Hospital: Smokers Need Not Apply

[Rael]

BETHLEHEM, Pa. (CBS3/AP) ―

[Click to zoom.] Click to enlarge
1 of 1
St. Luke's Hospital & Health Network in Bethlehem plans to stop hiring new employees who are smokers.

CBS

Close

numSlides of totalImages
Related Slideshows

In To Be Out: Gay Celebrities

Real Or Fake?

The Tattooed Ladies Of Hollywood

Celebrities Turning 40 In 2010

2010 Celebrity Deaths

Famous People Pigging Out

Guess Who's Irish

The Airborne Toxic Event at KatManDu

Celebrity Infidelity Scandals

An eastern Pennsylvania hospital says it plans to stop hiring new employees who are smokers.

St. Luke's Hospital & Health Network in Bethlehem says it hopes to improve the health of its 7,000 employees and reduce health costs.

Beginning May 1, all prospective employees will be screened for nicotine and will be ineligible for a job if they test positive. Anyone rejected can take the test again in six months and be considered for employment. Current employees will not be affected.

"We decided as an organization the right thing to do for us is to screen these applicants and if they test positive for nicotine, they won't be eligible for hire at that point in time," Bob Zimmel, the hospital's senior vice president of human resources said.

Zimmel says he proposed the policy about a month and a half ago after hearing about a similar rule in Cleveland. He says the policy will be good for business as well as health, since it will reduce health insurance claims.

"I'm sure some people will challenge us and we'll handle it accordingly when it happens," Zimmel said.

[specsaregood]

//

[Bruno]

When they came for the opium smokers, I did nothing, for I was not an opium smoker. When they came for the cocaine users, I did nothing, for I did not use cocaine. When they came for the crackheads, the pot smokers, the meth addicts, I did nothing, for I am none of these, and when they came for me, a cigarette smoker, I was alone, there was no one to stand up for me.

[nobody's_hero]

When they came for the opium smokers, I did nothing, for I was not an opium smoker. When they came for the cocaine users, I did nothing, for I did not use cocaine. When they came for the crackheads, the pot smokers, the meth addicts, I did nothing, for I am none of these, and when they came for me, a cigarette smoker, I was alone, there was no one to stand up for me.

I think of Niemoller (sp?) every time a ban comes up.

[liberalnurse]

A large regional medical center already did this a few months ago here in Central PA. Who's next? The obease, the diabetic, the hypertensive? I read in the paper yesterday that Tioga County is banning smoking in all public housing and the grounds. There are zero designated smoking areas. They site fire hazards as one reason. So what's next? Stoves? They could be left on and cause a fire.

[MelissaWV]

Some of the medical centers around here do this for employees who work with people with breathing issues. The rationale is that smoke sticks to your clothes, your hair, etc., and that it can irritate the patients. Of course, that is a ban on outright smoking, and it's done by the companies themselves.

Testing for nicotine also means you are weeding out people using medicated quitting systems (gum, patch, etc.), chew, or any number of other things.

[Dojo]

Hypothetical blowback?

If smoking is indeed an addiction and smokers are not employed and thus cannot work; Will smoking be "regarded as" having a disability?

[Noob]

With the Heath Care reform pass now, they can now ban all smoking, junk food, and any thing bad the government decides that is bad for your health, and put you in prison for it.

[GBurr]

I can totally understand why a hospital would refuse to hire smokers. I volunteered for several summers while in high school with a Hospital in New Jersey and it seemed like many of the smokers were always on cigarette breaks. We had people working on the 5th and 6th floor who would have to walk to the end of the hall, take the elevator to the ground floor, and then walk down another hall to get outside. Finally they had to walk to the smoking area across the parking garage because the hospital didn't allow smoking on most of the property on account of the health risks to the patients there.

Overall the whole smoke break process took at least 15 minutes and employees would go on smoke breaks 5 or 6 times a shift. I don't see how you can be productive if you are always outside smoking.

[dannno]

My mom was let go from her career JOB a couple years ago because my dad was having health problems, he was on their medical plan and it was raising their rates. Literally the day he went onto medicare when he was old enough to be eligible they hired her back.

With healthcare costs skyrocketing, we're going to see more and more companies discriminate against their employees due to health issues. It is obviously in the best interest of companies now to hire people who are healthier. How far will they go?

