Hospitals in Massachusetts ban the hiring of employees who smoke

[The Straight Story]

Hospitals in Massachusetts ban the hiring of employees who smoke

Smokers will no longer be welcome at one American workplace as starting January 1.

The Massachusetts Hospital Association, a health advocacy organization which represents about 90 hospitals, is implementing the tobacco-free hiring policy after a few months of deliberation.

'Smoking is a personal choice, and as an employer I have a personal choice within the law about who we hire and who we don't,' CEO Lynn Nicholas said.

Her father died from smoking.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331930/Massachusetts-workplace-stop-hiring-employees-smoke.html#ixzz163ysfOkT

[whistler162]

1. The should just consider paying the smokers

that apply the millions of dollars they will lose in the lawsuit and bypass the lawyers!

[BlueIris]

2. A-okay by me.

Employers shouldn't have to hire people actively abusing drugs, which include both nicotine and alcohol.

[Fumesucker]

3. How about caffeine? n/t

[The Straight Story]

4. Hell, if that is the case, no one in congress should be hired - they all drink

:)

[pipoman]

5. So you're ok with your employer coming into your home

periodically to be sure you are in compliance, huh?

[hughee99]

8. So you don't have an issue with MA hospitals denying someone

who drinks a glass of wine a day, even when people from those same hospitals RECOMMEND doing so?

http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/c/9273/28980/442653.html?d=dmtHMSContent

[Obamanaut]

20. I read it where it is smokers being denied, not a glass of wine a day drinker.

[hughee99]

36. The post I was responding to brought it up.

"Employers shouldn't have to hire people actively abusing drugs, which include both nicotine and alcohol."

[Mojorabbit]

10. Sure, lets give up everything to please the boss.

After all our employers know what is best for us peons.

[Rebubula]

21. Or...

...people that gamble, eat too much, vote Republican, have disabled children, own SUVs, like Justin Beiber (no real problem with that one)...and the list goes on and on.

Where do you draw the line for personal habits and decisions??

[BolivarianHero]

22. I won't hire someone who likes Justin Bieber...

Good taste in music is important to me.

Listen to Iron Maiden's Phantom of the Opera, which has some of the most creative guitar work I've ever heard, and then to Baby or whatever shit that little twit comes out with and you'll get it. Every Bieber fan I know is either a teenager or a high school drop out. I thin.

[reggie the dog]

54. i just tried what you said and made the mistake of

starting with iron maiden... beiber is making me sick as i type this

got nothing against the kid, just not my kind of music, but more power to him for being rich enough to retire before being 20

[HockeyMom]

6. Overweight and obese too?

Isn't that a health issue too? Where do you draw the line?

[Roon]

15. I was doing some temp work in a hospital in texas

I was thumbing through an employee handbook one day and one of the rules was you couldn't work there if you were to become obese.I swear to god.

[valerief]

19. Why stop there? With that reasoning, why not include murder? nt

[HockeyMom]

58. Is it against the LAW to be overweight, smoke, drink,

be gay, cohabite, etc., etc. MURDER is against the law and harms other people. Does being overweight and eating too many Big Macs harm anyone else?

Absurb to ever try to compare murder with any of these other "sins".

[valerief]

7. Terrific. Whatever gets people to quit, I'm behind! nt

[Mojorabbit]

12. If it were that easy to quit don't you think

the employee would have probably done so? Throwing someone out of work and increasing their stress level to maximum is sure not going to help.

[valerief]

17. It's all worth it. And their doesn't have to be stress. There can be relief.

"Finally, no smoking that I have to get peer-pressured into! No questions to answer about why I'm not smoking with them."

And it's easier to quit than the smoking patch and smoking gum people say it is.

[Mojorabbit]

24. I quit after 39 years a couple of years ago

and your comment is balogna. I had tried a gazillion times and failed. Please.

[valerief]

25. Well, your experience differs from mine. nt

[laughingliberal]

33. Exactly! And those who quit easily seem to see that as some sort of evidence that it's the same...

for everyone.

