Tennessee hospital bans tobacco users from hiring.

So how do you determine if someone is under the influence at work without testing? It's not that hard to smoke weed and appear fairly sober.

 

What if the hospital is paying for the insurance of the employees and this test lowers the cost of premiums? What if the hospital is essentially self-insured on health insurance?

 

Then urine tests for salt abuse should be mandatory.

We will not stop until we are victorious on the WAR ON SALT.

 

how do you determine if he's been drinking? or stayed up late? or has marital troubles? or a gambling addiction? or spends all his time on cf.net (scratch that one) or is otherwise distracted? It should be on job performance. If you can't tell he smoked weed based on his work -- it's probably none of your business.

All the MORE reason to restrict testing! We're worried about pre-existing conditions affecting access to health insurance, yet pre-screening employees based on health risks is OK? I think this article said it wasn't a cost thing anyway-- but if you allow employers to screen based on potential health insurance costs that can get REALLY ugly quick.

 

The hospital will pay a price. They'll be turning away good workers on a criterion that doesn't affect job performance. It makes their hiring process slightly less optimal.

Of course, I think they are doing it for the insurance costs, no matter what they say.

 

I am probably too much of an old school (e.g., not Glenn Beck type) libertarian for you. I think it is fine for an employer to decide not to hire people who smoke. I do not want smokers to become a protected class. People who do not like that rule can look elsewhere for employment. Of course, as JV pointed out, the hospital may be limiting the quality of its applicant pool, but that is the hospital's decision.

 

I remember a long time ago in a galaxy far far away I was working a warehouse job moving supplies and food for local restaurants. I am not a smoker, so when I went outside one morning around 10am, my supervisor saw me and asked this question: What are you doing?? I said: "Taking a "no-smoke" break." He looked at me with a highly unamused look and ordered me back inside.

Ever since then I have always felt that smoke breaks were unfair to those who don't smoke. Sure, its only 5-10 minutes but its two or three per day where the employee is not working and others may need to pick up the slack. And no, I dont think ending smoke breaks would be a plausible answer.

 

This is actually really interesting and without healthcare reform I wonder how far this will go. With premiums rising especially for small businesses with a small labor pool is it fair for an employer to screen employees based on their health?

Look at it from the employer's point of view. They could hire a smoker or someone who is obese and then have to pay higher healthcare costs. So why should they?

Is this any more or any less fair than say denying someone a job based on their credit score, which could be beyond their control. (Divorce, stolen identity, etc.)

At least if I am choosing between Joe and Bob and Joe is 350lbs and has diabetes and hypertension and Bob is healthy I can make a very good estimate that Joe will cost me more money since he will be going to the doctor more often.

However basing decisions on drug testing, background checks, credit checks, etc. to me is more of a crapshoot but we tolerate it.

This can get even uglier. Suppose we say okay Employers can discriminate based on health since they incur a cost, what if the health condition is not their fault say it's inherited versus a lifestyle choice?

Damn that healthcare reformless future is looking good! :grin:

 

When I had a blue-collar job, we had one worker who was a smoker and he was allowed 2 smoke-breaks per day. But, he negotiated it as part of his compensation. And, he was easily the best worker there.

 

I've said this before, but the federal and especially state governments won't and really can't do anything about it. Not after they took hundreds of billions in settlements from the tobacco industry, on the premise of heightened health care costs. I'm not a big fan of credit screenings either, seems like back door discrimation to me.

 

Don't some drugs have a degenerative effect, that could impact an employee's long term job performance?

 

Sure, and people should be willing to dispense with drugs that could impact long-term job performance as soon as their employer signs a contract guaranteeing a person will have a long-term job.

 

I often take "walk breaks" in the afternoon, where I just get out and walk the streets for 20 minutes or so. My boss liked the idea so much that he does it sometimes.

I will say from experience, though, that ridiculous smoke restrictions like this don't work. I worked at a chemical plant where they banned smoking on company property. The new owners removed smoke shacks. Officially, smokers were supposed to leave the premises if they wanted to smoke, they had to leave the premises, they only could do it if someone could cover for their job, and they weren't paid for it. Smokers sneaked off and smoked all the time.

 

The funny thing is . . it is not even drugs
I remember a few years ago . . .
someone was at like Marti Gras or something
He got his picture taken drinking a beer or soda
a regular Joe Smoe . . . .
the problem was. . .he worked for a competing company

the company fired him for drinking the competion's beverage on his own time on his own vacation.

no one batted an eye .

Rocket River
yea. . . Corporation are not people. . they are not your Lord and Master