Holy Spirits Hospital ?

I have heard of this and also heard UPMC may adopt this policy as well. I know for the state of Pennsylvania and majority of states it's at will work and really with that an employer can do pretty much anything in a hiring process as well as terminating a worker.

This is getting more common and IMO will be the norm by the end of the decade. The company my employer is contracted to has been tobacco/nicotine free for years. They will not hire a tobacco/nicotine user and will terminate you if the catch you in a random drug, alcohol and nicotine screening. I've been saying this for years it not the government but your employer and their insurance provider you have to fear. 8O

Businesses will do what is necessary to reduce costs. The company makes a choice regarding whom to hire. The prospective employee can now make a choice to smoke and seek other employment or, not smoke and take a position if offered. I fail to see where a problem exists which would involve the courts.

Most medical facilities are using this in Lexington Ky. If it is stated in their work policy, then it is legal. It is simply something undesired in their workforce. In the small print, most applications even say that your employment is at will and may be terminated for reasons as seen fit.

We're having a difficult time finding qualified candidates for positions at our hospital even without that kind of ridiculous policy. I bet it doesn't apply to the professional staff. They wouldn't put up with it.

Businesses will do what is necessary to reduce costs. The company makes a choice regarding whom to hire. The prospective employee can now make a choice to smoke and seek other employment or, not smoke and take a position if offered. I fail to see where a problem exists which would involve the courts.

Click to expand...

warren is spot on. Any employer has the right to determine their hiring policies as long as it doesn't pertain to race, religion or sexuality. Like it or not, just deal with it.

Of all of the problems people can bring to the work place that could cost the employer money, nicotine seems like a remote one, except that it can be determined, unlike many others. Employers will lose significant numbers of honest, productive, stable, financially prudent, non-violence prone, etc., people they would want, and hire others who do not have these good qualities. I wonder how long it will take the number crunchers to figure that out. It's like ruling out bald men to beautify the work environment. It might do that, but you will lose some bald men who can help you make money.

It's not even clear that smokers "cost" more money to a company. Anti-tobacco propaganda aside, it's true that smokers (all inclusive) die sooner than non-smokers. And most people who have tried to calculate the net cost of smoking in terms of medical expenses have found that smoking results in a net reduction in medical expenses vs. non-smokers. (Because those vegetarian aerobicizers are going to be incurring medical expenses for another ten years or so, on average).
But even if the numbers said otherwise, I don't think it's simply hunky dory for employers to be regulating employee activity outside of work. Sure, there are statutes and plenty of case law that support an employer's right to do just that, but that slope could become very slippery once it becomes routine to regulate smoking. What about drinking or meat-eating? What about staying up late? It's bad for you! And bad for productivity. Let's monitor it! I'm honestly surprised that companies haven't done more already to regulate diet, exercise, smoking and drinking. I think it's only a matter of time -- and it may be done more for political reasons than anything else, not for actual financial considerations. That certainly seems to be the case with nicotine.

If regulating what employees eat, sleep patterns, driving record, etc. can enhance the bottom line such regs will no doubt be implemented. Political reasons have absolutely nothing to do with the decision, it's the BOTTOM LINE. And, with unemployment at the current rate, employers have lots of applicants and so can abide fairly severe requirements. If the world ever gets near full-employment and jobs go begging, the situation will self-correct. Today, there are many applications for few jobs so the job hunter has no leverage.
We, on the other hand, can exercise our choice and seek employment else where, or chose not to do business with such companies. If it's the closest hospital and you need emergency treatment you should prepare yourself to suck it up, control your righteous indignation and avail yourself of their services. Or, should you wish, find a quiet little corner to die in.
Smoking is treated as a choice. Smokers are not a protected class. We can work, we can smoke, it is just that sometimes we cannot chose to do both. It's a choice to smoke, not a necessity. It's a a choice to work or stay idle, at least these days it seems to be. If you desire employment at a "no smoking, ever" business you will have to make a change in your life style. Your other choices are to seek employment elsewhere, self-employment or idleness.
As an aside, most doctors working in hospitals are not employees of the facility.

Warren, I assume you're responding to my post. But you're arguing with someone else. Still, it's interesting, so I'll keep listening. :mrgreen:

My wife's hospital in Tacoma has been following this example for over a year now.

She's pretty sure this practice covers ALL staff; not just nurses.

I agree with Pitch and Robin on this one--- If its LEGAL it shouldn't be an issue.

