good googly moogly

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/30/us/pennsylvania-nicotine-testing/index.html?iref=allsearch

Quote :

" - A Pennsylvania hospital is expected to begin screening job applicants for signs of nicotine early next year, claiming it will not hire smokers, a hospital spokeswoman said Friday. Geisinger Health System -- a facility located in the eastern town of Danville -- will institute its no-nicotine policy on February 1, 2012, said Marcy Marshall. Applicants that test positive will be offered help to quit and are encouraged to re-apply after six months, she said. Smoking has been banned on Geisinger hospital grounds since 2007, added Marshall, who said the new program is part of a plan to make the hospital staff smoke free. Secondhand smoke, she noted, will not result in a positive test. Pennsylvania is one of 19 states that allow employers to screen job applicants for signs of smoking, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics. The plan, which costs about $47,000 per year, is not retroactive and therefore protects existing employees from the rigors of the new policy. Its purpose, said Marshall, is to increase the wellness of future employees -- and it mirrors a similar 2007 program developed at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. "We wanted to create a culture of wellness, and the testing was just a part of the overall mission," said Dr. Paul Terpeluk, Medical Director of Employee Health Services in Cleveland. Applicants who test positive for nicotine can reapply after 90 days, he said. For some, the policy has encouraged behavioral changes. "I told them I wanted to quit the right way," said Cleveland Clinic receptionist Marti Auner, who had said she smoked regularly for about 15 years. "I wanted to finish my patches, and they held a job for me for a month." Auner said she hasn't smoked since. Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, said the measures are commonly adopted to reduce future health-care costs. He said "there is no denying" the subsequent drop in cost, pointing to a 2003 study that revealed a range of between $500-$2,200 in additional annual medical expenses for smokers when compared to non-smokers. Dr. Steven Bernstein, a professor at Yale University, added that smokers are also likely to take breaks more often, reducing hours worked"

Thoughts?

12/31/2011 2:49:22 PM

12/31/2011 2:52:01 PM

I think its bullshit

12/31/2011 2:52:40 PM

Bullshit as in you are calling nans?.....Or Bullshit as in you disagree with the policy?

12/31/2011 2:54:10 PM

I think private institutions should be able to make any kind of hiring decisions they want

12/31/2011 2:55:36 PM

I don't see how it's any different from other drug testing, which I also don't agree with, but if you can test for other vices I don't see why you couldn't test for nicotine.

12/31/2011 2:55:54 PM

My work place does not hire smokers. Any smokers already on staff were "highly encouraged" to quit.

12/31/2011 2:58:04 PM

wolfpackgrrr, id imagine the difference is that cigarettes/nicotine are currently legal drugs.

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 2:59 PM. Reason : D]

12/31/2011 2:58:30 PM

If you're on a prescribed opiate painkiller and are applying for a job at a drug testing workplace I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't get the job.

My feeling on it is what you do in your free time is not your workplace's business. If you're a recreational drug user and you're doing it on your own time and it's not affecting your job performance then why should your employer care? The only time I worked at a place that did drug testing, I thought they had a good policy. They would only drug test you if there was an accident in the lab to make sure you weren't stoned or something while working.

12/31/2011 3:03:13 PM

whats next can't get a job if you're cholesterol is too high, what about if your boss doesn't like the fact that you occasionally drink on your off time, or hell high impact recreational sports are dangerous don't want my surgeons breaking their hands or arms.

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 3:07 PM. Reason : ...]

12/31/2011 3:05:02 PM

Quote :

" I think private institutions should be able to make any kind of hiring decisions they want"

Including hiring or not based on applicant's race, gender, religion, creed, ethnicity, etc...?

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM. Reason : L]

12/31/2011 3:08:33 PM

yep

it's their company they should be able to do whatever they want

12/31/2011 3:10:39 PM

12/31/2011 3:11:51 PM

12/31/2011 3:13:06 PM

I'd have no problem with this if they proved that it actually saved costs -- meaning that shit like healthcare was cheaper AND they could afford to lose the talent.

