Found this in my RSS feed the other day, what do you guys think of this? I'm a little worried, as I'm in clinicals now and would hate to be terminated or not even hired because of one of my hobbies.
Torn on this one. On one hand, I think individual employers have a right to hire as they see fit. Like if Hooters wants to discriminate based on cup size, I'm all for it. On the other...if its not an activity that's taking place at the workplace...it seems a lousy policy.
In the end, though, I think this is going to work like back in the 70's when the government tried to place mandatory drug tests on truck drivers. They ran out of drivers (so I've been told by my dad, who was in the trailer leasing business, I wasn't alive/conscious for it). So many doctors and nurses smoke that I think they'll be hard-pressed to fill all positions with non-smokers.
It is unprecedented to require urine testing to discover a legal substance, which in no way impairs work performance. I don't give a crap if an employer wants to fire smokers--I'll take some of those cast off employees myself, as I'm certain many are extraordinarily productive and loyal. (then I would like to rub the ex-employer's nose in it, by contacting them and telling them what a wonderful job person X is doing and thanking them for sending him/her to me, then asking them how much they had to invest in training someone else--who by the way may have some other personal habit they don't approve of so they'd better find a way to detect it before, God forbid, the employee engages in that activity whenever they want!!!). But I certainly object to mandatory urine testing for nicotine metabolites. This is on a person's own time, away from work, and LEGAL. This is totalitarianism. In no way is this acceptable in the America I grew up in.
it can be argued both ways....when my grandfather was an active attorney he represented someone in court. why? the person iddnt get hired bc he smoked. in a way it is discrimination . this was like 10 years ago idk how things are now or if any laws have been implemented that allows employers to do things like that.
The article states that employees can be fired for smoking, and that's very different from a discriminatory hiring policy. Even so, I am surprised that anyone on this forum would use the "employers are free to do whatever they want" argument. The same exact argument was used to resist racial integration in the 50's and 60's. It was considered freedom for a landlord to rent to whomever he chose, or for the owner of a public establishment to deny service to whomever he believed to be bad for (white) business. Now, before anyone says, yeah but one chooses to smoke, you're not born that way and it's under your control, keep in mind that the only way someone can prove you smoke is with an illegal search. The 4th Amendment allows searches only in the event of probable cause that one is engaging in criminal activity. And SCOTUS has already determined that the 4th Amendment applies to local governments and to employers. Public school students are exempted, as are people who hold jobs where public safety may be at risk. This new war on smokers will no doubt find its way into the courts, and I would hope that we as a group don't just shrug and say "Hey, we can see it both ways." Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress---Napolean Bonaparte
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cMlu7tUshg&feature=related
HEY WAIT! 2:15 into this video is a clip of Stalin smoking! Even in the most repressive, murderous, totalitarian slave republic of the 20th century smoking was permitted.
It is unprecedented to require urine testing to discover a legal substance, which in no way impairs work performance. I don't give a crap if an employer wants to fire smokers--I'll take some of those cast off employees myself, as I'm certain many are extraordinarily productive and loyal. (then I would like to rub the ex-employer's nose in it, by contacting them and telling them what a wonderful job person X is doing and thanking them for sending him/her to me, then asking them how much they had to invest in training someone else--who by the way may have some other personal habit they don't approve of so they'd better find a way to detect it before, God forbid, the employee engages in that activity whenever they want!!!). But I certainly object to mandatory urine testing for nicotine metabolites. This is on a person's own time, away from work, and LEGAL. This is totalitarianism. In no way is this acceptable in the America I grew up in.
Well, the productivity issues are probably because many cigarette smokers take smoke breaks throughout the day. Whenever I leave my office to go to lunch or go to the atm, I see a bunch of smokers huddled together. It sounds to me like they're trying to use that as an excuse to ban smoking by employees.
