Only Non-Smokers Need Apply At Baylor

[The Northerner]

DALLAS (CBS 11 NEWS) – Currently there are some 14 million jobless Americans. And if you’re one of the thousands of North Texans looking for work, the competition is tough.

Now, a new hiring limitation by one employer could make the job search even harder.

The Baylor Health Care System has decided that if you use tobacco, in any form, you won’t get a job with them.

“I don’t like it,” said Cassie Grooms. “I don’t think it’s fair.”

Read more: http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/09/22/only-non-smokers-need-apply-at-baylor/

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I believe they're within their rights to do this.

Smokers generally have more health problems, and this can push up insurance rates.

And of course, obviously, non-smokers have fewer sick days, plus they don't require the medications that smokers might need.

They tend to live longer.

[Luminous Animal]

2. So do drinkers. I cannot wait for companies to bar people who drink from being hired.

[bluestate10]

45. Companies have every right not to hire or to terminate people that

consume alcohol in such a way that negatively impacts their job performance.

[meow mix]

112. sorry zero-tolerance doesnt work that way.. in our zero-tolerance nation.

you dont get to just drink a little, and work.

mormons have already won.

[LynneSin]

97. Not all alcohol is bad. Red Wine has been shown to have health benefits

but btw, if I'm a drunk I highly doubt I would get hired.

BTW, I also don't take 2-3 breaks a day to have a beer or do shots of tequila. Alcohol is nights and weekends.

I find it annoying that smokers somehow get an extra 30-60 minutes worth of breaks because they need to feed their addiction. Perhaps that's why they are saying 'no' to smokers - lost productivity.

[HappyMe]

154. Yup. No overweight folks either.

Too many health problems, and can't answer phone when their mouths are full. Crumbs in the keyboard & what not.

edited to add:
Fools who text while walking (too dumb to watch where they are going).

[Leopolds Ghost]

168. "Former drug users need not apply at Baylor" -- imagine how the same people would react

Sometimes what passes for liberalism in this country reminds me of the Puritans.

Oh wait -- former Puritans (Quakers, etc.) are the heart and soul of American liberalism today. And everyone I meet who deals with em says they're just as stuffy (no offense, dear Quakers on DU)

[Tunkamerica]

4. Not to repeat a tired line but,

Fat people, old people, drinkers, people who text and drive, women, etc. have more health "problems" and can push up insurance rates. I don't smoke currently, but did for almost fifteen years and never called in sick once. Never even went to the doctor except for injuries. It's discrimination and you just have to decide if you're cool with that.

[Politicalboi]

9. Me too

I still smoke, and haven't been sick due to smoking once, and I'm 50 years old. I myself see fat people with more health problems than smokers. And hospitals are full of those. They are usually called nurses.

[MADem]

6. Gee, next thing ya know, they'll fire you for having "bad" DNA.

Cancer in your family? Here's your pink slip.

If the activity is legal, they really shouldn't be telling people what they can/cannot do off the clock.

On the clock? Sure--no scotch and soda at your desk, no smoking on the company campus. But off the clock? I think they are overreaching.

[area51]

14. +1

I don't smoke, but I think this is overreaching. This is not the first company I've heard that doesn't hire smokers, the other company I heard of isn't involved in the health care profession. I can't help but wonder if the real reason behind this is due to the insanely expensive health care system we have in this country. I'm wondering if a policy like this would be considered necessary in a first world country with a right to health care.

[bluestate10]

37. You're making an overstatement. nt.

[cleanhippie]

57. It saddens me to see you compare a personal choice with the way a person is born.

Smoking cigs is a personal choice, DNA is not.


Where have I seen THAT argument before? Are you sure you want to make this type of comparison and want to own where this argument leads to? Think about it.

[MADem]

80. Why does it "sadden" you? You aren't pulling the string, I see. Tsk, tsk.

That "addictive personality" that might cause a person to smoke is hidden in the person's very DNA. It's not a "choice"--or do you think those natives who succumbed to the firewater of the explorers were simply lazy, slothful bastards? Please.

You're making--by extrapolation-- the argument--whether you realize it or not--that mental illness and alcoholism are MORAL failings.

Surely, if a person was simply "strong enough" to reject the "smoking choice," surely they are strong enough to reject the "booze choice" or the "crazy choice." I mean, really--just buck up--there's nothing there, you're not being schizophrenic; you're simply being DIFFICULT and attention-seeking!

You stepped in it up to your ankles with your commentary--not me.

So yes, I do want to "make this type of comparison" and check your faulty thinking with regard to your assertions.

Here, some very light reading to edify you: http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/genetics/candidate.html

[BiggJawn]

71. That's most likely on its way...

I can just see it, DNA tests to see if you're "predisposed" to costing them more money.

My employer just announced a $250 a year penalty for employees who smoke, to be increased to $500 in 2013.

I just wonder when they're going to start asking if you jog or run, so they can deny you joint replacements.

[Luminous Animal]

7. Henry Ford, the fascist and a fan of Hitler, had a "social department' for his workers.

How much of your private life are you willing to give up to please your boss.

[ixion]

19. It IS discrimination

whether you like it or not.

[Major Nikon]

104. There's almost always discrimination in every hiring

You wouldn't hire a blind guy to drive a truck or a quadriplegic as a warehouse worker. Hiring only non-smokers seems to be a bit arbitrary, but not illegal in most places.

[dflprincess]

157. Not hiring a blind person to drive a truck is not, by any stretch of the imagination, discrimination

Employers are allowed to consider bona fide occupational qualifications when hiring. Being able to see would be such a qualification for a truck driver.

Discrimination is when a qualified applicant is turned away or an employee fired for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job.