I would LOVE to own a big national company that was hiring a bunch of people. I would ask in the interview- "Do you use tobacco products?" When they say no, I'd kindly tell them to move along....... no job for YOU! I'll bet the lawsuits would be filed in record time!! It would be great if some companies would turn this 180 degrees-- would make national/world news I'm sure...........Imagine, a company that would only hire tobacco users......

I love it. And have them take tox-screens to prove they have nicotine in their system.
I am waiting for some doctor to show that there is some sort of genetic chromosome or something that determines someone is going to smoke or be inclined to do so. Prove it is part of a hereditary trait and that seems to open the door to prevent discrimination.
LOL, I might be waiting a while, but seems that one PHD dissertation works to disprove the findings of a previous one, so potential is always there.

Just to be clear, I'm almost certain that it's legal for companies to discriminate against smokers -- if they can claim legal or financial risks to the company. They can even regulate employees' use of Facebook. I don't see much grounds for a suit by anyone on this, unless it were a dispute over whether there are actual costs to the company. In most states, many otherwise legal activities can be regulated or banned if the company has a legitimate business reason.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hLXOVCZr-8

pitchfork: More like agreeing with you. I'm just a bit more pragmatic about the present and the future. It's fairly obvious what's coming, I'm retired so what do I care. Folks that smoke and want to work are going to have to make a decision.
beefeater: If I was the owner of a money making operation I would see if I could reduce costs by not hiring smokers. If so, I wouldn't hire smokers. Neither would I smoke around my employees. I would simply get good managers and work from home, the corporate jet, the yacht, and the homes in the Bahamas and Connecticut.
You do raise a question though: "Do cigarette manufacturers, the big ones, allow employees to smoke in the work place or on the campus? Time for a Google search I suppose.

Warren-- You get no argument from me about CIGARETTE smoking and costs. Whats troubling here is the fact that they are testing for NICOTINE. To me thats the key difference..... penalizing a guy who enjoys a cigar once in a while or a pipe.......I guess you couldn't work if you were on the nic patch as well. Slippery slope here...

You and I can see a distinction with a difference. Insurance companies obviously do not see the need to separate the one vice into subcategories. It is, just what it is and all the gnashing of teeth and complaining that the various users of nicotine do, will not change the situation.
Unless and until there are substantial findings that tobacco use causes no health problems one should not expect change in the direction, eventual near prohibition, that society is going. Even some minor findings that nicotine may have some limited health positives will not change the direction of the stampede, at least in the US and EU.
The distaste for tobacco use has expanded way beyond the medical profession. A majority of people simply do not like the smell of stale or fresh tobacco which envelops smokers of cigars, cigarettes, and pipes. They cringe when a chewer spits into an empty coffee cup on the desk or bar table. Sufficient numbers of people have experienced the loss of family or friends because of lung cancer. All of the complaining and explaining we forum members do amongst ourselves is not going to stem the tide of societal distaste for anything remotely connected to tobacco. Smokers of tobacco are profiled and put into folders labeled, weak, selfish, ignorant, anti-social and expensive by those averse to the vice.
There is little use in trying to apply logic to the argument, visceral hate will not listen to logic. And, there is a visceral hate for tobacco driving the anti-tobacco movement. Each of us on this forum can point to an experience where someone remarked kindly on our pipe and the how the smell reminds them of their father or some such. I suspect we can also, for each positive, point out at least ten negative reactions, be it a remark or a frown.
Barring some earth shaking research which shows that tobacco is in important aspect to good health, we are on the losing side of the argument. Such research would have to have sufficient weight to make a major change in the way people see tobacco and tobacco users. Pipe smokers can safely identify themselves as collateral damage in the war against cigarettes.

the fact is this is not a new "policy"; it's been around long enough to have been legally challenged and it hasn't been...at least successfully to my knowledge.
especially if it's a pre-condition of employment, their grounds are even more solid. applying it ex post facto to current employees, might make it a bit more dicey to enforce... how do you terminate a terrific cigar-smoking employee? And Warren is dead on: Ever watch a foursome of physicians go through a dozen cigars on a round of golf???
the rub might come as more states legalize pot, and it too becomes a legal "right." I believe current state laws allow employers to ban pot smoking during working hours on premises but after 5 p.m., then what?
And even though many are still unemployed, the demand for qualified employees remains high, witness Walmart voluntarily raising its minimum wage to improve its competitiveness. to me anti-smoking policies are driven more by health insurance costs/incentives than by a sense of: "we have this job/this policy: take it or leave it."
Finally in my area, health-care facilities are more and more going to per-diem employees, especially among RNs. Wonder if legally these per-diems , who may not receive health benefits from the hospital, can be denied employment if tobacco users.
Sorry, no answers, just more opinions and questions.