A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
What are your views on this?
Posted: Dec 16, 2010
"Smokers feel the burn of hospital hiring" is the headlines in a Florida newspaper regarding a local hospital.
Basically, anyone who tests positive for nicotine products, such as the nicotine patch or nicotine gum, in it's pre-employment process will not be eligible for employment. Current employees will not be screened for nicotine use. If you use a nicotine patch or equivalent to treat neurological problems, such as Tourette syndrome, and you want a job there, you have to bring in a doctor's note to remain eligible for employment.
;
Since when is nicotine an illegal substance? - sm
[ In Reply To ..]It is any business' right to say no smokign on the property -- which as a smoker I understand, but have problems with if I am sitting in my car. However, to not be hired for taking something that is totally legal should not be legal at all. I would call it discrimination--especially if current employees are not judged similarly.
Personally, I am tired of being treated liked a 2nd-class person because I smoke. I do not smoke in places not allowed and don't smoke in a crowd of people just because I can. We are doing nothing illegal, so people just just stop with all the judging, ostricizing as it were, etc.
You missed the point entirely. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]It didn't say nicotine was an illegal substance.
It also did not state that smokers were not being hired.
It is discussing hiring those using certain treatment options outside of a physician's monitoring where the treatment options (patches, etc.) have side effects and are often misused for other problems.
I see no problem with it.
she didn't miss the point... - no1joe
[ In Reply To ..]They are targeting smokers. Agree... smoking on hospital grounds can be prohibited. Telling people what they can do during non-work hours... NO! If this is the trend, people out there who have put on a few pounds need to be careful too. It's obvious that they're trying to cut down employee healthcare costs. Here's the article:
http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/west-volusia/2010/12/15/smokers-feel-the-burn-in-hospital-hiring.html
What is so wrong with wanting healthy employees? - sm
[ In Reply To ..]They prefer to hire employees who live healthier lifestyles. What is so wrong about that? The hospital is impacted financially by the poor choices of employees who chose to ruin their health by smoking. They have the right to prefer non-smokers if they feel that is in their best interest. I don't see anything wrong with it at all, in fact, I think it's good business.
Ditto for the obese employee, right? - No judgment here
[ In Reply To ..]If it starts with monitoring smokers, the other poster is correct. Next they'll be targeting those that are "a few" (cough cough) pounds overweight (can I have a hand count of all MTs on this forum who have eaten their way to a larger size in the past couple of years?) Why hire the overweight employee when they can hire the one whose BMI fits the bill a bit better?
Yes, it might start with smokers and all self-righteous nonsmokers might want to step on the scale or look at other aspects of their life that might fall under scrutiny if this is the new trend.
Sure, why not? - sm
[ In Reply To ..]That's the employer's choice. They have that right. I personally don't see anything wrong with it. With health care costs soaring through the roof, why in the world should companies have to subsidize people's poor choices and lack of concern about their own health?
In theory that's 100% right - no1joe
[ In Reply To ..]But you gotta be careful of the foundation that's being put into place. If I was in charge of hiring 2 candidates, both with the same qualifications, but 1 was a smoker... I'd probably go with the nonsmoker. No brainer and it just makes sense $$ wise. How about this scenario... 2 candidates equally qualified to do the job, 1 male and 1 female of childbearing age... which makes sense $$ wise, the male or the female who might go out on paid maternity leave more than once during her employment? The point is: Start with 1 group, and there are sure to be others lined up... all in the name of saving a few bucks.
And, as a consumer, I would much rather have a doctor or nurse who smokes a few cigarettes during their spare time take care of me than someone who is less qualified but nicotine free.
This sort of thing goes on all the time. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]That's exactly how the hiring process works. The person doing the hiring weighs all the factors and makes a choice. Sometimes the factors that are being used can run afoul of the law (like deciding to hire the male applicant over the female, as in your example), and no one is ever the wiser. I used to be a recruiter in a hospital, and the CEO of the hospital made it very clear to us that we he wanted "no fat nurses" in his hospital. So when it came right down to it, if one nurse was overweight and the other wasn't, you know who got hired. I kid you not! It was the unwritten law at that hospital.
