Tennessee Hospital Tells Smokers: You Can't Work Here

[Haytoni]

Dang good thing I retired from the profession 19 years ago.
Didn't take the time to read the article but just reading the blogs, ..............................insane. Half of the E.R. staff smoked, then, oh well that's progression working............Now how about kicking Obama out of office, for nic usage. Then I would go along with it.

[uzzaperez]

Reminds me of the capitalism vs. totalitarianism debate, point being whichever side of the debate you fall on there is always an authority - capitalist corporations are, within their own structure, mini totalitarian governments. No real point there I guess, but it is true that sometimes the "rights" of one group are taken away to protect the "rights" of another group.

I've heard of self-insured companies that won't hire tobacco users, and will fire employees who are discovered to be tobacco users, as a result of their efforts to keep insurance costs down for the whole company. Is that wrong? Or is it more wrong to have increased insurance costs for everyone because of a smoking-tolerant policy?

There is no right or wrong with a "no smokers" policy, just a question of who benefits and who in your opinion has a greater "right" to the perceived benefit. I personally wouldn't work anywhere where they would intrude into my private life, but I have no problem with any restrictions at or during work. Don't like it? Don't work there. It is *supposed to be* a free country not only for you, but also for your totalitarian employer.

[Katattack]

As long as it not an illegal activity then despite ins premiums it shouldn't be the business of the employer. Of course I know looking at the bottom line is a good thing from a business pov but there are other options (ie the employee agrees to pick up the difference between a non-tobacco users policy and theirs instead of the employer doing so). Not terribly surprising though...next ban on people w/ too high a bmi or cholesterol from diet (tsk tsk ins costs) and then it cascades...

[CaptJay]

As employers I guess they have the right to disallow you on whatever ground they see fit but more sensible rules like, 'No wife beaters employed here' or 'no racists closet or overt employed here' would make more sense imo - the very tone 'if we think you might cost us money over n above your wages we don't want you' smacks of throwaway workforce, something I thought disappeared in the 1930s.
Tobacco use, while inadvisable on a health front cetainly isn't illegal like taking class A drugs. I can understand someone not wishing to employ a person who holds the law, whether they agree with it or not, whether it is just or not, in contempt by refusing to follow it.
What about people who get parking tickets or get into some other trouble seen as minor? Is that a sackable offense? Or is that allowable because its unlikely to cost an employer anything (time for court appearances notwithstanding)?
What about fat people?
Skinny people?
People with ANY long term illnes, mental issue or disability?
Are they next? They might require some kind of benefits at some point in their lives after all.
Is this really how some employers want to be seen?
This one is a hospital fer heaven sakes - their message seems to be very anti-people. Paying sick people great, sick people on employers dime do not pass go.
Surely much better for them to say 'we prefer not to have smokers, and are actively seeking to remove this habit from our workforce, however we understand its hard to quit and offer a very comprehensive free quitting and support service for employees' that might make the pill a little less bitter and it puts out a slightly different message.

[anouk]

As a smoker/vaper, I would be subject to the same discrimination. And it is discrimination: it just is LEGAL discrimination (as opposed to that based on race, sex, nat'l origin, or even homosexuality) in the US federal system.

And while I don't like being discriminated against, there's a good argument for why certain types of discrimination are illegal and others aren't. The most basic is that those subtypes that are prohibited are based on immutable characteristics--one can't (easily, at least) change one's race or gender. One can (in theory, at least), easily choose to quit smoking. Especially where the employer has some reasonable business reason for discriminating (e.g., increased health care costs, negative reflection upon employer-hospital), the law just doesn't care.

This is rooted in our love of the "free market" model. Traditionally, jobs were seen as contracts between private persons of equal bargaining power, terminable for any reason, at any time. The idea is to give the markets--and the players--the most freedom to operate both for the sake of that freedom itself and economic efficiency. While it is an outmoded model in many respects (global markets distort the efficiency, and make employees much, much less powerful), in the absence of a union, contract terms to the contrary, or discrimination based on a protected characteristic, an employer can choose to not hire or fire you at any time, in almost all circumstances in the US.

[IAmThatGuy]

Reminds me of the capitalism vs. totalitarianism debate, point being whichever side of the debate you fall on there is always an authority - capitalist corporations are, within their own structure, mini totalitarian governments. No real point there I guess, but it is true that sometimes the "rights" of one group are taken away to protect the "rights" of another group.

I've heard of self-insured companies that won't hire tobacco users, and will fire employees who are discovered to be tobacco users, as a result of their efforts to keep insurance costs down for the whole company. Is that wrong? Or is it more wrong to have increased insurance costs for everyone because of a smoking-tolerant policy?

There is no right or wrong with a "no smokers" policy, just a question of who benefits and who in your opinion has a greater "right" to the perceived benefit. I personally wouldn't work anywhere where they would intrude into my private life, but I have no problem with any restrictions at or during work. Don't like it? Don't work there. It is *supposed to be* a free country not only for you, but also for your totalitarian employer.

