Discrimination?

[MD864]

Not really sure where to put this but thought it should be viewed by all. While I (like many here) consider myself a "recovering smoker" so to speak, this upsets me. And i think that it should upset us all. This isn't just about tobacco use, its about nicotine use. And my greatest fear is this will soon become the norm. What do you guys think?

Hospital in Tenn will now test all applicants for nicotine use.

[GDub]

I think because it only pertains to new hires it's not that big of a deal. I look at it like any kind of pre-employment drug test, if that company has a policy prohibiting drug use it's their right to enforce it. I've had jobs I had to pass drug tests for in the past, and at the time that meant making some choices for me. Ultimately if you want the job, be sure you can pass the test. Sorry, I know I may be standing by myself on this issue, but it's a pre-employment screening, while it is on the extreme side in my opinion I respect that company's right to enforce any policies they have on their staff. They may start missing out on qualified hires because of this policy, and ultimately they will suffer if that is the case.

Edited January 22, 2010 by GDub

[Jeffb]

I would bet that this policy will be challenged in the future. This policy has far reaching implications. The philosophy of this flawed policy, at its basic level is "only healthy people need apply". So why not expand it to overweight people? I don't dispute the hospital has the freedom to develop a hiring policy. There are limitations to hiring policies and when they become discriminatory they will not hold up in court. I just believe this policy wont last due to litigation.

[jmhester]

I find it humorous in this case. There is such a shortage of qualified medical staff in the country that it borders on frightening. From my experience, a very large percentage of nurses and other non-MD health care professionals are smokers (just check the smoking area at your local hospital). So basically, this hospital has just guaranteed themselves to be understaffed at all times. I think this was some higher up's knee jerk decision. I've seen this so many times where management just never thinks things through. It's a stupid idea and, unfortunately, the patients will pay for the lack of proper staff at the hospital.

I do agree with GDub. It's a little known fact that a business has the right to impose any type of discrimination they want in the hiring practice as long as it is not race, sex, nationality, or religion based. I can set up my company so it's against policy to hire any males who have mustaches and there is absolutely nothing the law can say about it.

But there is so much short sightedness and stupidity in management, it boggles the mind. This hospital administrator VP, Pope, is just one example of such idiots. It brings to mind a situation when I worked for IBM in the early 80s. Some mid-level manager decided that it would be a great idea to implement manditory drug testing (read that pot testing). He got all these kudos and bonuses. Then they starting testing and realized they would have to fire 90% of all their engineers! Needless to say, that policy was dropped like a hot potato!

[GDub]

It brings to mind a situation when I worked for IBM in the early 80s. Some mid-level manager decided that it would be a great idea to implement manditory drug testing (read that pot testing). He got all these kudos and bonuses. Then they starting testing and realized they would have to fire 90% of all their engineers! Needless to say, that policy was dropped like a hot potato!

LOL... that sounds exactly like my company! They'd have to let go way to many people if they implemented any kind of drug testing policy. But would you expect anything less from artists and musicians? I feel like what I do while I'm off the clock is none of their concern, and I'm glad they feel the same way.

[jmhester]

OK. Here's the idiot who came up with this brilliant idea. Brad Pope, VP of HR HR? This bone head isn't even a medical professional!

Hell, according to their web site, this bozo is getting kudos and awards!

Please, Lord, don't let me get hurt or sick in Chattanooga, TN!

Edited January 22, 2010 by jmhester

[StevenP]

It's bad enough smokers are getting alienated because of their habits, now even finding a job? So, they'd rather NOT hire someone with more professional education and knowledge in the medical field who smokes? That's just plain nuts... It saddens me.

[Schizophretard]

On the one hand I don't see why they're discriminating against smokers but on the other hand having a doctor that smokes is like having a dentist with bad teeth.

[Brian]

Guess I have mixed emotions about this, but it still seems to me that if it's not illegal, then it's nobody's damn business what I do on my own time.

[ddavelarsen]

Guess I have mixed emotions about this, but it still seems to me that if it's not illegal, then it's nobody's damn business what I do on my own time.

I'm in agreement with pretty much everything you folks have said. Honestly Brian, I don't think my life has anything to do with anyone else's. At least insofar as it's inside my own home.