[Major Nikon]

169. Certainly the moral issue is much larger than the legal issue

However, if Baylor is a non-smoking campus, someone who is a smoker would have a hard time doing their job. My guess is that Baylor has had problems with employees who are smokers and that's why they implemented the policy. The definition you provided doesn't match up with the definition of illegal discrimination, so applicants so excluded would have no legal recourse. I'm not saying that makes it right from a moral standpoint.

[Lionessa]

21. Yep, that the BS we were all served, but health care nor insurance rates have

gone down, so I say BULL SHIT!

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Fat people have health problems too.

They're next.

[Sirveri]

30. fat people are already on the list, even if it's unofficial.

I've been fat and not fat while searching for work, the difference in the interviews alone showed me that. And people wonder why I'm depressed or would rather work for myself but have no money.

[ZombieHorde]

69. What about Native Americans who use tobacco as part of their religious beliefs? nt

[LeftishBrit]

74. But where does this end?

Does this mean that companies have the right to discriminate against people with 'pre-existing conditions', or who are genetically at risk of certain illnesses? Do they have the right to discriminate against people who take part in dangerous sports in their free time? - and how do you define 'dangerous'? Etc.


This is of course an example of the importance of universal healthcare.

[Occulus]

3. No business should base any hiring or retention of employees

based upon the employees' legal activities when not 'on company time'.

It should be out-and-out illegal for a business to be able to refuse to hire, terminate, or in any other way discriminate against employees or prospective employees based upon their participation in any legal activity when not on the job.

It's corporate fascist madness to accept otherwise. If we're not free to do what we want to do when we're not on the job for fear of losing our job, are we really all that damned free?

[Tunkamerica]

5. Exactly. My comp prohibits employees smoking on campus and offers free

services to emp. who are trying to quit.

[DrDan]

26. so it's ok for your 4th-grade son's teacher to work as a stripper in her off hours?

[Occulus]

54. It's fine with me

as long as she doesn't bring her work to school.

But then, it's perfectly legal to fire me based on who I sleep with every night. So I'm deeply biased against any such practice to begin with.

[cleanhippie]

58. Why wouldn't it be?

:shrug:

[DrDan]

124. just wondered if anyone thought it might be disruptive to learning

guess not.

I guess if the male students knew their teacher was a stripper, according to those here, it would not create a problem in the classroom.

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. Now why would the students know?

It's not like they go to the bar, is it?

[DrDan]

136. no - obviously not - but do you think anonymity is guaranteeed?

do you actually think word would not get out? Do you HONESTLY believe that?

What about a teacher in a High School? Do you still think this is not potentially a problem for the teacher and for the school?


So - if the second-job became public knowledge, does that change her employment status? Is it still ok she holds the second job?


Just curious - I think I learned something about DUers from the initial question.

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. Privacy in the modern us s a fantasy

But the kids have no direct way. Of course the other question is more proper, why does a teacher have to do this?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

174. Since when do male students need facts to base their raging hormone fantasies on?

[Warren Stupidity]

59. yes but I prefer that we paid teachers enough to not have to work a second job.

[bigwillq]

61. I'm fine with it.

Not my business what kind of job she has in her off hours. Stripping is legal.

[Arkansas Granny]

67. As long as she isn't stripping in class, I don't see why her legal, off hours activities

should be any of my business.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Joe the Revelator]

77. Why the fuck wouldn't it be?

[Major Nikon]

108. Wouldn't bother me

[DrDan]

137. ok - so let's say you are a Project Manager for a state whose job is to

evaluate proposals for a new bridge.

Now obviously, you feel this PM should be also free to hold a second job. You obviously support this PM working for a private engineering firm who just happens to be bidding on this bridge.

No problems - right?

So you have stated this should not be an issue. The state should just ignore your second job.

Can you at least see the potential for a conflict of interest?????

[etherealtruth]

139. Come on

Non-compete clauses are in most of our contracts ... the actions directly effect the job.

I can't work for an other firm doing the same type of business but I could work as a stripper (I'll be 50 in January, I really can't) ... or any other job that didn't directly or appreciably effect my primary job.

[DrDan]

143. EXACTLY my point - thank you

I currently work under a non-compete also. These posters who say that an employee should be free to do whatever they like as long as legal have not thought this through. That is just not going to happen - nor should it. A corporation has the right to expect certain things of their employees - such as "not competing".

thanks!

I would also argue that a teacher working as a stripper undermines the educational process. Should the students know the teacher's second job, the effectiveness of that teacher, as well as the school at large, is in jeopardy.

[etherealtruth]

152. I don't think so ...

My non-compete clause expressly covers my professional behavior as it apples to me in the capacity that they employ me. Under no circumstances do they try to control any of my activities that do not directly apply to our corporate business.

My non-compete clause does not forbid me from engaging in any other (legal) personal activities on my own time. i believe they would if they could ... and I do not care to surrender that kind of power.

[DrDan]

161. but it does place a limit on you in terms of your off-hours empolyment

and that was my point.

The post that I responded to said this:

"It should be out-and-out illegal for a business to be able to refuse to hire, terminate, or in any other way discriminate against employees or prospective employees based upon their participation in any legal activity when not on the job."

and we both know that is not going to happen - nor should it.

[Journeyman]

8. I saw this coming over 25 years ago. Baylor is hardly the first to institute such a policy. . .

It was one of many reasons why I quit a 3-5 pack-a-day habit.

Such policies suck. But other than people bitchin' & moanin' about 'em, implementation moves forward, seemingly inexorably, leaving us with but simple choices to make.

[Luminous Animal]

10. Or we have unions to protect us from fascism.

[bluestate10]

47. Preventing smokers from endangering sick people is not fascism.

The term fascism is thrown around so freely, even to describe perfectly sane policy, that it has lost it's sharp early warning aspect.