At some point they really need to separate cigarettes from cigars. I love cigars, but I've never left work to take a smoke break. I do that on my own, outside of work hours. And the health consequences are vastly different for cigarette smokers and cigar smokers.
I think the fact that this movement is spearheaded by hospitals has a lot to do with it... Health care facilities are over-the-top **** about everything that comes into a hospital, and smokers do tend to track a lot of that around with them in their clothing, this is a major problem when you are coming into contact with patients who have allergies, respiratory conditions, etc. If this were their primary reason, I would think they had a legitimate rock to stand on, but according to this article, they're banning smokers because it's just too expensive to have them on staff... I can understand denying them certain health insurance coverage, or making them pay a higher premium, maybe even have certain exclusions written into the policy, but denying them a job, or even firing an existing employee, seems pretty sophomoric and cold. The truth is that employers really can do what they want and hire whoever they want, as long as they aren't committing some sort of legally defined discrimination... which I'm pretty sure has only to do with age, sex, nationality and religious creed... but even those can be worked around depending on the job description... I guess my opinion would be: I think it sucks, it may be technically legal but that doesn't make it right. Any employer who actually goes there is a douche bag and I wouldn't want to work for them anyway!
"...and in the evenings the men would be men. We would sit round the fire and share a drink, a smoke and old war stories that oft dealt more with women than war it's self. There were no fathers or sons, bosses nor hands, we were just men sitting round a fire."
It is unprecedented to require urine testing to discover a legal substance, which in no way impairs work performance. I don't give a crap if an employer wants to fire smokers--I'll take some of those cast off employees myself, as I'm certain many are extraordinarily productive and loyal. (then I would like to rub the ex-employer's nose in it, by contacting them and telling them what a wonderful job person X is doing and thanking them for sending him/her to me, then asking them how much they had to invest in training someone else--who by the way may have some other personal habit they don't approve of so they'd better find a way to detect it before, God forbid, the employee engages in that activity whenever they want!!!). But I certainly object to mandatory urine testing for nicotine metabolites. This is on a person's own time, away from work, and LEGAL. This is totalitarianism. In no way is this acceptable in the America I grew up in.
Well, the productivity issues are probably because many cigarette smokers take smoke breaks throughout the day. Whenever I leave my office to go to lunch or go to the atm, I see a bunch of smokers huddled together. It sounds to me like they're trying to use that as an excuse to ban smoking by employees.
At some point they really need to separate cigarettes from cigars. I love cigars, but I've never left work to take a smoke break. I do that on my own, outside of work hours. And the health consequences are vastly different for cigarette smokers and cigar smokers.
+1 To this.
I have a sales job and i see alot of people taking 5+ smoke breaks aday. Every minute your not at your desk it costs you money so i get the production aspect of this point.
IDK what they offer as a difference to non smokers on the health insurance to encourage non smoking. But at my company its only 5% thats very small when you are looking at it on a bi weekly point of view. It would save me $2.5 to be a non smoker. If they really want to us this as a benifit to not smoke they should increase the premiums and make the discount larger.
Just to jump in here real quick - I'm pretty sure certain gov't jobs have been discriminating on a smoking basis for years, using the reasoning that they're trying to cut down on health costs, so it's probably legal (though if they really wanted to cut down on health costs, they'd tell their employees to hit the treadmill)
My libertarian side wants to affirm the rights of private businesses to do this.... but that doesn't make it any less stupid Surely if we're going to not hire smokers because of their unhealthy lifestyles, we should also not hire people who drink, the obese, people who drive too fast, and all sorts of other people leading "unhealthy lifestyles."
(Not to mention, to be relevant to this forum, that none of those arguments apply to casual cigar smokers, who have a statistically negligible health risk but would presumably also fall under this ban.)
My libertarian side wants to affirm the rights of private businesses to do this.... but that doesn't make it any less stupid Surely if we're going to not hire smokers because of their unhealthy lifestyles, we should also not hire people who drink, the obese, people who drive too fast, and all sorts of other people leading "unhealthy lifestyles."