The fact is, prohibition does not work. Human beings are hardwired to enjoy consciousness adjustments; we've been doing it for 200,000 years and some ridiculous law isn't going to affect that at all, regardless how seriously it's enforced. The only thing prohibition does is create criminals where there weren't any before. Pure ignorance.

But another thing humans are wired for is being judgmental. Too bad about that; it's only destructive. I believe in freedom - total freedom so long as that doesn't impose on someone else's physical welfare. And I practice that freedom.

As to the nicotine ban at this hospital; that's just silly. Many people have gotten so politically correct that they've left the planet. Living in a fantasy is not sustainable. Banning nicotine will, like everyone noted, only reduce the number of qualified employees. Nicotine itself is harmless in the concentrations humans use it, and every rational person understands that. I suspect this policy is doomed.

[Vacker1229]

I used to joke that I should be allowed to have a handicap parking placard as an addicted smoker, short of breath with high blood pressure I felt I shouldn't have to walk a city block but should be allowed to park right in front of my favorite bar.

[AngelCruz]

a local news station in tn stated and I have been hearing about this even spoke about it the other night in chat to some folks this bill proposal at the hospital is going to fail because they can't set the range limits to how much nicotine is the cut off for non hire and even though Tn is a Right to work state it does violate certain hiring laws and the reason being is nicotine is found in food there fore everyone could test posative to nicotine in they're system we shall see thingis it also is only for new hire's and doesn't effect the individuals currently on staff well ACLU is saying that is discrim to those seeking in a economy where TN unemployment is at 10% an all time high and if the policy isn't dropped or changed to be all inclusive it will file suit against the hosp. GO ACLU!!!

reporting live from your TN vaping news

this is Angel Cruz for Vapor Talk Forums (LMAO)

[Speakeasy]

Great topic, MD...

So this new policy only effects new-hires? You mean that people who already work there are allowed to smoke? Sounds like a stupid idea then. How can they enforce it?

I wonder if it has something to do with insurance benefits? I know that a lot of insurance companies are demanding higher premiums for smokers and it could be that the hospital doesn't want to be paying for medical treatment that are associated with smoking. They'll be banning fat people from working there next.

Either way, I think Brian has a damn good point. If it's legal for adults to use tobacco, then I don't see how this isn't a form of discrimination.

Might as well ban people who use alcohol too

[Stirfry]

the Cleveland Clinic has been nicotine testing for years.

by the way, they are not just in Cleveland, OH... Cleveland Clinics are all over the country now.

technically it's not discrimination. it's like freedom of speech... it only really counts if the GOVERNMENT suppresses you. private companies don't count.

same with the *** (<<< g..a..y..) issue. it was found totally legal for the Boy Scouts to bar gays from joining since they are a private organization.

it sucks, but i highly doubt there will be any real legal recourse.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Stirfry

[Stirfry]

Might as well ban people who use alcohol too

well... technically, we did! and we all know how that turned out, lol. it spurred arguably the single greatest crime wave in human history.

[Schizophretard]

I wonder how this policy will affect the hospital. It just seems like all it would do is make people go without nicotine a day or so before testing.

[MD864]

I wonder how this policy will affect the hospital. It just seems like all it would do is make people go without nicotine a day or so before testing.

Hmmm Schizo i could be wrong but i think i read somewhere that it only takes 2 hours for the body to rid itself of nicotine.... so unless they plan on ambushing you at the door every morning with a list of hiree dates... even if this does work, it essentially can't. My whole point of the post was just to bring it to everyones attention. The more things that get dismissed or overlooked the more we're missing our opportunities. Now days you have to read the fine print on everything anyone does, including the government. Our rights are slowly being taken away from us and half the time "no one knew about it..." LOL it brings to mind the most famous line in hitchhiker's guide to the universe: "what do you mean you dont know about it? it was posted in the alpha centauri for 50 of your earth years... what do you mean you've never heard of the alpha centauri????" ok so that last line was alittle off topic, but you get my point.

[Schizophretard]

I understand. I think the reason we are losing our rights is because people don't understand what rights are. Most people's understanding of rights are just things the government allows you to do.

