http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-30/u...otine?_s=PM:US
Wow--I can see banning smoking on the premises, but testing potential employees for nicotine? What's next, measuring BMI?
|
|
|
|
|
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-12-30/u...otine?_s=PM:US
Wow--I can see banning smoking on the premises, but testing potential employees for nicotine? What's next, measuring BMI?
First: it is perfectly okay for any business to establish health protocals for their employees, especially hospitals.
Second: get used to it as more rules like this will become commonplace and even more strict thanks to Obamacare.
To be clear, I absolutely detest smoking! But, they are talking about not hiring people who smoke on their own time. Suppose they do the same for people who drink alcohol? I just don't like the assault on personal freedoms.
Some are trying to call it adverse impact, due to the notion that lower income, and thus minority, folks smoke more than the general population. However, illegal drug use is the same way.
Drug and alcohol screens are acceptable because they cost productivity, and increase the incidence of absenteeism. Many are making the argument that smoking is expensive on the healthcare front and the productivity front (love those smoke breaks).
I think it would be excessively difficult to prove either way, and eventually there will have to be some kind of legal judgement on it.
Simply put, it makes poor business sense to hire a drug user. Thus, legal for drug screens.
The argument is being made that tobacco causes a similar, although muted effect, and thus should be legal for drug screens.
That tells me you are looking at it wrong.Originally Posted by maverick
Smoking "on their own time" doesn't matter. It is detrimental to their health, to the health of those around them, and it does not look (or smell) professional. They can smoke all they want, they just have to work somewhere else. They don't have a right to work unless someone wants them to work there.
I hated every one of my nurses that smoked and had them reassigned. In a hospital, it is just as suffocating as a bar, and they don't even smoke in the hospital.
It doesn't mean I am looking at it wrong; rather, I am looking at it differently. I agree employers can hire anyone they want and that employers discriminate all the time. It's their right, in my opinion, as long as they stay within the law. Typically, I don't go with the "slippery slope" argument, but here, I can see it.
I am sure there is a correlation between employees who exercise and productivity or employees who eat well and productivity or employees with fewer children being more productive (I made those up; they are not based on real stats). I am afraid you were right in your earlier post that we will see more of this kind of thing. Doesn't mean I have to like it.
Okay, so if I'm your boss I can dictate that you do not watch Monday night football. Staying up too late could cause you to not be alert at work the next morning, endangering patients.
Depends. A small business owner <15 employees can disqualify any non-title VII, non-disability, or person under 40 for just about any reason.
A common one I've heard is taking a potential new hire out to dinner with his or her significant other, and not hiring them if they have a crazy spouse.
Even larger employers can do the same. They just have to be more careful in documenting everything. Thankfully, most employers have leeway to discriminate for pretty much anything they can prove to be bona fide necessary to do the job.
The problem comes with adverse impact. i.e. discriminating against something that is overly representative of a protected group.
Good example is something like requiring a high school diploma for a job as a janitor at your office. In most cities, you would end up discriminating a large amount of minorities, just because of demographics. Inadvertently, you would have discriminated against a Title VII group. You would thus need to prove that you either hired a representative amount of minorities, or that the high school diploma was truly necessary for the job.
that's where MNF could get you into trouble.
Cleveland Clinic has been doing this for years. I totally agree with it and would do it formally if Louisiana allowed it.
In my business, we only require half a day's work. What you do with the other 12 hours is up to you.
There have been a number of businesses in recent years that have refused to hire smokers--or even fired them. Several made the news for saying "stop smoking by x date or you're fired". This is something I end up talking about when we're discussing business ethics. The primary reason has to do with the cost of health insurance. My employer essentially charges employees $20 a month to smoke--non-smokers pay $20 less for their insurance. That strikes me as a better approach than firing if cost is really the main reason.
There's been a lot of talk from privacy groups about the legitimacy of firing someone for smoking away from work. It's a legit question--what business is it of my employer what I do at home? The answer isn't completely obvious, but it should give companies a bit of pause. And it is a definite slippery slope. If you refuse to hire smokers, do you refuse to hire overweight people? What about people who have some illness that is going to be expensive for health insurance--maybe one that's technically a "handicap"? The privacy people legitimately ask where the long arm of the corporation should end.
If you allow the government to "discriminate" like that, then private businesses can "discriminate" like that as well.
Y'all are touching on the reason why much of labor law as we know it now is completely assbackwards in doing anything positive for individuals and companies.
We do background checks on prospective employees. If someone earned a DUI in their past, but it happened to be on a weekend, I'm still not hiring them. And to take that a step further, if you interview with me, you better make sure you have your facebook page locked down because I guarantee I will be paying it a visit. And if you really are naive enough to think I am the only employer in the country doing that, I don't want you on my team anyway.
Speaking of it being a company's business what you do at home...I have a friend that fired an employee for viewing child pornography at home and was discovered. i know plenty of occasions that people were terminated for drinking alcohol the night before. The problem is that it still affected their job the next morning. I can give you a list of how smoking affects your job also. If you think your employer isnt concerned about what you do after work and how it affects the company's reputation, then again, you are naive. And yes, in the state of Louisiana if you do not represent your employer after hours in an honorable way, you can be terminated.
And while these are definitely on the list, smoking isnt just about health insurance and cost. It is also about smoke breaks, productivity, personal hygiene as it relates to coworkers and customers, and time off from work. And if you don't think these things are legit, you must have never managed smokers.
And from an employer's perspective, none of this is a slippery slope if you have policies in place and consult your liability insurance provider.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