Studies done years ago to discover why Wellbutrin was helping people quit discovered that the group of hard core smokers who seemed unable to quit no matter what had significantly lower dopamine levels than the general population. This group, unlike those who say the worst is over in 3 days, continues after quitting to quitting to sink into deeper and deeper depressions. One doctor I spoke with about it who was once the head of neuro-psych for the VA system told me if they ever find a non-fatal vehicle to deliver nicotine to the correct receptors, it will knock every other anti-depressant in existence today off the market.

Until smokers can get treatment like victims of other addictions, there's very little hope for this group of smokers. Not likely they'll see any help as the insurance companies have successfully fought off any attempts to force them to pay for any help for smoking cessation.

[reggie the dog]

51. peer pressure??? come on, we are adults

people try to get me do drink alcohol with them all the time, i just say no because i haven't had a drink in nearly 10 years.

[liberalhistorian]

56. You've obviously never smoked if you think it's

so damned easy to quit. It's one of the hardest things to quit, experts have said it's even harder than heroin, and I sure as hell remember how hard it was when I tried. It took me three times over a year before I finally quit for good and I've known people who've tried very hard for a very long time. I'm not fan at all of smoking and I'm very glad I've been smoke-free for nearly twenty-one years, but I know just how hard it is and I have a lot of sympathy for those who are trying to quit. Your smug sanctimony is truly disgusting, especially since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

[valerief]

73. Is thirty years of smoking long enough before I decided to quit? nt

[liberalhistorian]

74. Just because it was easy for you does NOT mean it is at

all easy for others. I've never known anyone who quit who didn't have a helluva time with it for awhile, myself included. It can, indeed, be done, yes, but it is extremely difficult for many, many, many people. It's pretty smug and sanctimonious of you to claim that just because it was easy for you, no one else should have any problems with it.

[Upton]

23. Over the years millions have quit..

this excuse that it's too hard to do so, is just that...an excuse.

[valerief]

26. I think it's more 'falling for the ciggy industry propaganda' than anything else.

Of course, a smoke-free environment truly helps to quit. I don't know how people quit while still living in Cigaretteville.

[Kalyke]

28. Bullshit.

My husband replaced cigs with eating and now he's 25 pounds overweight and has a whole NEW set of problems.

I stopped trying because there was no way I could gain that much weight and get out of bed in the morning. Plus - I have other issues that make it next to impossible for me to lose any weight.

[laughingliberal]

34. Many people have been cured of various cancers, also. Does not mean all can be. See #33. nt

[Winterblues]

57. While I quit decades ago and hate smoking, I do understand it is

the most addictive drug I have ever encountered.. For many people a physical addiction is just too powerful to overcome..Don't you think ninty percent of smokers today would like it if they didn't smoke yet are unable to just stop...Some people can. I was able to do it, so I know it can be done but most simply can not. Believe me they do not enjoy burning up between fifty and a hundred dollars a week and not getting a single thing from it except a thinner wallet and a body in worse shape every single day they continue.. At least with marijuana you get high. Tobacco gives you absolutely nothing but bad breath, stinky clothes, and frowns from everyone near you..

[krispos42]

66. And this attitude is exactly what leads to terrible laws and the structure behind them n/t

[Ted_White]

9. Driving is also a choice that pushes up health and disability costs along

with driving down productive work days.

[valerief]

18. Agree! There should be MORE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION!!!!! nt

[surrealAmerican]

43. Yes, but the way to achieve that goal is not ...

... by denying employment to anyone who owns a car.

If an employer were to distribute free (or even heavily discounted) transit passes, it would be more effective, without being discriminatory.

[apocalypsehow]

11. Whoo-boy....

...:popcorn:

[Little Star]

13. Everyone seems to love a nanny state.

[Individualist]

76. +1

[beyurslf]

14. I thought my employer opened up a firestorm last year when they started charging smokersqmore

for our health insurance.

[applegrove]

16. I used to work at a hospital and I smoked so I had to go quite a ways outside. I always

felt bad doing that.