If your star doctor smokes, it would be stupid to fire him. If the janitor smokes and you are paying for his health plan, it's smart to fire him.


Creating a different culture is just fucking stupid. What next -- no drinking? I guess this is Amish and Quaker country we are talking about.

12/31/2011 3:13:35 PM

My company is smoke free, and they INCENTIVIZE not smoking. I think this is probably the better route to go.

12/31/2011 3:16:19 PM

I think that it is absolutely fine for a work place to make such a decision. I don't see it as being any different than a morality clause or organizational code of conduct. Everyone knows that they can be hired or fired based on how they help or harm company image without regard to legality as long as it does not infringe on the rights of a protected class. I also don't see it as being any different than being required to pass a physical in certain lines of work. Honestly, it makes perfect sense from a business perspective when you think about the impact of smoking on the worker and the workplace.

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2011 3:24:33 PM

Only question I have is what about the one-off occasions? Maybe you're not a smoker, but you used to be one, and during a drunken decision decide to have one. So, you're screwed out of a job because of that?

How long does nicotine stay in your system anyway?

12/31/2011 3:38:26 PM

Quote :

"My company is smoke free, and they INCENTIVIZE not smoking. I think this is probably the better route to go."

Doesn't that make smokers feel unwelcome? What are the incentives for not smoking?

12/31/2011 3:40:26 PM

Have they not heard of esmoking? all the goodness of nicotine and smoking without the actual harms of smoking. Although the ecigs are $100 for the device and $30 for a flavor pack, which actually lasts quite a long time, most of my snobbish friends use it now.

Also, if they are on this "health and wellness plan" then they shouldn't hire fat people, but only white Europeans who have blue eyes and blonde hair.

12/31/2011 3:40:45 PM

Quote :

"whats next can't get a job if you're cholesterol is too high"

In NC I think being overweight can hike up your health insurance rates if your a government employee. So yes, it is coming, and as it should.

Quote :

"what about if your boss doesn't like the fact that you occasionally drink on your off time"

If it is of no detriment to the company, nothing will happen.

Look, don't be a dumbshit, ok? If 99% of a company drinks alcohol, they're not going to fire everyone as the rule has to be applied to everyone. Not to mention they will have a difficult time getting employees as well as retaining them. In that case, instituting such a rule would not be financially beneficial to the company.

Quote :

" hell high impact recreational sports are dangerous don't want my surgeons breaking their hands or arms."

Speaking in hyperbole only makes you look like a dumb motherfucker. Are you a dumb motherfucker?

Quote :

"I'd have no problem with this if they proved that it actually saved costs -- meaning that shit like healthcare was cheaper AND they could afford to lose the talent."

Isn't it their problem if they're losing talent? Why the fuck would you have a problem with it if they are the ones making a poor decision?

Now, what about when they get older and they have lung cancer, are out more because they're sick, and all that other shit that smoking leads to? Paying someone to not be there is money right down the drain. Or when all the smokers are going to the doctor more often and the insurance company wants to hike up the insurance rates? The raise in rates is passed on to the company and the employees. It's not exactly fair that non-smoking employees have to pay more to cover the ass of the smoking employees, not to mention all of the extra little breaks they get throughout the day.


Seriously, smokers are the biggest bunch of fucking whiners in the world. Their sense of entitlement drives me fucking crazy. They get pissed if you tell them to knock off all the breaks they take, and they get upset if you tell them to knock the bullshit off.

Smoking isn't a right, faggots. Get over it.

12/31/2011 3:41:10 PM

^^^At my work place, incentives include bonuses and paying for the patch, or whatever method of quitting.

Same way my husband's work pays for gym memberships and weight loss programs.

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ]

12/31/2011 3:41:14 PM

What if you chew nicorette? Or any other non smoking form of nicotine?

I hate big brother telling you what is for your own good. Make it against company policy to smoke at work or work functions, but dont tell me i cant do something perfectly legal in my own house. This is the trans fat thing all over again

12/31/2011 3:43:11 PM

I don't smoke and I think it's a pretty fucked up hiring policy. I mean they should just do what a number other companies do and give incentives to people who actually live a healthy lifestyle by making your monthly health insurance cost lower. I know BBT does this, they actually will pay you to eat well and go to the gym.

