrong with that), smoking employees are now required to completely leave company property to smoke. No more stepping out the back door to smoke. Now, they have to go stand in the street or alleyway, not even on the parking lot.
Why? What's to be gained by that other than to make a corporate statement about how much management hates smoking? Is an employee standing around back having a cigarette a danger to the customers? How many customers enter by the back door?
And, consider this: A good many Pizza Hut employees are teenaged girls and not every store is in a good neighborhood. The new policy means that those young women will be standing outside, usually by themselves and in the dark, away from the store and the easy escape route back into the store, in locations where they can be assaulted, kidnapped, raped or even murdered. Do you think that's a risk worth taking to make a statement about tobacco?
I don't and have told Pizza Hut I won't buy another one of their pizza's until that policy is changed. How about you? Are you good with that exercise in corporate prejudice, no matter how much it might endanger their employees?
Agree with you on the Pizza Hut. Our hospital has banned smoking on it's properties but for a different reason than Pizza Hut. The entrances to our hospital were regularly blocked up with clouds of smoke. Even though smokers were told to stay 20 feet or more away from the doors, they regularly ignored the rules and there was no legal means of enforcing the rules so the numbers who ignored the rules grew. We have heart and lung patients passing through this cloud of smoke. So, they banned smoking on the property. Smokers either went across the street or went and hid somewhere on the property but away from the doors. Employees obey the ban because it could mean their job if caught smoking on the property.
Agree with you on the Pizza Hut. Our hospital has banned smoking on it's properties but for a different reason than Pizza Hut. The entrances to our hospital were regularly blocked up with clouds of smoke. Even though smokers were told to stay 20 feet or more away from the doors, they regularly ignored the rules and there was no legal means of enforcing the rules so the numbers who ignored the rules grew. We have heart and lung patients passing through this cloud of smoke. So, they banned smoking on the property. Smokers either went across the street or went and hid somewhere on the property but away from the doors. Employees obey the ban because it could mean their job if caught smoking on the property.
Both local hospitals here have the same policy, but I made one admit that they cannot stop people from smoking on the public sidewalks which, incidently, don't go anywhere near a door. The other partially rescinded it's previous policy to allow smoking in your own car in the parking lot. That's a reasonable compromise we can all live with.
Here's one more little fact overlooked by the zealous anti-smoker, and one which I long for a good attorney to get hold of in issues like the one this thread is about:
In 2009, Congress passed and the President signed, a law placing tobacco under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration. It's now Public Law PUBLIC LAW 111–31—JUNE 22, 2009.
Contained within that law is this little gem:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(33) Tobacco dependence is a chronic disease, one that
typically requires repeated interventions to achieve long-term
or permanent abstinence.
Did you catch that? Legally, tobacco dependence is not an addiction any more..it's a CHRONIC DISEASE.
Does the hospital which is the subject of this thread test its prospective employees for other chronic diseases and deny them a job because of it? CAN they? For instance, can they refuse to hire a person with AIDS? Can they turn down an applicant with COPD? Do they have the right to fire an employee with gout? The list of chronic diseases is long, so it seems to me that unless that chronic disease would somehow affect their job performance, they'd be violationg the American's with Disabilities Act to refuse to hire them or fire them when they got sick.
Of course, I'm no lawyer and I'm sure there are legal exceptions. That's why I REALLY wish some hot-shot lawyer would take this and run with it in regards to smoking.
Location: Somewhere gray and damp, close to the West Coast
20,955 posts, read 5,545,820 times
Reputation: 8559
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
Both local hospitals here have the same policy, but I made one admit that they cannot stop people from smoking on the public sidewalks which, incidently, don't go anywhere near a door. The other partially rescinded it's previous policy to allow smoking in your own car in the parking lot. That's a reasonable compromise we can all live with.
Here's one more little fact overlooked by the zealous anti-smoker, and one which I long for a good attorney to get hold of in issues like the one this thread is about:
In 2009, Congress passed and the President signed, a law placing tobacco under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration. It's now Public Law PUBLIC LAW 111–31—JUNE 22, 2009.
Contained within that law is this little gem:
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(33) Tobacco dependence is a chronic disease, one that
typically requires repeated interventions to achieve long-term
or permanent abstinence.
Did you catch that? Legally, tobacco dependence is not an addiction any more..it's a CHRONIC DISEASE.
Does the hospital which is the subject of this thread test its prospective employees for other chronic diseases and deny them a job because of it? CAN they? For instance, can they refuse to hire a person with AIDS? Can they turn down an applicant with COPD? Do they have the right to fire an employee with gout? The list of chronic diseases is long, so it seems to me that unless that chronic disease would somehow affect their job performance, they'd be violationg the American's with Disabilities Act to refuse to hire them or fire them when they got sick.
Of course, I'm no lawyer and I'm sure there are legal exceptions. That's why I REALLY wish some hot-shot lawyer would take this and run with it in regards to smoking.
Brilliant post.
Sorry I can't rep you again. It's the rep Nazis!!!!!!
Just the result of what happens in our "zero tolerance" society.
Conform.....or be cast out.
guess that makes me a castaway because for better or worse, I'll stand up for my principles and ideals and anyone else's rather than be told what to do just because someone THINKS they know better than me. that is how divisions are born. shaking head. i'd rather be a castaway than conform to anything that is not right.
A company is within its rights to not hire you if you are a smoker, and you are in your rights to work somewhere that doesn't have such restrictions.
so a company is within its rights to not hire you if you like soccer, or yoga?
what business is it of the company's???
you can't discriminate against someone unless it impacts their performance at work. Simply have a no nicotine policy on work property and time and problem solved. Lighting up a ciggy at my house at 9pm is no different to sitting and knitting a sweater at 9pm as far as employment is concerned...
should we test for knitting skills??? lol
it's ridiculous... hate the smoking not the smoker....that is not your concern
PhillyBurbs.com: *St. Luke's Hospital to screen job applicants for nicotine use (http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/262/2010/march/31/st-lukes-hospital-to-screen-job-applicants-for-nicotine-use.html - broken link)
Yes it's true folks. No longer can you smoke if you work at certain places.
St. Luke's Hospital joins many other institutions that will now do routine nicotine screens with their drug testing pre-employment requirements.
Go ahead and laugh; salts next (or maybe alcohol or sugar or fat).
Maybe the companies should test for stupid instead. Drugs eventually leave the system but stupid is forever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