[boston bean]

55. Can a sick person make a smoker ill? Maybe we ought to just kill everyone off! nt

[bluestate10]

90. You're becoming desperate. Can't win on logic and commonsense? nt

[KamaAina]

140. We're not even talking about people smoking at work.

We're talking about people smoking at home and on their own time. How exactly are they "endangering sick people"??

[Tunkamerica]

12. 3-5 packs? jeez.

[LynneSin]

98. 3-5 Packs a day? I'd quit just because I'd be too broke to buy em.

Course I don't know how old you were when you quit but here in Delaware that would be about $25 a day and we're one of the cheaper states in the area.

[Journeyman]

130. When I took up the addiction, in 1970, smokes cost about 30¢ a pack. . .

When I quit, in January 1986, they were a little over $1 a pack.

I set type in those days -- set type, went to school, wrote late into the night and drank heavily -- so I had plenty of time to sit and smoke.

Cost was one of the reasons behind my decision to quit. Even at only $3 to $5 a day, it adds up. In California today, smokes are somewhere between $5 and $7 a pack. Even in '86, I could see this coming. Taxes going up, "sin" tariffs coming in, and always and in so many different ways, the hidden costs rising -- burnt clothes, higher insurance (home, life, health), eventual medical care. It just wasn't worth it, even though I certainly enjoyed the addiction in so many many ways.

And of course, the subject of this thread -- tightening regulations on when and where people can smoke, and the increasing use of economics to push for ever more restrictive rules. I read the hour -- even then -- saw the direction and determined I would not be caught unaware. There are changes afoot everyday. . .

[Jane Austin]

11. If smoking didn't make you stink

so bad, it might not matter, but most smokers don't realize how their skin, their hair, their clothes and their breath smell.

It's enough to make the rest of us gag, and it has no more place in a hospital setting than strong perfume does.

I say this as an ex-smoker who is more sensitive now than before to cigarette smoke.

Sometimes just walking through that gauntlet of smokers outside an office building sets off an asthma attack in me.

[Tunkamerica]

13. I'm an ex smoker and that's ridiculous. I hang out with several smokers and ex-smokers and no one

makes me gag. Maybe it's your asthma and not the smokers.

[bhikkhu]

119. I'm an ex-smoker, and I disagree

the guys I work with smoke, and I can't bear the smell. There's no physical gag-reflex, but I do regularly organize my work to avoid the worst of it, and go out of my way to enjoy clean air. Its more of a visceral reaction to something unhealthy or sick-making.

[PADemD]

16. their hair, their clothes and their breath smell.

Especially if they smoke cheap cigarettes.

PU

[Tunkamerica]

18. obviously they don't deserve jobs.

also, your breath smells. I can smell it from here. welcome to unemployment.

[bluestate10]

46. Smokers are an imminent threat to sick people.

A hospital isn't discriminating against me if I have a cold and staff prevents me from visiting a patient, as has happened. Smokers make a choice to smoke, in the case of Baylor, part of their choice will be whether they want a job. I am ok with that.

[LeftishBrit]

76. That is a good argument for banning people from smoking at work...

but not for controlling what they do in their private lives.

[boston bean]

25. you have asthma? You are costing too much $$. No JOB for you! nt

[Darth_Kitten]

48. What gets me is the number of breaks smokers take each day...

it's a joke where I work, you see a huge group of the same 6-7 people going at the same time, several times a day.
Must be nice.

[bengalherder]

73. I'm a non-smoker and I always took a break with 'em.

I'd tell my boss I was taking a figurative cigarette break and go when they left. I'd chill about three minutes and come back.

Don't get to do this as often now there are fewer smokers to provide cover.

There is no reason for non-smokers to force themselves to be good little drones and suck it up. Seize the day! Don't be jealous of smokers, force your company to give you a minute or two every hour to decompress!

[Darth_Kitten]

138. The smokers don't have to account for every minute of their workdays...

in my job, our times are logged.

Maybe some smokers ought to learn a work ethic. :hide:

[Joe Fields]

170. And some people don't bathe regularly and splash stinking cologne

and perfume on, which is just as offensive.

Let's ban them also...

[DrDan]

15. BRAVO for Baylor

[Uben]

17. BAylor has not allowed smoking on hospital grounds for years

I have been there numerous times over the past ten years and there are signs that say that. As a smoker, I had to sneak out to the parking garage to smoke in my car. I really don't mind because I am also an ex non-smoker and I know how offensive the smoke can be to non-smokers.

As far as using smoking as a deal-breaker in hiring, then they should also consider the other bad personal habits of potential employees as well, ie obesity, alcohol consumption, etc. Never in all my years of working did I ever see an injury on the job due to smoking. But obesity, alcohol consumption and drug abuse generates millions of injuries in the workplace every year, so why the focus on smoking? We all know the answer......insurance companies. Since we allow them to discriminate against smokers, it will not be long before the only ones hirable will be under thirty with a BFI of 0 and clean DNA.

[ixion]

20. It's discrimination, pure and simple.

I know that the anti-smoking zealots will disagree, and that just goes to prove that they're the same as any religious extremist.

[bluestate10]

34. No it isn't.

Discrimination happens when a person or company denies a person a job, or right due to an unchangeable characteristic of the person denied. Smoking IS a choice, denying smokers jobs because having them around sick people may kill those sick people isn't discrimination. Would you claim that a medical care provider allowing a smoker to be around sick people is discrimination against sick people? I am sure you wouldn't because doing so would destroy your POV.

[boston bean]

35. Eating is legal and a choice, and sometimes people get fat engaging in that behavior.

They cost a lot of $$ too, with all their medical conditions.

Companies should not hire anyone who eats.