12/31/2011 3:48:24 PM

this is a great idea

Ya know, companies should just start paying their employers in "employer-bucks" to be used at company stores. this will stop employees from driving to the mall, to the grocery, and downtown to shop, putting their health at risk by driving on dangerous roads, which drives up the cost of insurance premiums while also, in many cases, provides money to competing business.

The companies can also buy land and build houses, requiring their employees to live in company housing. This keeps employees from making poor land investment choices, which lead to money problems and divorce that then lead to crippling depression, and thus, higher insurance premiums due to the high cost of psychiatric treatment.


The companies know what is best for us. Why choose how you live your life - if it effects their bottom line, the choice is theirs. Rightfully so... they own you, you're their slave, and you'll bow to your master's wishes.

12/31/2011 3:50:21 PM

My company just reimburses for things: Nicotine Cessation programs, gym memberships (up to $250 annually), computer purchases (20%), etc.

12/31/2011 3:54:56 PM

I love how some of you are touting that "big brother" or "the company" shouldn't be able to tell you what to do, but you're just telling an employer what they should or should not do.

If an employer wants to hire nonsmokers, then let them hire nonsmokers. You don't have to go work for them. And if their policy is reprehensible to enough people, then they won't be able to find employees and their public image will suffer. Maybe they'll even go under. And that's how it should work.

12/31/2011 3:55:30 PM

I will gladly abstain from alcohol and even caffeine if it means $5,000 / year more in pay.

Amish me all you want but you have to pay the price. I'll even be black for another $3k.

12/31/2011 3:56:59 PM

Quote :

"\And if their policy is reprehensible to enough people, then they won't be able to find employees and their public image will suffer."

Wouldn't it be nice if this were how the world worked?

12/31/2011 4:02:46 PM

It's how the system is supposed to work.

I say, fuck it. Who care? Let them hire who they want to hire. You don't have to work for them. And if you want to work for them badly enough, then you fucking quit smoking. Duh. Smokers are not a protected class. Get over it.

The school system doesn't hire teachers who like to strip in their free time. The church doesn't hire ministers who bang it out on the regular. And the hospital doesn't want to hire smokers. Big damned deal.

12/31/2011 4:08:53 PM

yeah, bottombaby is just trolling at this point and doesn't really understand how the world works beyond her sheltered, picture perfect idealistic virtual reality.

Smoking is not illegal and not demonized as a moral choice so you can't even compare your teacher or ministers analogies. While smokers shouldn't be considered a class of "protected people" it does signify a sort of discrimination towards a particular habit that has no bearing on job performance. While I dislike people who smoke, I can tolerate it. I do get pissed off for people who don't follow the 25 ft rule from the door since it is a law, but I'm not going to penalize them if they are completely qualified for a job position.

12/31/2011 4:16:10 PM

Quote :

"It's how the system is supposed to work."

But that's not how it works. They'll always find some schmuck to deal with the bullshit that comes with the job.

You say "well you don't have to work there". What if that's the only hospital in town? Pretty much dictates that doctors/nurses who smoke can not live there. I realize smoking is not a life or death matter, but it's a personal choice that should not matter in the hiring process. What happens when employers start screening based on other health hazards? (ex. drinking alcohol, obesity, high blood pressure) Your rights get whittled away because someone will always be there to take your job.

12/31/2011 4:18:33 PM

Quote :

" Doesn't that make smokers feel unwelcome? What are the incentives for not smoking?"

basically, they give us $$ towards healthcare

12/31/2011 4:22:22 PM

I sometimes thought of taking up smoking so I can take 5 minute breaks every hour too, but then I realized I'd be pretty inefficient at my job doing that.

12/31/2011 4:22:52 PM

Quote :

"THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!!!"

12/31/2011 4:23:14 PM

Also, I don't smoke or drink because I find it a waste of money. Do it right and invest it...

on whores, blow and SLI.