[Speakeasy]

Hmmm Schizo i could be wrong but i think i read somewhere that it only takes 2 hours for the body to rid itself of nicotine.... so unless they plan on ambushing you at the door every morning with a list of hiree dates... even if this does work, it essentially can't. My whole point of the post was just to bring it to everyones attention. The more things that get dismissed or overlooked the more we're missing our opportunities. Now days you have to read the fine print on everything anyone does, including the government. Our rights are slowly being taken away from us and half the time "no one knew about it..." LOL it brings to mind the most famous line in hitchhiker's guide to the universe: "what do you mean you dont know about it? it was posted in the alpha centauri for 50 of your earth years... what do you mean you've never heard of the alpha centauri????" ok so that last line was alittle off topic, but you get my point.

Hey MD, just thought I should make a clarification.

Nicotine is quickly filtered from the body, thats true. 2 hours for someone with a high metabolism. But the bad news is that cotinine, which is a metabolite of nicotine, can be detected in the body for up to 10 days, depending on the individual. Thats what any tobacco drug test looks for. Even non-smokers have cotinine in their system, but nicotine use substantially increases the amount of this metabolite. So the short answer is a person would have to abstain from any nicotine ingestion for at least a week or so before their cotinine would drop to normal levels. Hope this helps....

[Schizophretard]

Well, it sounds a little harder to pass the test than I thought but if I really wanted the job then I could probably go 10 days on zero nicotine juice.

[ddavelarsen]

I understand. I think the reason we are losing our rights is because people don't understand what rights are. Most people's understanding of rights are just things the government allows you to do.

Amen. Our Constitution doesn't grant rights - it merely clarifies inalienable rights every human is born with. Thanks Schizo, that made me feel good.

Well, it sounds a little harder to pass the test than I thought but if I really wanted the job then I could probably go 10 days on zero nicotine juice.

Cripes, I might be able to go ten hours without nicotine -- if I went somewhere really private... I'm honestly jealous of folks who don't have that kind of addiction to nicotine. I don't know what it is, but that stuff has some serious hooks into me. Maybe because it's the only 'bad' habit I have left? And I love my bad?

[MD864]

Thanks speak for that clarification! Nothing is as ever simple as we want it huh??? Either way I do truly wonder how they would enforce this rule. Once a person is hired are they subject to random nicotine tests while others are not? Hmmm that doesn't seem right. I know a company is allowed to have random drug tests, but are they allowed to do it only on a certain few? Isnt that still a waste of time and eventually money? It seems like this plan was tossed on a table and implemented before it was truly thought out.... wow where did they get these people? washington?

[KuyaDave]

Sadly to say they can test anyone randomly on even word of mouth or suspicion as long as you sign the forms for drug testing.

Worst part when you hire on is some of the paperwork your best off having a lawyer explain it all.

Even worse part is You wouldn't get the job if you brought a lawyer to help you understand everything.

They would think your not competent to understand legal forms.

That is from previous experience about the testing. & Someone said they would not sign until they had a lawyer review it.

They told them that will be fine. And gave the person 1 week. 3 days later The denied his hiring.

I wish I would have understood paperwork better back then. As I screwed myself on a job before. Due to signing the form not understanding it completly... Lost my job due to a misdemeanor. But I signed the form allowing them to hold that against me.

Have learned its best to be upfront and if they don't like it too bad.

And yes it's suppose to be illegal for them to hold a misdemeanor against you. (many years ago when i was 18-19)

[Schizophretard]

Amen. Our Constitution doesn't grant rights - it merely clarifies inalienable rights every human is born with. Thanks Schizo, that made me feel good.

Exactly! The Bill of Rights is just a list of rights that the founders believed were necessary to write down. It is impossible to write down all of our rights. If we tried to there would be things in the list like, you have a right to jump on one foot, you have a right to say the alphabet backwards, you have a right to wet the bed from across the room, you have a right to use a rock as a hammer, you have a right to masturbate to the food network, you have a right to call a penguin an *** hole.....

[BirdDog]

Exactly! The Bill of Rights is just a list of rights that the founders believed were necessary to write down. It is impossible to write down all of our rights. If we tried to there would be things in the list like, you have a right to jump on one foot, you have a right to say the alphabet backwards, you have a right to wet the bed from across the room, you have a right to use a rock as a hammer, you have a right to masturbate to the food network, you have a right to call a penguin an *** hole.....

I really wonder how you come up with this stuff. It does make for an interesting read sometimes.