It's too bad we don't have a lower cost free market healthcare system so less healthy people could actually have an easier time finding jobs to pay for their health issues.

[lester1/2jr]

first of all way to cut and paste all the other headlines. proof read dude.


second, almost no one smokes more than medical professionals. They are going to have some time enforcing this

[dannno]

I can totally understand why a hospital would refuse to hire smokers. I volunteered for several summers while in high school with a Hospital in New Jersey and it seemed like many of the smokers were always on cigarette breaks. We had people working on the 5th and 6th floor who would have to walk to the end of the hall, take the elevator to the ground floor, and then walk down another hall to get outside. Finally they had to walk to the smoking area across the parking garage because the hospital didn't allow smoking on most of the property on account of the health risks to the patients there.

Overall the whole smoke break process took at least 15 minutes and employees would go on smoke breaks 5 or 6 times a shift. I don't see how you can be productive if you are always outside smoking.

Oh, those dirty nasty smokers....always smoking and never working...all of them..

I used to smoke 1 or 2 cigs every day, for a couple or so years a while back. That situation would technically exclude me from working there even though I would probably only have a cigarette on my lunch break.

[dannno]

second, almost no one smokes more than medical professionals. They are going to have some time enforcing this

Are you sure about that??

[JosephTheLibertarian]

That's good. I don't smoke, so I'll apply. fo sho ;)

[TonySutton]

Companies should be allowed to choose who they wish to hire. The problem is not the company making a rational business decision, it is government regulations forcing companies to provide health care for employees.

[ARealConservative]

I would prefer to not hire smokers either if I had employees.

studies show they miss more time from illness. And I consider all addiction a form of lack of self control anyway. Who wants to employ people that lack self control?

[DamianTV]

You guys are missing the point if you wouldnt hire smokers.

---

When they made it illegal to drive without a license, I said nothing as I didnt drive.

When they made it illegal to work without a social security number, I said nothing as I already had a job.

When they made alcohol illegal, I said nothing as I didnt drink.

When they outlawed freedom, no one was left to defend me.

---

The more and more you pull your line back, even if you agree with them on whatever the policy, the more and more they will take, until they take everything you have.

[MelissaWV]

You guys are missing the point if you wouldnt hire smokers.

---

When they made it illegal to drive without a license, I said nothing as I didnt drive.

When they made it illegal to work without a social security number, I said nothing as I already had a job.

When they made alcohol illegal, I said nothing as I didnt drink.

When they outlawed freedom, no one was left to defend me.

---

The more and more you pull your line back, even if you agree with them on whatever the policy, the more and more they will take, until they take everything you have.

You might be missing a distinction, too. A lot of people on this forum support the right of an employer to hire (or not hire) for whatever reason. When members say they wouldn't hire smokers, they're likely not calling for the Government to tell you not to hire smokers, and they're (most of the time) aware of the fact that, in this case, it likely is a tie-in to all the Federal tripe being forced upon us all. That said, I totally support companies not hiring smokers. Whatever floats your boat, folks. I would prefer to hire or not based on actual performance, and as for breaks... here you get two paid 15-minute breaks and up to an hour for lunch (officially) unpaid. A lot of people who don't smoke don't even use the breaks, and apply that 30 minutes (paid) towards lunchtime. That means, basically, you get in at six and you leave at two. The smokers are in at six and leaving at three, because they take their two breaks, and two more, and then a 30-minute lunch. In other words, you really get 1.5 hours throughout the day (0.5 paid, 1.0 unpaid) to split as you wish, and you need to put in 7.5 hours of actual work.

If you're going to exceed that, or take frequent unexcused breaks, or other things that will make your work suffer, then THAT is a problem, not the habit that you choose to indulge in during that time. You could be eating, drinking, walking, smoking, driving, spinning in place, doing your laundry; what matters is the actual "damage" to the company, at least in my view.

I have no idea why an employer would want to place all these other factors ahead of actual qualification and performance, but I champion your right to do it :) I just wish the Government would butt the hell out. :(

[Bruehound]

companies should be allowed to choose who they wish to hire. The problem is not the company making a rational business decision, it is government regulations forcing companies to provide health care for employees.

+1,000,000