[Gormy Cuss]

27. Headline errs: it's only the hospital association implementing this policy, not the hospitals.

Unlike employers who are using a health care cost argument to rid themselves of smokers, this is just on a philosophical basis. They're control freaks just like the vegetarian or vegan owned Canadian bag makers who dictate that employees can't bring animal products into the office lunchroom.

[Trey9007]

29. Yet another example of ..........

why workers need unions. Without a union contract, you are considered an "at-will" employee. This means the employer can fire you "at-will", except when its based on race, sex, or religon. The only time an employer needs a valid excuse to fire you, is when you have a contract that calls for due process.

I expect that if the GOP takes control, we will see more 'flexing' by employers.

[Arkansas Granny]

30. I don't think an employer should be able to discriminate against employees

who are engaging in lawful activities on their own time as long as those activities do not interfere with job performance. Smoking tobacco is not illegal. If a person smokes on his/her own time, it should not influence their employment status.

If this is allowed to stand, it will encourage other employers to place restrictions on their employees personal lives to make them conform with the ideology of the employer. What would happen if an employer decided that listening to a certain kind of music, driving a certain model of car or wearing a certain style of clothing was not desirable? Would people find that acceptable?

An employer may have the right to make rules about an employees conduct within the workplace, but I don't think those rules should extend to their personal lives.

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. We make poor distinctions between "what we do" and "what we are".

Either people choose to smoke, in which case, they have no more protection than those who choose to do any other negative behavior. If they *are* smokers, without the ability to quit, then it's incumbent on society to outlaw tobacco so that Philip Morris can't create any more helpless addicts.

[laughingliberal]

35. Yes. Because outlawing drugs has rid us of drug addicts...oh, wait

The answer is for smokers to be able to have access to effective addiction treatment like those who are victims of other addictions.

However, there have been no successful attempts to force insurance companies to pay for any help at all for smoking cessation.

[LynneSin]

32. As much as I can't stand smoking, even this seems a bit odd for me

Where I work they just charge extra for your health insurance if you smoke. And some places just won't allow you to smoke at work or even on work property. But to just not hire someone - that's just odd.

[reggie the dog]

52. in civilized countries

you dont pay more for health insurance on your insurance bill, you pay more for national health insurance as part of the taxes taken from your cigs.

[Arkana]

37. Uh, that's a bit over the top, I think.

Ultimately it comes down to personal responsibility with things like smoking. We can dissuade all we like, but it is ultimately the smoker's choice whether or not they want to kill themselves or quit.

[tuckessee]

38. Smokers can expect to be soon treated like shit as patients in Mass. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

39. I wish my workplace had the same policy

We have smokers who go out for smoke breaks 4 or 5 times a day, leaving the rest of us to pick up the slack. When they return from their smoke breaks they stink of smoke and leave a foul-smelling trail behind them for the next hour or so. Gross.

[MicaelS]

42. Just wait until pot gets legal, and employers start saying

"No pot smokers hired here." I'll bet people with your attitude do a 180. OTOH maybe not.

[laughingliberal]

46. This story isn't about places that forbid smoking during work hours. nt

[hughee99]

48. They should start chewing tobacco, instead

so they don't stink of smoke and (depending on their job) don't even have to stop working. That's what I did for years. I don't have a "customer-facing" job, so it was never an issue.

[elehhhhna]

40. but boozers are welcome b/c working while buzzed or hung over

couldn't possibly cause any problems...particularly in a hospital setting.

[tuckessee]

41. Will they let doctors who smoke work on patients in these hospitals? n/t

[Fleshdancer]

44. I think this is ridiculous

I'm not a fan of employers who think they should have the power to control the actions of their employees outside of the office. I say this as a non-smoker by the way.

[WildEyedLiberal]

45. This is a disturbing trend

How many other personal choices are we going to be willing to allow our employers to dictate? If your smoking isn't affecting your work, and you don't do it on the premises, how the fuck is it the employer's business what they do on their own time?

ETA: I don't smoke.

[bluestate10]

60. Cigarette smoke can be deadly for some patients.

Don't those patients have a right to not have a person that stepped outside to smoke and is covered with the residue making them sick or killing them? I err on the side of the people that do not have a choice in the particular situation, patients.

