Can smoking cost you your job?

[scrantonpipes16]

I came across this video today, and it only shows the continued discrimination against our smoking community. This hospital in Rochester has instituted a new policy in which they will screen all new hires for nicotine in their system, and will only hire non-smokers for their positions. I hope this policy does not become the norm for more companies in the future.

 

[hobie1dog]

It's coming...total control will be had by those in control....the big boys will get their way, like George Carlin said, " Its a big club, and you and I aren't in it "

 

[cortezattic]

If I had scrimped and saved, and taken on risks and indebtedness, and busted my butt to succeed in business to the point that I could hire someone, then I think I have the right to decide who will and will not work for me. IMO smokers' rights don't trump everything.
OTOH, it would not be right to fire someone because I changed my mind about a non-work related behavior.
There's a difference between "scuba divers need not apply", and "forthwith all scuba divers are fired".

 

[gecko13]

Yes its coming. I heard today the agency I worked for is now saliva testing employees to ensure they aren't claiming to be a none smoker on their benefits forms if they are. I foresee it will one day come to random tests like is done for illegal drug testing. And then, not becuase it's illegal, but because of fraud/integrity you will be fired and/or your health plan will be voided.

 

[hilojohnny]

I've read that one state is considering nicotine testing of Medicaid recipients....they will lose their benefits if they test positive.... :crying:

 

[yoru]

I still think refusing to hire anyone based on a non-job related quality isn't right. I also believe that since the 1930s the government has kinda forced itself to make those calls (declaring right and wrong is kinda like killing people -- once you cross that line, there's no going back) so as long as it is making the calls, the protection of the individual freedom trumps the freedom of the 'establishment' (businesses), though there are nice exceptions built in to protect the little-guy at dear old mom and pop stores. I believe in Texas you are immune to most "you cannot do this, this or this, and you have to accommodate this this and this" if you have fewer than 15 employees. If you have fewer than 15 employees it is about your rights because it is about a single person and those he trusts and chose tow ork with him, not about a self-sustaining machine, PR, and corporate policies. Sure some businesses in the 15-25 or 30 range get shafted, but I've never seen a mom and pop able to support more than 10 employees, or in the past 4 years one that could support more than 4 including the owner.

 

[admin]

Have you seen one of this month's featured articles about this?
How To Beat A Dead Dog: Anti-Smoking Activism in Modern America

 

[collindow]

I love that the CEO admits that they're working on some way to discriminate against fat people too. Ah, delightful to live in a country that so values individual freedom!

 

[forsooth]

A couple of questions:
* Technically, would a nicotine screening be able to identify a casual pipe smoker if the smoker is not an inhaler? (I think I have read that lots of pipe tobaccos are low in nicotine.)
* Surely they're trying to pick up cigarette-addicted applicants. Would a pipe-smoker qualify as an addicted inhaler-smoker?

 

[yoru]

A single draw on the pipe or a cigarette is enough to fail the screening for the next 12-48 hours --- ask a chemist for exact details, I'm just going by what I've been told and read. :P

 

[gecko13]

I think former President Clinton tried the "but I didn't inhale" argument. Seemed to work for him. I think it was the cigars that lead to his downfall though. Lol

 

[forsooth]

Downfall? Clinton is the left's MAIN ICON.