Same goes for alcohol.

[bluestate10]

38. Overweight people do not present a clear and present danger to seriously

sick people. The issue is about Baylor not hiring smokers for it's health care system and potentially endangering the lives of patients, the university has that right. It's reasonable that if an overweight person applied for a job there and that person was deemed to earnestly be a hazard to patients, Baylor should not hire the person.

[cleanhippie]

62. It common sense, really. I don't understand why more don't get that.

[ixion]

41. well, yes it is, actually.

Just because it's a trait you don't like doesn't make it any less discriminatory. This is the problem with extremists. They never feel THEIR particular extreme bent is extreme.

[bluestate10]

44. Smoking is a choice, not an unchangeable characteristic. nt

[ixion]

52. It is a lifestyle choice, just like anything else

And just because you don't care for it doesn't make it any less discriminatory. Why should people have to change just because you don't like it? Again, your view is extremist, even though you can't see it.

[cleanhippie]

63. Its a choice that affects everyone, not just the individual.

Lifestyle choices that do not endanger those that do not choose that lifestyle are fine, but you seem to be advocating for lifestyle choices that impact, and in THIS case HARM, other people who do not choose that lifestyle.


As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

[MADem]

82. It's an addictive predisposition for many, nestled in your DNA--like alcoholism.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/addiction/genetics/candidate.html

Is homosexuality a lifestyle choice, too?

Some people are hardwired for addiction. Others are hardwired for mental illness. We're fortunate as a society that science is starting to "get" this.

It's in the BRAIN, not in the moral compass.

Your thinking is very 19th Century, to be blunt.

[ixion]

84. Humans are all flawed in one form or another

and this remains true to this day. So YES it is discrimination. My thinking is humanitarian thinking. Period.

[ZombieHorde]

70. They are also banning chewing tobacco, so it's not just about the sick people. nt

[eilen]

144. Smokers do not endanger their patients

You are wrong. Your argument is based on a false premise. Being a smoker does not endanger an employees patients.

Patients are more at risk by those who don't wash their hand before they enter a room. Merely being a smoker cannot give someone an infection. I work in a hospital, it is very rare for anyone to have time to go smoke a cigarette, if they do, they have to walk a few blocks away. I live with a smoker but I do not smoke. I am sure I must smell like smoke sometimes. That does not disqualify my skills.

At work we can chew nicotine gum if we want, who's to know? Also there are those that use e-cigs.

[LeftishBrit]

179. I agree with denying jobs to healthcare workers who smoke around patients.

But smoking at home should not be the company's business. A workplace ban is fine, especially in a medical setting. Using people's private activities as a criterion is not, and could be badly abused.

[cleanhippie]

60. Oh yeah, exactly the same.

No, not really.

[ixion]

86. well, yeah, it is...

just because you don't like it doesn't change what it is.

[LynneSin]

100. Were you born a smoker?

I really hate when people use the 'discrimination' word on things they clearly have a choice.

Rosa Parks was born black
Dan Choi was born gay
No one was born a smoker

Your comment makes about as much sense as Michelle Bachmann claiming conservatives are being forced to 'sit on the back of the bus'

[ixion]

103. It has nothing whatsoever to do with choice.

It is applying a certain prejudice towards a subset of people in society. The whole 'choice' thing was added by extremists to make it easier for them to rationalize their discrimination.

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. The term began to be used as an expression of derogatory racial prejudice in the 1830s from Thomas D. Rice's performances as "Jim Crow".

[LynneSin]

115. Not buying it

I watched a video about a girl with albinism and the discrimination she faces. The bullying she got in school because she was different. It was so sad but the thing is - she never asked to be this way. That is discrimination, not people feeling the pressure that their bad habit is something others find very undesirable.

You don't want to be discriminated against - quit smoking. This girl will live with her condition for life.

[ixion]

118. whether you 'buy' it or not is irrelevant. It is still discrimination.

Period.

[LynneSin]

122. Odd how it's mostly smokers that feel that way

Again, I find it difficult to feel sorry for someone who, after years of education about how unsafe smoking is, still chooses to smoke.

I've got 2 coworkers who I avoid face to face meetings because of the awful stench. Why should I suffer because of something THEY decided they wanted to do. In fact one I threatened my boss to go to HR if they didn't allow me to move to another cubicle so I didn't have to smell that stench everyday.

Smoking is not a trait one is born with - it is AN ADDICTION. And it's one that has a negative impact on others when you are near it. You're saying smoking discrimination is more important that someone who suffers from Asthma? Last time I checked people don't get Asthma attacks standing around a minority or a gay person (unless they happen to be heavy smokers).

But hey, if you sleep easier at night with that whole discrimination schtick trying to compare yourself to pioneers like Rosa Parks or Dan Choi, go for it. Just don't be surprised when others don't buy it.

[MADem]

129. Choose better parents. The "addictive personality" is a genetic condition.

Just like that albinism of which you speak--that girl should have chosen better parents with better genetic code.

This material about DNA and nicotine is not news, either--I am rather surprised that so many people still see a propensity to become addicted to nicotine as a "moral" issue.

http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA01/nicotine.php

[eilen]

22. Discrimination.

Pure and Simple. I don't smoke. However, If I were a company, I would want to hire the most talented and skilled people, whether they smoke or not. Many healthcare workers do smoke as a coping mechanism for the extreme stress they work under. Some of the best doctors and nurses are also obese, some of those smoke and so what? I, personally don't smoke but have some weight issues and those are exacerbated by my high levels of cortisone release when patients fall, code, when I have to many heavy-care (totals) patients or generally stress me out d/t high volume of demands and complaints (those you just can't make happy no matter how hard you try or are so extremely agitated and confused and I have to practically sit on them to keep them from face-planting on the floor while simultaneously taking care of 6 others). I'm sure they think that by depriving us of a lunch break helps keep our weight down but honestly, people then just end up over eating or smoking to compensate for the hunger pains.