12/31/2011 4:24:48 PM

Quote :

"a particular habit that has no bearing on job performance"

(not true)

12/31/2011 4:25:59 PM

Ok, I realize that it's pointless to debate the issue with you folks.

Have you ever thought that you're just whittling away the rights of the employer?

If I run a spa and I don't want to hire smokers because the smell of smoke in their hair, on their clothes, in their skin, and nicotine stains are unappealing to my customers. I should be able to do that. It's my business. And I figure that if you want to work for me badly enough, you'll quit smoking. If you're unwilling to quit smoking, then fuck you because you obviously don't want or need my job badly enough. I'll just find someone else.

You have the right to smoke and I have the right to set my own hiring guidelines.

12/31/2011 4:26:31 PM

Quote :

"My feeling on it is what you do in your free time is not your workplace's business. If you're a recreational drug user and you're doing it on your own time and it's not affecting your job performance then why should your employer care? The only time I worked at a place that did drug testing, I thought they had a good policy. They would only drug test you if there was an accident in the lab to make sure you weren't stoned or something while working."

Yeah, but I don't want the guys driving the forklifts at work coming into work high and injuring me. Once you've been hurt it is too late to see if they were high or not. Hospitals should be the same way.

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2011 4:28:20 PM

^^
I think it's reasonable to ask employees to not smoke on the job or smell like smoke, but unreasonable to ask them to refrain from smoking altogether.

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

12/31/2011 4:28:38 PM

I actually think private employers should have the right to do this. Private employers should also have the right to allow smoking indoors if they so choose (like a bar for instance) regardless of state law.

12/31/2011 4:29:23 PM

^^^^ Employee rights are generally given greater weight (or at least should be) than employer rights because employers generally have stronger bargaining positions than employees.

12/31/2011 4:29:26 PM

Quote :

"I think it's reasonable to ask employees to not smoke on the job or smell like smoke, but unreasonable to ask them to refrain from smoking altogether."

Have you ever been a smoker?

Good luck finding a smoker who doesn't smell like smoke.

12/31/2011 4:30:38 PM

irrelevant and untrue

12/31/2011 4:32:14 PM

^x6 bet you don't want them coming in drunk either

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 4:35 PM. Reason : ^]

12/31/2011 4:34:10 PM

Quote :

"I actually think private employers should have the right to do this. Private employers should also have the right to allow smoking indoors if they so choose (like a bar for instance) regardless of state law."

I'm glad they don't allow smoking indoors anymore. Just because someone wants to inhale smoke doesn't mean the rest of us want to. Going to bars is so much better since they banned smoking.

12/31/2011 4:36:10 PM

I smoked for approximately 5 years. The smell even gets in your skin. It can be pretty bad. You would have to be extremely fastidious about not smoking in your house or your car or in the clothes you wear to work and bathing before going into work and not having a cigarette between showering and work. Most smokers have something like a pack a day habit. That's just not going to happen.

12/31/2011 4:39:20 PM

Thats a pretty big assumption BB. Id argue that many smokers smoke and you just dont know about it because they take the necessary precautions to not smell horribly.

[Edited on December 31, 2011 at 4:45 PM. Reason : L]

12/31/2011 4:44:53 PM

^^
If you're a massage therapist, smelling like smoke affects your job. If you want to be a massage therapist and also smoke, you have to be diligent about it. Just like if you're a doctor on call, you can't drink. Plenty of people are capable of smoking and not smelling like it all the time.

If it doesn't necessarily affect your job, it shouldn't be a caveat for employment.

12/31/2011 4:46:34 PM

A hospital hiring smokers is like the military hiring peaceniks.

Smoking is one of the leading causes of death, and the leading cause of cancer. It makes ZERO sense for hospitals to support this habit in any way.

Quote :

"It's how the system is supposed to work. "

SUpposed to work by what standard? I don't ever recall getting a manual or instruction booklet on how things are "supposed" to work.

What I have observed however is that people will accept anything as long as they can sit on their couch watching American Idol eating McDonalds after work.

12/31/2011 5:09:54 PM