Companies Not Hiring Nicotine Users

reply to post by ExPostFacto



Thing about that it is a two way road. Yes if you got let go from a job because of downsizing and can not find another job because you smoke then yes. But if you lost a job because you smoke then that is a diffrent case all together. I have never had an issues smoking and working. I have never lost a job because I smoke. If you develop lung cancer due to your smokeing while working that is a case for the courts to mesh out because of insurance, and certain laws. Like I have said i have never been in that situation if i ever was i could better awnser the question from a personal asspect. My personal opinion though is depends on the situation.

good.

I hate hiring smokers. Smokers take more sick days, are more negative and stink.

Originally posted by recycled
Insurance would be the only reason I could come up with that would make this even remotely o.k. However, that being said the company would have to foot the bill for the insurance IMO for that to stick...

That's the problem. By pretending to care for it's employees and providing health insurance, it gives them the "right" to control you after hours when the bills start getting to big.

That was the whole idea of corporate health insurance. And most people fell for it.

Not to mention your job is most likely the primary reason you become sick to begin with. Suddenly waking up to an alarm clock regularly while your body is in the process of regenerating cells is probably not a good thing...

quote]Originally posted by whoshotJR
good.

I hate hiring smokers. Smokers take more sick days, are more negative and stink.



Cigarette Smoking Statistics


In the United States, an estimated 24.8 million men (23.1 percent) and 21.1 million women (18.3 percent) are smokers. These people are at higher risk of heart attack and stroke. The latest estimates for persons age 18 and older show...*

Among whites, 23.5 percent of men and 20.6 percent of women smoke (2008).
Among blacks, 25.6 percent of men and 17.8 percent of women smoke.
Among Hispanics, 20.7 percent of men and 10.7 percent of women smoke.
9.9 percent of Asian adults smoke.
24.3 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native adults smoke.
* National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 2008, National Center for Health Statistics


www.americanheart.org...

Article
During the period May 16-23, 1986, employees of the New York City Department of Health (NYCDOH) participated in a survey regarding smoking practices and attitudes toward a workplace smoking policy. The survey was conducted to obtain baseline information for evaluating the impact of a smoking policy initiated by the mayor and scheduled to be implemented July 1, 1986. It was also intended to familiarize employees with the policy.
Questionnaires were completed by employees who volunteered to attend one of several NYCDOH meetings concerning the mayor's proposed legislation and pending executive order about smoking restrictions. Of the estimated 900 employees in the department's primary office building, 608 attended the meetings, and 496 completed the survey. Thus, 55% of the total employees and 82% of those attending the meetings completed the questionnaire. Of the respondents, 137 (28%) currently smoked cigarettes, eight (2%) smoked pipes or cigars, 333 (67%) were nonsmokers, and 18 (4%) did not answer this question. The female to male ratio of respondents was 2.5:1. Thirty-one percent of the males and 28% of the females were current smokers. Eighteen percent of the smokers smoked a pack or more of cigarettes per day. Sixteen percent of the cigarette smokers reported that they did not smoke at work. Fifty-nine percent of nonsmokers reported at least occasional exposure to tobacco smoke from others in the workplace; 56% of nonsmokers reported at least occasional exposure to tobacco smoke from the visiting public.

Regarding employee attitudes toward smoking in the workplace, 63% of all respondents (26% of smokers and 79% of nonsmokers) reported being annoyed when other employees smoked nearby. Of nonsmokers, 38% reported that, when exposed to tobacco smoke, they would like to ask smokers to stop but are hesitant to do so. Thirty-three percent of nonsmokers reported that they were able to work without noticing smoke. Twenty-nine percent reported that they try to move away when other employees smoke. Overall, 82% of the respondents (including 69% of smokers) indicated that smoking in the workplace should be either limited (65%) or banned (17%). Most respondents indicated that restricting smoking in the NYCDOH would have no adverse effect on relations among their co-workers (87%), on their job performance (94%), or on their office morale (90%). Of current smokers, 46% indicated they would quit or reduce their smoking if workplace smoking were restricted.

Reported by KJ Denard, MS, MK Bradstock, MD, MPH, P Clarke, MPH, Div of Health Promotion, SC Joseph, MD, MPH, New York City Dept of Health; Div of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, Center for Environmental Health, Div of Health Education, Center for Health Promotion and Education, Epidemiology Program Office, CDC.

wonder.cdc.gov...