(Not to mention, to be relevant to this forum, that none of those arguments apply to casual cigar smokers, who have a statistically negligible health risk but would presumably also fall under this ban.)
This is not unprecedented, it has been going on for quite some time in the corporate world, usually smaller corporations. The first I remember of it was about 8 - 10 years ago, took place in Michigan, if I recall. As far as the "Libertarian" point of view defending this sort of behavior, I read an interesting book lately, which contained the following paragraph:
Too often, the defenders of free markets forget that what we really want is free men. Having a few around requires an economy in which the virtue of independence is cultivated, and a diversity of human types can find work to which they are suited. It is time to dispel the long-standing confusion of private property with corporate property. Conservatives are right to extol the former as a pillar of liberty, but when they put such arguments in the service of the latter, they become apologists for the ever-greater concentration of capital. the result is that opportunities for self-employment and self-reliance are preempted...
I think the point about confusion of private property with corporate property in our arguement here is that we are not their property! As long as one shows up for work on time, does the job to satisfaction, and is honest, NOT ONE DAMN THING THEY DO IN PRIVATE is any employers business. (just for the record, the bumper sticker on my truck says "Enough is enough, vote Libertarian")
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
The pleasure police are everywhere. These do gooders think they are protecting society from that evil weed that is tobacco.. If they are not stopped they will move on to something else.
This isn't really something new. I've been hearing about this sort of thing for years. There has been a big movement is fire departments nationwide that ban any and all tobacco use, on and off duty as the job is extremely physical. Men (and women) have a high enough risk of death or injury based on job requirements (fire, entrapment, noxious chemicals/gases, etc.), plus the increased incidence of heart attacks, so departments are just going for a ban across the board. There are a few that will allow up to 3 cigars a year "in a celebratory setting." Meaning, you can smoke three sticks a year at birthdays, anniversaries, etc. I believe they call this sort of ban a "condition of employment." You may not like it, but "The Man" thinks if it means that much to you to use tobacco, they'll find someone else who would rather have the job and not smoke. I know it sucks, but it's the world we live in. Everyone has to have their nose in everyone else's business. Just my two cents!
Comments
In the end, though, I think this is going to work like back in the 70's when the government tried to place mandatory drug tests on truck drivers. They ran out of drivers (so I've been told by my dad, who was in the trailer leasing business, I wasn't alive/conscious for it). So many doctors and nurses smoke that I think they'll be hard-pressed to fill all positions with non-smokers.
At some point they really need to separate cigarettes from cigars. I love cigars, but I've never left work to take a smoke break. I do that on my own, outside of work hours. And the health consequences are vastly different for cigarette smokers and cigar smokers.
I have a sales job and i see alot of people taking 5+ smoke breaks aday. Every minute your not at your desk it costs you money so i get the production aspect of this point.
IDK what they offer as a difference to non smokers on the health insurance to encourage non smoking. But at my company its only 5% thats very small when you are looking at it on a bi weekly point of view. It would save me $2.5 to be a non smoker. If they really want to us this as a benifit to not smoke they should increase the premiums and make the discount larger.
Too often, the defenders of free markets forget that what we really want is free men. Having a few around requires an economy in which the virtue of independence is cultivated, and a diversity of human types can find work to which they are suited. It is time to dispel the long-standing confusion of private property with corporate property. Conservatives are right to extol the former as a pillar of liberty, but when they put such arguments in the service of the latter, they become apologists for the ever-greater concentration of capital. the result is that opportunities for self-employment and self-reliance are preempted...
I think the point about confusion of private property with corporate property in our arguement here is that we are not their property! As long as one shows up for work on time, does the job to satisfaction, and is honest, NOT ONE DAMN THING THEY DO IN PRIVATE is any employers business. (just for the record, the bumper sticker on my truck says "Enough is enough, vote Libertarian")
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain