Hospital Will No Longer Hire Smokers

[Lone Star]

What a crock of schit! To single ANYONE out based on habits, personal vices (as long as they're not illegal), sexual preference or lifestyle, and denying them the same opportunities as 'everyone else' is ILLEGAL, and is DISCRIMINATORY!

We cannot base employment on race, color, creed or religion...nor can we base housing, education or other basic rights. To single out a speciffic group of people is segregationistic and has been declared by LAW to be a 'no- no'!

[katbemeEMT-B]

Yes Lone Star it is but until a group get together and fight for that right, it is nothing.

[Dustdevil]

What a crock of schit! To single ANYONE out based on habits, personal vices (as long as they're not illegal), sexual preference or lifestyle, and denying them the same opportunities as 'everyone else' is ILLEGAL, and is DISCRIMINATORY!

LOL!

Good luck with that. This has been to court many times, and has always been upheld. Just like dress codes and codes of ethical conduct, personal habits that impact the image of the company may be regulated within the workplace. The popular theory of homosexuality remains solidly in favour of genetics, making it off-limits to these kinds of things, just like obesity or other disabilities. But anything that is a personal choice is fair game, and he who puts his money and life into the business gets to decide how he wants his business represented.

Don't think for a moment that the courts would side with smokers on this issue. The courts even threw out the case of the man who wanted to be a Hooters girl, and that was clear cut discrimination.

[JakeEMTP]

I was going to comment on the man who wanted to be a Hooters girl, but could only come up with " WTF?"

I'm an ex-smoker but I'm not anti-smoking. That being said, a business ( and most hospitals in the US are a business) have the right to hire whom they choose. If they don't want to hire smokers, they don't have to. As stated previously, smoking is a choice and not a generic problem. Just as smokers choose to do so, the employer, in this case the hospital, can choose not to hire a smoker.

The hospital is an institution of health. As we are all aware, smoking is bad for you. To me, it makes perfect sense not to have smoking on the campus. The hospital is well within their rights. They are offering to help current employees help to stop smoking and all future employees will have to be non-smokers. The benefits to the hospital as well as it's employees will be tremendous and too numerous to mention here.

[mrmeaner]

We cannot base employment on race, color, creed or religion...nor can we base housing, education or other basic rights. To single out a speciffic group of people is segregationistic and has been declared by LAW to be a 'no- no'!

I just went to my aunt's funeral this last Wednesday who died of lung cancer after a long history of smoking. Anything (within reason) that can be done to help people quit smoking, should be done. Smoking has never helped anyone become better at anything other than dying. I'm also an ex-smoker for four years April 26th so I understand as well as anyone the difficulty of quitting.

It's the right of the employer to decide who they're going to hire. If they decide to make not smoking part of the hire requirements, it's their decision. The government, however, should not be able to control legal recreation as long as it does not adversely effect others. My right to swing my fist around ends at your nose.

Smoking is not part race, color, creed, or religion (with the exception of smoking at rituals, but they usually aren't performed at work) or any other protected condition. Smoking is a decision, and if you decide to smoke you have to deal with the consequences. I do agree that companies should help current employees quit if they are making a culture change like that though.

In my area, periodic physical testing is becoming part of the job. If you don't pass the physical test, you get a couple weeks to retest. If you fail again, my understanding is you're fired. I haven't seen this become a hard and fast rule yet, but it's on it's way. I believe that the physical requirements of EMS have been ignored for a while (in my area anyway).

As I stated, so it's not okay to be a smoker, but it is okay to be an alcoholic (or even casual night before partier) or drug user. I would think that either of those two would pose a must higher risk than some one who smokes.

An anti-smoking policy condones alcoholism and drug use?!? Evil Kenevil could not have made that leap in rationale. I'm sure if you look through your company's requirements of conduct, they have guidelines on both issues. I highly doubt the administration is "Pro-rave parties".

[medic001918]

What a crock of schit! To single ANYONE out based on habits, personal vices (as long as they're not illegal), sexual preference or lifestyle, and denying them the same opportunities as 'everyone else' is ILLEGAL, and is DISCRIMINATORY!

We cannot base employment on race, color, creed or religion...nor can we base housing, education or other basic rights. To single out a speciffic group of people is segregationistic and has been declared by LAW to be a 'no- no'!

There already is a precedent in place that says an employer can do exactly that. Many police department and fire departments have no smoking policies and won't entertain hiring a smoker. They must be discriminating against all the smokers illegally? Somehow, I don't think that's how it work. These are the same services that are allowed to have a physical fitness standard to get on the job, but not a requirement to maintain that level of fitness to stay on the job. To me, that sounds more discriminatory than the smoking policy. At least with that, you're not allowed to smoke when hired or at any point during your employment. And many places of employment already offer smoking cessation programs, as well as help with alcohol, weight, etc.

As far as the drinking thing goes, unless they're coming in and drinking on the job they are not taking "breaks" every so often (as frequently as every hour) to kill 5-10 minutes of paid company time. When the drinking, or coming in hung over gets to be a problem the employer has a right to terminate that employee if they want to. If they're smart, they do it under a decrease in productivity and not due to alcohol use. That will stand up much better legally.

I'm with dust on this one, I don't know as though you'll find many lawyers willing to take on that case, and even fewer courts willing to host the case.

Shane

NREMT-P

[Dustdevil]

I think we should have a tobacco-free forum here where only non-smokers can post.

[Lilacmedic]

Perhaps they should ban people from drinking water as well...has anyone considered how much time is lost with all those H2O consumers constantly squeezing a kidney in the loo? And while we're at it...let's place camera's in the loo-so we can be sure they're not being perverse in there, also add a timer-when your time is up-VIOLA! the door automatically swings open and you're exposed for the slow urinater that you are!!

In that case all eating 4hrs prior to working should also be banned-as we all know that the

excretion process will take a bit longer to complete and the smell is also not an enhancement to the friendly working enviroment!

Also all people with any health problems should be screened and dismissed-we don't want any unproductive people and they are a large cost to the health system!

Also all ugly people should be banned from public areas-as they don't add to the aesthetic enviroment that we want to create!-and our employers will be more productive and eager to work if they're surrounded by visually appealing folk!

....now who do I submit my ideas to? lol

[mrmeaner]

....now who do I submit my ideas to? lol

I think if you post a thread entitled "Bash the Ban" and send it to EMT City Administrator...

[Dustdevil]

Perhaps they should ban people from drinking water as well...has anyone considered how much time is lost with all those H2O consumers constantly squeezing a kidney in the loo?

Ya know, I had always heard that medic education in SA was pretty good.

I'm a little surprised that, with your obvious inability to differentiate between a voluntary habit and a biological imperative, you were able to pass. :wink:

But while we're tossing out absurdities, I'd like to mention that I would be very interested in working for an employer who banned menstruation in the workplace.