If Baylor would like to encourage good health, decrease stress, absenteeism, doctor visits, and on the job injuries, how about increasing the number of nurses on the floors?

[bluestate10]

36. Would you cut off a good finger because another finger is infected?

I doubt it, you would likely say the two, while maybe sharing a hand, have unrelated issues. Hiring smokers is about endangering patients. The incapacity to hire enough nurses and administrative personnel to properly staff hospitals and medical centers is about the ongoing march of hospitals becoming for profit or pseudo for profit organizations.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

83. Smokers are not a protected class.

Nor should they be. People make stupid decisions all the time. And we don't reward them for it.
And as for fat people, that is just not the same thing. People are fat for a number of reasons, not always just because of overeating and lack of movement. I have a thyroid issue. I don't actually eat horribly and I exercise. some people are just the size they are. I'm sorry you're offended by the fact that I'm fat, but it only affects me. I'm not causing a cloud of pollution to come at you like smokers are. I don't ruin the fresh air with my breathing.

[eilen]

145. Being overweight is not a "protected class " either.

If you are good at your job, your appearance or what you do (legally) on your off hours is none of your employer's business, period. This is not about being "protected" etc. It is not about "endangering" (which is ludicrous) people.

No employer is forced to give people "smoke breaks" but they are required to furnish breaks for all employees depending on the length of shift. If you have objections to people taking extra breaks on company time, feel free to complain to your boss.

[YellowRubberDuckie]

23. If I were in HR...

...and you showed up in my office REEKING, I wouldn't hire you either.
:shrug:

[bluestate10]

27. More power to Baylor. Smoking is a choice. nt

[boston bean]

28. living is a choice too. nt

[bluestate10]

29. Whatever. I choose to live and not smoke.

And I don't want smokers harming my health with their secondhand smoke. More power to the Baylor Medical system. How can any health care provider tolerate smoking employees? People that are hired who smoke should not be fired, but potential employees SHOULD be evaluated on a chosen behavior that is harmful to patients.

[boston bean]

32. yeah, they are lighting up in patients rooms and blowing smoke in babies faces.

I work with people who don't smoke and their breath stinks, and they are fat, and they sometimes stink coming from the gym after lunch. Or they look like hell after a night of imbibing and driving drunk.

I don't think they should be employed where I work either.

[bluestate10]

40. You are right. If the behavior of the people you mentioned causes

hazards to other employees, or in Baylor's case, sick people, the offending employees should get a reprimand if employed or not be hired if applying. In the case of some jobs, I favor urine, and blood testing for alcohol and illegal drugs. I for example, would not want a person that does not care about personal hygiene or clarity of mind working in food processing or medicine manufacture, I also would not hire a smoker for reasons of concern about release of particles from that person into the products being made.

[NutmegYankee]

51. What? You want to blood test people daily for alcohol?

First of all, Alcohol is perfectly legal and no one should have to be forced to conform to authoritarian Baptist or Mormon prohibition standards. A blood test isn't needed to confirm that an employee was drinking or is drunk during work hours.

[bluestate10]

94. Where did I say test daily?

People looking for employment should be tested if a condition like alcoholism of nicotine addiction impacts negatively on their capacity to do their jobs. Any person found to be drinking , drunk or smoking on a job where that is dangerous to people should be fired.

[NutmegYankee]

151. It was implied.

"In the case of some jobs, I favor urine, and blood testing for alcohol and illegal drugs". You eliminate alcohol within hours of consumption. If the person was an alcoholic, it would be obvious without resorting to blood/urine testing.

I'll ask this instead - Do You think employers should be allowed to fire a worker who only drinks when not at work and said drinking does not interfere with their work?

[The Straight Story]

91. so is going to a bar that allows it - I am sure you are ok with that too (nt)

[bluestate10]

95. I personally would not patronize a bar or restaurant that allows smoking.

But this is my choice. If you make other choices, knock yourself out as long as it only impacts people that make the same choice you do or who CHOSE to be in the presence of people that make the same choice you do.

[Aerows]

31. Smoking is legal

Approve or disapprove, but it's still legal. As others have mentioned, obesity also causes health problems, and people talking and texting on their cell phones while driving cause accidents. Three different times members of my family, myself included, were all in wrecks in the last couple of years - none of them our fault - because of people talking on cell phones and not paying attention.

There are PLENTY of behaviors that are choices people make that directly cause health problems. What about people who drink excessive amounts of soft drinks? I've known several people that can down 2 or 3 2 liters of soft drinks per day . None of those folks are particularly healthy.

Are they within their rights to do this? Perhaps, but do we really want yet another basis for which employers can discriminate against employees? It's a slippery slope, imho.

[bluestate10]

43. Baylor Health Systems has a right not to hire smokers.

It also has a right not to hire people that are overweight enough to pose a risk to patients. It has a right not to hire people that consume large amounts of alcohol if that is obvious during the interview process and to terminate them if alcohol impacts performance of their jobs. There are many choices that people make in life, I can choose to walk in freezing rain without and umbrella or coat, but if I get sick and apply for a job where my illness may negatively impact for customers of my employer either through product safety or directly through damage to those customers respiratory or immune systems, then the company that I apply to is within it's rights not to hire me and could be said to have made a sound business decision by not hiring me.