The opposite of Authoritarian is not Capitalist. It's Libertarian.
Capitalism's just a political system that uses supply and demand as its moderator. The opposite of Capitalism would be communism.

Authoritarianism's a political belief system that endorses a larger, stronger, and more powerful government with more power to restrict and tax the public, for whatever reason.
Authoritarianism is politically neutral; it can be extremely Leftist (i.e. Communism), or extremely Rightist (i.e. fascism) or somewhere in the middle (the friggin' FDA circa 2010).

[skydvejam]

It is like that in a lot of places, want a job at the fire station, Police department, or most of the other government jobs in CA, better not test hot for nicotine.
Pfft, as for what I do, there are a lot of things you can not do in the army, and they tossed that smoking thing around a lot as well. Thankfully so far they have not decided to do away with it.

[Thulium]

I am astounded that this has gone unchallenged even this long! The FDA allows Chantix to be sold with the most severe warning label they have acknowledging that the potentially lethal side effects because of the health care need to cure (note the word) nicotine addiction. If "Nicotine Addiction" is a disease that is so important to cure that they will run commercials for a drug that can literally make you crazy, certainly a sufferer of this "affliction" should be afforded reasonable accomodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Not only is this a violation of privacy, it is corporate sanctioned discrimination against persons with a disability.

The FDA keeps telling us that nicotine is a drug. As such it is frequently prescribed by physicians. This means the very hospital employees who write and fill prescriptions for a medication will be fired (or discriminated against in the hiring process) if they take a medication approved by the FDA for prescription and OTC use.

What's next, firing people for developing a dependence on Tylenol? If we were talking about something that impaired their ability to perform their job, there would be a defense against ADA; therefore I can understand why employees would not be allowed to smoke while at work. Considering that a medical institution would not want its employees to have an untreated addiction, the argument could be made that employees must be actively engaged in a smoking cessation program, but I'd leave that to the ADA Legal Eagles to hash out.

Nevertheless, actively screening in order to discriminate against a person with a disability is a despicable violation of privacy and civil liberty, and considering that smoking is sacramental in some religionx it could even be a violation of 1st Amendment rights. Forgive my fervor, but to me this is an outrage of Gattaca proportions.

[anouk]

I am astounded that this has gone unchallenged even this long! The FDA allows Chantix to be sold with the most severe warning label they have acknowledging that the potentially lethal side effects because of the health care need to cure (note the word) nicotine addiction. If "Nicotine Addiction" is a disease that is so important to cure that they will run commercials for a drug that can literally make you crazy, certainly a sufferer of this "affliction" should be afforded reasonable accomodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Not only is this a violation of privacy, it is corporate sanctioned discrimination against persons with a disability.

Nevertheless, actively screening in order to discriminate against a person with a disability is a despicable violation of privacy and civil liberty, and considering that smoking is sacramental in some religionx it could even be a violation of 1st Amendment rights. Forgive my fervor, but to me this is an outrage of Gattaca proportions.

The reason that it hasn't been challenged is because there is no legal foundation on which an attack could succeed. You have a good point about the double standard in terms of the FDA treating this like a drug, but even so, there is no way that current smokers could ever be protected by the ADA (or any other existing anti-discrimination law).

The ADA defines, for example, alcoholism as a disability. But the ADA doesn't prohibit employers from firing alcoholics who are actively drinking. It just prohibits employers from firing people based on a history of alcoholism, though--so to analogize, it would arguably be illegal to fire someone because he/she USED to smoke. Good luck making that argument in today's climate, though.

Additionally, a 1st A right doesn't protect Indians who use peyote for religious reasons from being fired from government jobs. So it likely wouldn't translate to the smoking context, either. And remember that the 1st Amendment doesn't even apply to private employers.

I guess what I'm trying to tell people is that as upset as this all might make them, there is no legal recourse or even rationale that would protect smokers from NOT being fired at an employer's whim. And there are some good reasons for that.

Keep in mind that employment in itself is not considered a right: there is no "right" being taken away. People have the freedom to contract on whatever terms they want, except as based on discrimination deemed sufficiently evil by Congress. Failure to hire/firing because of cigarette smoking--or nicotine addiction--isn't doesn't rise to that level of discrimination per the law. Unfair, maybe, but that's the way it is (and good luck persuading legislators otherwise).

I'm as anti-corporate and pro-civil rights as you get, but if people want to get angry about something--and there's plenty to get mad about in terms of smoker's rights--the employment context is not the place to do it.

[rtbob]

Well than than the Federal Goverment as well as big tobacco should have to give us (unemployable citizens) a check every month. They are the ones who first promoted and continue to promote the use of several highly addictive substances in order to make money. The big tobacco AND the Federal Goverment should absolutely be non-profit to avoid conflicts of interest.