Oh... I KNOW it goes on all the time - no1joe
[ In Reply To ..]That's why you need to be careful about what is given legal backing to do. If anyone caught wind and could prove that discrimination in the hiring process and/or workplace was going on, they could very well have a nice little law suit on their hands, and the employers are running the risk of that. Make it legal... just line up the next group that isn't cost effective. And this doesn't just go for the smokers and those of us who are a few pounds too heavy which I 100% agree are BAD lifestyle choices. But how about cutting out all the sun worshipers, skiiers, snowboarders, motorcycle riders, tattooed people, potential mothers, etc., etc., based on the theory of non-cost-effective lifestyle choices? Legally set the standard, and it could very well spiral out of control.
You get "IT", thank you - No judgment here
[ In Reply To ..]Yes, we're dealing with our government who, given an inch never fail to seize a mile. We have to be hypervigilant as to what we shrug off because it will eventually bite us ALL in the backside. Something that seems logical instead becomes a gateway to something much ominous.
So if you don't see anything wrong it... - see message
[ In Reply To ..]Then you think the only people who should work in this country who are people who are not overweight. Huh???? You must be in shape to be saying something like that.
Not everyone is overweight because of "poor choices". Some of us used to be in very good shape. Then as we got older along came family-inherited illnesses (that we don't get a choice of whether or not we got it) that we didn't have when we were younger and the medications the doctor puts us on has the side effects of weight gain. No matter how much we exercise and remain on a diet for years and years the weight doesn't come off. Take us off the medications and our illness gets worse.
I and everyone I know who don't meet up to these weight standards ARE concerned about our health.
While there are some who are not overweight because - of poor choices but
[ In Reply To ..]most are. I'm trying to think of genetic diseases that would come on with age that would keep someone from being able to lose weight and coming up with very few.
I think it is pretty much proven that someone who watches their caloric intake on a daily basis and does at least 30 minutes of vigorous exercise daily will have few health problems are way less likely to be overweight.
Just think if everyone did this. Type 2 diabetes would virtually be eliminated. Heart attacks and strokes would go way down.
Overweight since six years of age.... - Duchess
[ In Reply To ..]I gained weight after being sexually molested at four to five years of age. I have always been heavy. I have always struggled at losing weight and typically eat less than most of my skinner friends. I have since found out that I have several factors....food intolerances (Lost 20 lbs. right off the bat when I got those foods out of my diet). What I believe really happned was my adrenals crashed and I have been living with issues caused by that along with MSG poisoning causing cascading effects of hypothyroidism, allergies, food intolerances or leaky gut - syndrome x symptoms, etc., etc. It certainly didn't help when the PA said 'You just like your fat too much.' I did have some OCD issues which I have worked on and haven't binged for quite some time. I think like one time in the last two years... I did a round of liothyromine and started shrinking, but no weight loss, weird...but I was liking it. It stopped working. Back to eating whole, healthy, natural foods; getting the MSG crap out of my diet, dealing with the stress and toxic people in my life, getting better, still pretty much the same weight. I hope one day my adrenal fatigue crashing symptoms will leave and thus the hypothyroidism issues will leave. And yes, I have basically had to do this all on my own without a doctor because they all just tell me quit eating so much. Thank you so much, I barely eat over 1600 calories a day. I don't eat sugar. I limit my carbs. So PPPFFFTTTT to you all who think that all obese people eat too much food.
re: judgment - Kelly
[ In Reply To ..]Both are extremely unhealthy lifestyle choices. Yes, you are free to do as you please, but when you're health deteriorates from your health choices to the point that you are hospitalized and become a tax burden, is that fair to the tax payers?
Our great country is one of the most unhealthy in the world. We love to smoke, love fast food and eating microvave foods in front of the TV. We don't like to walk anywhere and our kids don't even play outside anymore unless we sign them up for soccer or T-ball. PE isn't even mandatory in some public schools any more and coca cola, pepsico and Sodexo corporations fight like crazy to keep their unhealthy foods in our schools.
We hate exercising and buys millions of dollars in diet pills thinking that a little pill is going to help you shed hundreds of pounds and get you that 6 pack like the man on TV.
We have been banned from smoking in public, but found a way to get around that by vapor cigarettes now, a much unhealthier way because the micro mist penetrates the lung liner with much greater ease than smoke. AND if your not into either, there's always chewing tobacco or "snuf".
I'm just sounding off. I am turned off by people that make a solid choice to toss the one life that they a given into the garbage by polluting it or not keeping your body in healthy condition, BUT it is a personal choice.