[Mojorabbit]

69. This has nothing to do with smoking in the hospital or it's grounds. nt

[sarcasmo]

47. I don't smoke and this scares me. What's next, ban hiring of people who drink tea?

[proteus_lives]

49. It's a slippery slope.

The reactions on this thread scare me.

[reggie the dog]

50. this is horrible

if i ever have to go to a hospital and i am in boston i will try to make it to new hampshire....

how is this not discrimination? here in france this would be discrimination (that is why weed smokers like me can work here in france, no drug tests)
how does smoking have an averse effect on job performance?

[MrSlayer]

53. O'er The Land of the Freeeeeeee.........

What a pathetic country this is.

[Autumn]

55. They should ban overweight people too.

After that they can go after the ones who drink alcohol, or get speeding tickets.

[sarcasmo]

59. That will be the next step.

[HEyHEY]

61. Are they smoking IN the hospital? Cause that should be the only concern

[noamnety]

63. I disagree

Having been in the hospital on an IV for nausea for a few weeks and being hypersensitive to cigarette smell, I can tell you first-hand that the way a smoker smells - even if they aren't actively smoking - can directly affect patients. It's one thing for me to avoid smokers in a grocery store, I can just go to a different aisle til they clear out of the one I want to browse. It's another thing if I'm already throwing up 6-10 times a day, I'm down 20 pounds in two weeks, the health care worker who's leaning over me is reeking like an ashtray and I am trapped in the bed and can't get away.

For some people the smell causes physical symptoms from migraines to vomiting even if the smoker isn't actively smoking. Maybe a hospital isn't the best place to inflict that on people who are already sick and don't have the option to just leave.

[HEyHEY]

65. Can they not just say smokers can't smoke during work hours or come to work smelling like it?

[noamnety]

72. That would have solved the problem for me.

It would bring up some difficult enforcement issues which I'm not sure can be solved in any practical way. The patients are the ones who get the staff up close and personal breathing on them - and I can't imagine that someone would sniff their breath each morning at a checkpoint, it's a very subjective thing to determine to what extent they smell like an ashtray.

But hypothetically, yes - if there was a way to make that work, sure it would solve the problem of adversely affecting patients.

[ShamelessHussy]

62. i wish folks would mind their own businesses, and leave us peons alone

their big SUVs are much deadlier, both in their exhaust, and their driving habits.

they are much more of a public menace, and they stink up the whole neighborhood, not to mention cause massive harm to mother earth.

HYPOCRITES, the lot of'm :puke:

[Better Believe It]

64. And would it be OK if a Mormon or some other right-wing CEO won't hire someone who drinks alcohol?

Reactionary CEO's are intruding into the personal space and private lives of workers.

And at the same time they whine about big government intrusion into their lives!

[Ron Green]

67. It's a hospital. Entirely appropriate.

I love it when people scream "Nanny state!"

[laughingliberal]

70. It's never 'entirely appropriate' for an employer to attempt to restrict employees from engaging...

in legal activities on their own time and away from work.

[TheKentuckian]

68. Corporate nanny state. Anybody in favor of giving companies this level of power over workers

is fucking bonkers.

Why would a reasonable person want to set such a precedent not matter how much you hate a given activity?

We aren't talking about on premises or in the building or even during work hours.

If you hate smoking that bad what you are looking for is to make it illegal, companies buy the time they get but don't "own" you or shouldn't. I don't care what anyone's contract calls for as far as "personal conduct", legal activities done in the privacy of your living space and private property cannot be subject to the whims of an employer without that employer becoming too close to a master for my liking.

They'll come for you sooner or later and make you bend to their will or be banned from employment. Cheerleading more people losing their jobs for something you don't approve of is pretty sad.

You may as well say our employers can dictate what we eat (and by extension are free to demand specimens to verify) or anything.

The place you dream of sucks ass and saps souls, those that stand with this whole line of thought.

[laughingliberal]

71. +1000 nt

[The Straight Story]

75. +1002.5! (nt)