[ixion]

53. So what you're saying is you are for discrimination

That's something you have in common with the Tea Baggers. ;)

[PassingFair]

56. That one has a LOT in common with the 'baggers....

:eyes:

[bluestate10]

99. I prefer to be called a Moderate with commonsense.

BTW, please make a contribution to Feeding America today, or contribute money or spend time working in a local food bank or homeless shelter. I did two of those within the last twelve hours, very unbaggerish of me, wouldn't you say? But what I did is always what I have done, all of my life. Don't assume that you can fucking describe a person that you don't know shit about.

[PassingFair]

113. You're right, of course.

I can only make assumptions based on the shit you post.

Of course employers are right to be discriminatory!
Women shouldn't be hired either, given their propensity
to childbirth and loss of work days that result. Perhaps
they can be made to sign non-pregnancy waivers or have the
hormones put into their drinks in the lunchroom.

Power to employers!

[bluestate10]

96. Discrimination is when one denies a person due to an unchangeable

physical characteristic. Not hiring smokers for work around sick people is not discrimination.

[ixion]

102. That is YOUR definition, conveniently crafted to fit your own prejudices

it is NOT the actual definition, which is more like:

Discrimination is the prejudicial treatment of an individual based on their membership in a certain group or category. It involves the actual behaviors towards groups such as excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to another group. The term began to be used as an expression of derogatory racial prejudice in the 1830s from Thomas D. Rice's performances as "Jim Crow".

[COLGATE4]

109. That is not the legal definition of discrimination. To be legally

discriminated against you have to be a member of a protected class, i.e. one that has immutable characteristics. Immutable characteristics are those such as gender, race, ethnicity and in some cases sexual orientation. Being a smoker is not an immutable characteristic - you can choose not to smoke. You can't choose not to be female or african-american or latino.

[bluestate10]

114. Thank you. nt

[PassingFair]

116. Yes, all smoking doctors should be shit-canned.

[ixion]

120. There's that word 'choice' again...

which renders your definition prejudiced. It's not about 'choice', it's about treating people equally. Period.

[Aerows]

177. I've heard all of my life from people who thought

sexual orientation was a choice. Why I'd choose to be attracted to people of the same sex and be discriminated against, risk ostracism from my family and persecution from religious institutions is absolutely beyond me, but of course there is always someone who thinks people choose to be homosexual.

[Eric_323]

132. So according to your legal definition

I can be discriminated against for practicing Islam, being a registered Democrat or a member of the ACLU?

[Aerows]

176. In some cases?

"sexual orientation"? Sorry, I can't let that one go by without pointing out that you can't change your sexual orientation. I'm not sure whether you meant it that way or if you meant that sexual orientation is only protected in certain cases, but I'm a tad sensitive to that topic since I'm a lesbian, and couldn't change that fact if I even wanted to - which I don't ;)

[Aerows]

178. So let me get back to another example I used

What about people who drink excessive amounts of soft drinks? What about people who insist on talking on their cell phones while driving?

There are a LOT of personal choices people make that are bad for them - it doesn't end with smoking, obesity or excessive alcohol usage. Do we start discriminating against people who are otherwise responsible people just because they do something we disagree with? That's the slippery slope I'm talking about. Do we start discriminating because we don't like someone's religion, or lack thereof, even though they are perfectly fit to do the job?

That's what this heads to, IMHO.

[LWolf]

117. It's legal. Stupid, but legal. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. Companies should control ALL personal behavior of employees - and rid themselves of all undesirable

and misfits - be they smokers, fats, social deviants, weirdos and those who plague the work place with disease and disabilities that only slow down production. That is what freedom is all about. The freedom of companies and corporations to monitor, control and run the lives of their employees both on and off work.

[LadyInAZ]

85. sorry... but i have the right to privacy

no company has the right to tell me what i can not do off work... long as i haven't impacted the project or others... then company has no business in my personal affairs... telling me to not smoke, drink... i don't work for a company who wants to police my personal off-hours behavior...

when I'm at work... i do the work and abide by the rules at work... but when i leave work... that is my private time and NONE of companies business... next they will start telling us... who should we marry or date... who should/shouldn't be our friends... what movies to see... what malls to spend the money you earned... when to go to bed.. what foods to eat... what cloths to wear... how to style my hair...

you know.... walk and talk no questions or you are gone... i wont give up my private life to satisfy some company lead by extremely PARANOID ppl... no company should be given this right...

what if they make it mandatory that everyone is expected to go sky driving?... and you are not in a skydriving co.... then what?... we all have our own likes and dislikes on/off work sites... company's shouldn't be allowed to dedicate such personal terms to their employees... that is too much power over personal lives... dedicate private lives will not be favorable to lots of people... not just smokers...

also i see them changing or twisting common labor laws.... which we all benefit from.... do you really want them to have that much power?

[Douglas Carpenter]

89. I was being facetious - in an attempt at making a point

:blush: sorry

I'm hoping the fascist and the bullies who support this kind of thing would understand the logical consequences of this kind of authoritarianism that you are so eloquently describing.

[Cool Logic]

39. "The FDA estimates smoking costs American employers some $200 billion a year in lost productivity.."

I have no idea if that is a true statement; however, it is possible that Baylor Health may have similar data. If so, their policy is based on sound business principles.

[XanaDUer]

42. This is common in healthcare.

Besides a no-hiring-smokers' policy, they also scan your blood once a year so you can qualify for the insurance "discount". Oh, and they tell you they also scan for nicotine during this.

[bluestate10]

49. I favor adding alcohol and illegal drugs to that Scan. nt

[XanaDUer]

50. They've already got that covered

How about HIV? Should that be added?

[bluestate10]

105. No. Because there are many routes for getting HIV, many which the affected

person had no choice in participating in and could not mitigate. But if a person is HIV positive and being HIV positive posses an imminent risk to patients, that person should be moved to a job where there is no direct or remote contact between that person and patients. I will backtrack on smoking, if smokers can be kept away from sick people and perform jobs where there is no direct or remote contact, then there would be no reason not to hire them other than intolerance to smoking, in that case the smoker would have legal standing to sue, IMO.