How many can you tell smoke

[edit on 17-2-2010 by ladyintheshadows]

I posted both of those because i can see both sides of the issue but as a smoker I can not see not hireing some one because they smoke. Also I understanding if you are a nonsmoker around a smoker you can smell it but there are other ways of handling the way you feel about it. I would have other things to say about that but it is all off subject.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by ladyintheshadows]

reply to post by recycled


This is nothing new and somewhat common. For example, CNN had an policy of not hiring smokers for 13 years, going back to the 90's.


delius

[edit on 17-2-2010 by delius]

How are they going to know do a drug test for Nicotine.

www.jointogether.org...
and what about the medical uses of nicotine.

I have a disease called sarcoidosis but i am in the 10% that do not have lung involvement. Why because i smoke.
Almost no one with pulmonary sarcoidosis smokes.
and very few smoker get pulmonary sarcoidosis.

So now they are doing research clinical trials treating sarcoidosis with Nicotine patches to slow or stop the progression of pulmonary sarcoidosis.

I have neurosarcoidosis and lymphatic sarcoidosis but i even notice that my neuro symptoms get better with Nicotine.
I wake up in the middle of the night with severe painful cramps in my arms and legs. and i get up and smoke a couple puffs on a cigarette and the pain and cramps go away within a couple minutes.
If i take a vicodin for the pain and cramps it take 45 minutes to a hour before the vicodin starts to work.
www.clinicaltrial.gov...
I had quit smoking about 6 months before i got sarcoidosis and with the stress of the sarcoidosis i started smoking again about 8 months after they found the sarcoidosis.

About 6 months after i started smoking again the sarcoidosis went in to remission but i still have the permanent damage to my nerves from the sarcoidosis scaring. but i have no lung damage from the sarcodosis.

And I don't want to have to go on corticosteroids for sarcoidosis with there side effects.
* Excessive weight gain
* Insomnia
* Diabetes in susceptible people
* High blood pressure
* Glaucoma
* Cataracts
* Osteoporosis
* Depression and emotional irritability
* Skin bruising
* Increased risk of infections


It was not till about a year later i found out about sarcoidosis and the link with using Nicotine to treat it.

I now only smoke about 4 to 6 cigarettes a day and use Nicotine patches and gum to control the nerve pain and i hope to keep the sarcoidosis in remission.
If the VA doctors would give me vicodin for the pain i might be able to stop smoking and just control the sarcoidosis with patches and gum.

This may give a idea how pain is controlled by Nicotine
One of the receptor that Nicotine affects is the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I also know people that use Nicotine patches or gum to control ulcerative colitis.
www.drmirkin.com...

Smoking may be bad for you but Nicotine used in a controlled dose can be used as a medication with fewer side effects then some of the medications that doctors use for these disorders




[edit on 17-2-2010 by ANNED]

Wonder if this has anything to do with that recent study that just came out detailing the dangers of 3rd hand smoke

As a smoker, I'd like to give a giant middle finger to this hospital.

I have nothing against people who smoke at all, pretty much all the people par my family I know are smokers.

However there's nothing that screams hypocrisy more than a smoking doctor, maybe they're just trying to promote good health among their staff, so they are better equipped to care for people?

our "multinational company" just started charging an extra $700 per year for health insurance to people who smoke. this year spouses are exempt. I suspect next year spouses will not be exempt, and the random nic swabs start. (along with the BMI scale)
and now the reduction of rights in regard to release of your records.

www.sconet.state.oh.us...

now think about the fact that my employer is also my insurer.
does that give them the right to flag your health condition as a factor in employment, promotions, or termination
I just can't help but think that the corp would think it would be better to lay off un-healthy people first.
(divide and conquer... smokers over here, gun owners over there, etc)

dr

Anyone ever wonder if this isnt a way for unemployment figures to be 'forced' lower? Make it look like the economy is 'making a comeback'.... Also, for all intents and puposes, turning anyone who doesnt fit the TPTB's idea of 'perfect human' into a criminal lifestyle (if ya cant work, and dont have money, ya gotta eat somehow)....

reply to post by wylekat


Yes but not hireing smokers will leave the unemployment high and those that do smoke will be the ones left out I'm the cold. All because it causes lung cancer in some people.

It is about time. Marijuana smokers/users of been denied jobs for quite sometime now. Maybe the sheeple will start waking up and realize that the United States is only a free country if you live up to the conformist suburbia ideals(though everything you do will cost you money). I can understand being denied health care benefits or at least making nicotine users pay a higher premium. I suppose now we have a job market that is looking for reasons to fire people that factors in to this too.

Question:

If lifestyle will now be used as a job qualification criteria and to increase insurance premiums...

Considering that smokers live on average until at least their 70s (and if smoking CAUSES lung cancer then can someone please explain why smokers don't get lung cancer any sooner in their lives than never-smokers)

And gay people live on average until they are 58....

And drinkers live on average until they are in their early 50s

And eaters suffer from diabetes

Then shouldn't smokers be demanding that these other groups also pay their fair share of health care costs?