It isn't about nicotine. It is about the patches that are often - abused and used for other problems.
[ In Reply To ..]It has nothing to do with nicotine.
I am 100% for employers having a choice on who they hire!
No, you missed the point. Nicotine is not an - sm
[ In Reply To ..]illegal substance, therefore hiring practices should not be based on whether people smoke or not. Charge higher for their insurance, but do not discriminate against future employees for having "nicotine" show up in a drug screen.
I like your idea - LK
[ In Reply To ..]About charging smokers more for health insurance. That seems like a fair approach. But I think many employers are also concerned about other costs involved, like higher absenteeism. By the way, employers can and do discriminate on a variety of factors, and as long as it's not illegal discrimination (i.e., sex, race, age, disability) it's up to the employer. Smoking is not a legally protected activity, and an employer can chose to not hire smokers if they feel it is in their best interest.
Read the link posted above. It says that - sm
[ In Reply To ..]some states have made smokers a protected class now.
Didn't know that. - LK
[ In Reply To ..]Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't realize that about half the states have passed statutes protecting smoking and other "lifestyle choices" against discrimination in employment. That really surprised me! I personally don't agree with it, but I also don't agree with affirmative action, and that's been an employment law for decades. Interesting.
A doctor I use to work for grabbed a pack of - cigarettes out of a nursing
[ In Reply To ..]students pocket and let her know real quick that no one in his office would be promoting one of the main health concerns for many of his patients, and I think he is right. How can these nurses really educate patient's who look like a fish out of water with their COPD on the benefits of quitting smoking when they walk into their room smelling like an ashtray?
A lot of hospitals are now banning it on premises - sm
[ In Reply To ..]for employees and visitors. I know at the local hospital my mother worked for she would get extremely irritated on the nights she would be working. They moved the smoking area to about a 5 minute walk from the entrance, not to mention getting from the unit to the entrance. So, she would be sitting some nights lucky to get a lunch, and people would have to go out multiple times throughout the night to smoke for about a 20 minute break. They wouldn't just go one at a time, they would go in groups. So, you would be missing more than one employee at a time. That can get really annoying.
Years ago I worked at an analytical lab - sm - SmokelessMT
[ In Reply To ..]at a certain point the owner decided to hire only nonsmokers. Those that were there already were fine, but no one was ever allowed to smoke in the building or outside the front or back as well. No "smoke" breaks were allowed (good). This guy would squeeze blood out of a stone he was so stingy, so it was surprising when he started drug testing new hires. Any new hires has to sign a document after hiring stating that they do not smoke, etc. I don't know if he did it for insurance reasons or what. He was a reformed smoker and was a real fanatic about not smoking though (fine by me as I hate it). What was so funny about the drug stuff is he drank like a fish, lived on uppers to stay awake as he was a workaholic and worked constantly. It caught up to him though when he was about 62, died very unexpectantly and suddenly from pancreatitis. His flake of a wife got the business though it was not that profitable, though probable run better now that he is gone, he screwed everyone generally business wise. Amazing still in business after 40 years.
I'm not a smoker, but yeah, even I think that's a - bit over-the-top. I can see - sm
[ In Reply To ..]a hospital not wanting its nurses and doctors to smell like cigarette smoke, but I'll bet this is the insurance company talking. If it is the hospital, maybe they're getting tired of picking up cigarette butts all over the grounds.
I don't understand this ... - nonsmoker
[ In Reply To ..]you said that you are not allowed to use nicotine patches or the gum. these are the things that people use to try to quit smoking. If they were a smoker and are now applying at a hospital and have decided to stop smoking, they are holding this against the people applying?
Similar Messages:
Like Or Not Trumps Views...he Probably Will Change ThemApr 16, 2017
He defines inconsistency...feeling the lies yet? ...
George Carlins Views On AgingNov 27, 2009
George Carlin was so funny. Always love his wisdom. http://www.suddenlysenior.com/geocarlinonaging.html ...
Charles Krauthammer Says Putin Views Obama (sm)Mar 05, 2014
as "adolescent community organizer." He's out campaigning in Connecticut today on minimum wage. He has no clue about anything. He is a P-poor excuse for a president. BUT I will never forget - even a broken clock is right twice a day. - LOL - you heard it right here on this board, folks. ...