[XanaDUer]

148. But they still may be injurious to employees

and drive up insurance rates.

PS- I am a nonsmoker, never smoked, and have several relatives who died due to smoking, but I get concerned when I see this stuff - it's normalizing a slippery slope and, believe, me people whose BMI is too high are next.

[dionysus]

78. a pro discrimination DUer. swell

:eyes:

[bluestate10]

101. Read up on the definition of discrimination. You seriously need to. nt

[eilen]

146. I believe there is a name for that....

Bigot.

[dionysus]

153. i was trying to be nice eilen.

:beer:

;)

[SoCalDem]

64. When employers CAN pick and choose, they will

Call it discrimination or anything else, but it's just math.

As long as employers hold sway over employees' private lives, through "health care insurance benefits "offered", they WILL pick and choose.

When labor was traded for cash for a task done,employers did not care all that much what the employee did on his/her off-time, as long as they showed up on time, and did the job.

Things have changed though, since now an employer's bottom line is affected by what they "pay out" on the employee's behalf, so of course they feel obligated to peer into the private lives to make sure their costs are kept as low as possible.

When there is a glut of people looking for fewer and fewer jobs, employers hold all the cards.

[Zorra]

65. Smoking is bad for children. nt

[Arkansas Granny]

66. I would have an easier time understanding this if tobacco was an illegal substance.

This doesn't seem any different than any other form of discrimination, to me.

[Joe Fields]

171. agreed. tobacco is legal. end of story.

makes about as much sense as banning those who ride motorcycles, because they ingest exhaust fumes and might be a health risk, and they smell bad. (just an extreme example which I don't believe in)

:eyes:

[Shagbark Hickory]

68. Seems logical. Seeing doctors smoking outside a healthcare facility is a big turnoff.

[LeftishBrit]

72. Much as I oppose tobacco use...

I do not think that a company has the right to impose regulations about people's private lives. Banning smoking in the workplace is one thing, but setting rules about people's lives outside is another.

[Patriot 76]

79. Any university with Ken Starr as it's President is a joke.

Any university where Christian fundies hold sway is always suspect.

Authoritarians rise up!

[Gormy Cuss]

81. I wouldn't even complete the application if that stipulation appeared

and I've never been a smoker and I hate cigarette smoke and odors.

[RagAss]

87. How about the obese????

It's coming !!!!!

[LynneSin]

106. Few things about my obsesity vs. smokers

Yes I am overweight. And I believe I'll be paying more for my health insurance next year because of it (not much but there are good incentives to lose)

My being overweight does not affect the breathing air around others. I also don't take 30-60 minutes worth of extra breaks each day to feed my habit.

So although i could see surcharges to insurance, I highly doubt it will happen unless the company happens to sell fitness equipment.

[MADem]

131. Is your obesity a genetic predisposition? Do you have fat forebears?

Not everyone who indulges in nicotine smokes it, you know. That "chew" and snuff crap is very popular, as are the smokeless E-cigarettes that some people favor. And then, there's tablets and "the patch" as well.


Nowadays, most public accommodations require the smokers to segregate themselves.


The fact of the matter is, though, that one could say that your obesity DOES affect others, because bus seats and other accommodations need to be built to accommodate you and your heavier peers, raising the cost of a ticket for ALL (there isn't a Fat Fare and a Thin Fare, now, is there--unless we're on an airplane and you cannot fit into the seat?), and we could also say that your need to snack to maintain your level of obesity -- even if it happens at your desk--DOES cut into your productivity, to say nothing of your absence from work due to obesity related illness and extra doctor trips because of common secondary and tertiary conditions (cholesterol, blood pressure, diabetes) common to the fatter members of our population. As for insurance, YOUR insurance may charge you more, but that's not the case with all providers, where the thin and healthy must pay for the fat and sick.

By pretending -- and that is what you are doing--that your obesity isn't "as bad" as smoking is rather self-serving, to be kind. A heart larded with fat will kill you as quick as cancer. None of it is "good" but blame-placing and finger wagging is entirely unhelpful, especially when you examine the science of addiction.

People who cannot quit smoking despite trying have their DNA to blame. It's not a moral failure, any more than alcoholism, mental illness, or even--in many though not all cases--obesity is. If you have Big Fat Parents, and they had Big Fat Parents, you are never going to look like Paris Hilton.

This isn't news, the relationship between DNA and an addictive personality. They found the nicotine connection eons ago.

I'm not a smoker, BTW, so I've no axe to grind.

[RagAss]

155. I've never heard it put so well..Thanks....n/t

[MADem]

164. Anytime.

I do find it curious that even on a "liberal" discussion board, some genetic predispositions are accomodated, even celebrated, whilst others are still shuffled off to the "moral failure" category.

A mind may be a terrible thing to waste, but a person doesn't have much control over the brain chemistry they inherited from their parents. All they can do is turn to science for help, if help is available from the scientific community for what ails them.

[Joe Fields]

172. if you tripped and fell on me it would ...

[Logical]

88. I have no problem with this. n-t

[name not needed]

92. I never expected to see this much anti-worker sentiment on DU.

[Douglas Carpenter]

93. some of these posts remind me that there can be a fascism on the left just as easy as there can be

a fascism on the right..and I want no part of either.

[bluestate10]

110. You use the term "Fascism" too lightly. Beware because YOU will be part

of causing the word to lose it's important moral standing.

[Douglas Carpenter]

121. those who support bullying people and pushing them around and telling them what they can do in their

private lives have no moral standing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

133. Yet in the immortal words of Iñigo Montoya

That word does not mean what you think it means.