TIRED OF CONTROL FREAKS

This is just for new hires.

So, I think that it is legal.

I also think that the health industry has the right to not hire employees that are creating health risks for themselves by using a product (even though it is legal) that may lead to health problems later in life.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks


Thanks for the perspective. Smoker discrimination has been happening for awhile in the work place. I cannot see this ban hitting the blue collar work force. People really need to wake up and stand up for our freedoms before it is too late.

Originally posted by ZombieOctopus
I think people should be able to smoke all they want, on their own time. But I can see how this might be an issue at a hospital..

Ever walk by the entrance to the ER and you see 2 or 3 guys in white coats standing around having a cigarette? I have, and it's just bad for the image of the hospital; in a way it's hypocritical.

They should just ban smoking on the premises, problem solved. What anyone does outside of work though is none of their concern.

that's what our local hospital did, which I have no problem with it's a good policy, I do smoke. I also would never work at a hospital but if I did I'd like to think I'd have the good morals to follow the policies at work and not not be even considered because I smoke. O well, it's just part of the big war on tobacco.

The article states that the test for nicotine will only be done post-offer and seems to be a one time deal. Very simple solution "No, I am not a nicotine user." when they ask the question during the interview... Stop using it as soon as they give you a call back and an offer, take a massive overdose of vitamin C and drink as much water as you possibly can between that call back and your test. Problem solved. You'll go a day or two without a smoke or a dip, but ultimately the vitamin C and water will flush the nicotine (and many other recreational substances) from your body and your tests will come back clean as the new blown snow.

After that test is over, resume your vices and don't worry about it.

Smokers in the health industry hurt the companies image horribly. There is a dental office by my work and It seems like 70% of that office smokes, I would never go to that dental office after seeing that.

Smokers make me laugh because they try and pretend its their choice to smoke and all non smokers can kiss off ( always give attitude about it being their right to smoke).

The reality is most smokers say that because people don't like to admit they aren't in control. Every smoker I know has tried to quit and multiple times has failed. Its not longer their choice, they just don't have the willpower to overcome it so they try and make it seem like they are in control and choose to continue.

I don't think smoking should be illegal but I think a private company should be able to decide if against hiring people who smoke if they choose so. I think they should be able to choose who ever they want for what ever reason, if it falls back on them in a negative way because they don't get the best people its their issue.

Let's cut the semantics and just make tobacco illegal! This garbage of you can do this and you can't do that is just ridiculous. Why do we give these people the opportunity to tamper with our lives, and dictate to us what we can and can't do? I thought we were free to do as wish within the confines of the law? As long as tobacco is legal, users should be afforded the same rights as others. Instead, tobacco users are scorned, ridiculed, and practically treated like lepers. It is really disgusting at how easy it was for the American people to embrace Fascist ideals. As stated earlier in the thread, the Nazis had a very stringent anti-smoking policies.

Now, companies are even taking the bold step to refuse hiring of someone, because they want take a puff from time to time? What business is it to them if someone uses tobacco products? How far will they go? Are they going to prohibit people from the hiring process, because they drink to much coffee, women who wear to much makeup, individuals who have one to many tattoos, and on and on . . .

Furthermore, lets talk about the Big "C," word. Cancer is not only caused by smoking, but from many things. It could be from diet, lifestyle, radioactivity in the air from atomic bomb testing, genetically modified food, drinking from plastics, exhaust from cars, petroleum products, asbestos, and on and on . . . Why all this brow-beating of smokers and yet the alcohol users get a pass?

Double standards and hypocrisy makes my skin crawl. I don't know about others, but I would rather have my surgeon operating on me after a cigarette, than after drinking a pint of vodka. That is just me, though. However, what this hospital is trying to do is discrimination at it's finest. The potential hires are within the law with their habit. Therefore, they should be afforded ample consideration as others according to their skills and abilities.

So, if I were someone applying to this hospital, and they disqualified me for a legal habit I partake in; then I would get the best labor lawyer in the land and sue the pants off of them. Better yet, I would find others who were discriminated against, and put together one hell of a class action suit. This garbage infuriates me! Just make it illegal across the board already, and stop with the semantics. Oh wait, the government won't make it illegal, because they have money to be had for campaign contributions from the tobacco lobby. Plus, by making tobacco illegal, they will be losing a lucrative tax stream.

So, maybe these hospitals should think long and hard about what they are playing with here, because people won't take it sitting down and it will make them vulnerable to lawsuits and litigation. From that, they are going to raise costs to offset the losses from all the litigation and settlements. Then, expect your health insurance premiums to go up as well. One way or another, everyone is going to be affected by this and not just the smoker.



[edit on 17-2-2010 by Jakes51]