[eilen]

147. I think you have characterized the concept of "Nanny-State'

quite nicely.

[SOS]

107. Non-smokers

who use nicotine patches, e-cigs or snus will also be denied jobs?
That will make for an interesting lawsuit.

[bluestate10]

111. You have an important concern. Do any of those people exhale what

they have taken in through the devices that they use?

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gulliver]

125. I believe people have the right to end their life if they choose.

So I have no problem with smokers wanting to end the life of their future 50- or 60-year-old selves in as humiliating and painful a way as they want. If someone wants to kill themselves by installments, we have no right to stop them. The hospice staff will be there to clean out smoker bedpans, wipe the bloody vomit off of their faces, and pump opiates into their thin carcasses when the screams and moans of agony become too loud.

I personally reserve the right to throw myself into a school of ravenous sharks. Less painful.

[LynneSin]

126. I would normally think what you posted is pretty harsh however...

I've seen it since my father died of Lung Cancer.

Not Pretty at all.

[PassingFair]

128. There's a "pretty" death?

I saw my sister-in-law die of cancer,
and my father die of ALS, and my grandmother
die of heart failure.

None of them were pretty.

The heart failure death of my non-smoking
grandmother was the worst, hooked up to
a respirator, begging to be unplugged.

[LynneSin]

162. Oh I know Death is not pretty

I was just supporting the harsh words he posted because I have seen it myself first hand.

[Rex]

127. Fuck Baylor then.

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. While the policy is discriminatory

More and more HEALTH centers are imposing it.

And yes, it could have all to do with patient care...

Asthma comes to mind.

For the record, this is discrimination, not fascism.

[eilen]

150. I've been a nurse for 14 years.

I've worked on cancer floors, surgery floors, rehab floors and now am working on a cardiac floor. I've never ever heard of a patient having any issue or problem with a staff member who smokes. They have had to prevent employees with perfume or other scents for those that are chemically sensitive but never ever ever has an asthmatic been triggered into an attack by any professional medical person nor ancillary staff. In fact, the exposure to chemicals in the workplace-- cleaning products, chemotherapy agents, those patients who can't be bothered to cover their mouths when they cough, vomit, blood, and, of course the aftermath of countless Bowel cleanses, employees are clearly at greater risk

-- to get all uptight about an employee who might have smoked a cigarette, chewed some nicotine gum (btw nicotine does not cause cancer), or smoked a herbal blend is just silly.

However, medical staff are all required to care for patients with any number of noxious conditions and we do so with therapeutic professionalism.

When I worked in homecare I was often in homes of heavy smokers and those with pets with untidy and undisciplined excretory habits.

I wonder about the delicate flowers here posting, I'm certain they must work in offices with air cleaners or something. My husband works construction -- IBEW electrician and he is exposed to unbelievable chemicals, noise, etc. Painters don't even bother waiting for these guys to get done in a room before they start spraying the paint, nevermind the spraying of fire retardant on steel. If his contractors decided to not hire smokers, they would be laughed out of the business.

I don't think smoking is a health promoting behavior and I encourage anyone who does smoke to quit with support. I will not demonize people who are smokers though. Do you know that when the patch came out, the tobacco companies increased the amount of nicotine in cigarettes by 10% to make it even more difficult to quit?

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. As a former medic I am aware

But I am positive that is a concern. The other is image.

And yes, it is discriminatory and should face courts in now multiple states, ranging from Texas to OH. It should not pass muster, but it ain't fascism either.

[Joe Fields]

173. thank you, from a conscientous smoker who tries to keep it to himself.

you hit it squarely with the chemical angle.

And the delicate flowers here...

[KamaAina]

141. Anyone have a picture of Ken Starr lighting up a Cuban?

He's the president of Baylor, you know. Yeah. That Ken Starr.

[MADem]

166. To Ken Starr, "lighting up a Cuban"

would likely be aiming a machine gun at a poster of Castro, I suspect.

He has an unlined, baby face suggestive of a nonsmoker. His lungs may be unblackened...but one can't say as much for his soul!

[Blasphemer]

142. Definitely a slippery slope

And yet another example of why we need universal government healthcare. The primary issue seems to be healthcare costs and I find discrimination on that basis to be unseemly. It's one thing to institute a smoke-free (or alcohol-free or junk food-free, etc.) work environment but hiring on the basis of potential healthcare costs is NOT a good thing.

[madinmaryland]

149. Good for Baylor. Until we have UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE, this is what

is going to happen. I'm sure there will be a lot of anecdotal comments here that say they are 50+, smoke and never have missed a day of work. Well, goody for them, because that is NOT the norm.

[dionysus]

156. more like "good for bigotry and discrimination"

:puke:

[madinmaryland]

158. Bigotry --> ABSOLUTELY NOT; discrimination --> maybe, but only

if that means disallowing smokers to blow smoke in non-smokers faces is discrimination.

:wtf:

[Douglas Carpenter]

165. no this is about people smoking off-duty - outside of work

Baylor has banned smoking on its facility for many years. That is not in contention. This is about the right and responsibility of an employer to monitor and control the private behavior of their people when they are off duty. It is very important that liberals stand in solidarity with the employers on this issue. If companies cannot feel free to control the personal habits and monitor the behavior of their people when they're off duty - what else might the common worker get up to? What else might they get away with if the employer cannot order them to do what they are told outside of work? I shudder to think.

[WinkyDink]

163. The Law of Unintended Consequences: Lack of cigarette taxes hurts state coffers (note the spelling).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/19/states-look-to-drop-cigar_n_837929.html

[JustAnotherGen]

167. Health Care?

It makes sense.

[roody]

175. I think it is okay. People can quit smoking.