ARIZONA - Humana Won't Hire Smokers

[pkj]

If you light up a cigarette, it will snuff out your chances to land a job with health-insurance giant Humana Inc.


The health insurer said Wednesday that it will no longer hire workers in Arizona who smoke or use other tobacco products, part of a trend of employers who are cracking down on tobacco use among workers.


To enforce the tobacco ban that starts Friday, Humana will test new employees for nicotine use during a pre-employment urine drug screen.

​

Read More Here:
Humana won't hire smokers in Arizona

 

[dspin]

So goes the sad state of affairs in the US, soon they will tell you what to read and eat.

 

[Vap0rJay]

So goes the sad state of affairs in the US, soon they will tell you what to read and eat.

It's a good thing synthetic urine is cheap. Mix it up, put an air activated carbon heating pad on your bottle and stick her near your body to keep temp within range.

Sorry, unless they want to give me access to all their files and medical histories before I'm hired -- they have no right to demand anything from me... peek inside my body chemistry? F-U buddy roll. Even "clean" no test from me EVER will be anything BUT synthetic urine on sheer principal alone!

My body is my own friggin business

 

[Eddie.Willers]

Interesting - I see the 'usual suspects' are out in force in the comments section of that article.
However, it reminds me of another thread here in ECF about the nicotine content of certain foodstuffs. As the urine test is actually looking for cotinine, how will they differentiate between smokers of tobacco, those who are using NRT patches, those who take the 'Scotine' anti-depressant and those who pig out on tomatoes and bell-peppers?
Methinks they are on a slippery slope...just how do you prove that nicotine metabolites actually came from smoking tobacco?

 

[LibertyValance]

I am in an employer and this is just part of the freedom I enjoy in the US. Why would I hire a smoker when my health care expense goes through the ROOF in a small pool for smokers. And I say this as an ex-smoker myself. If you want to smoke and be able to work anywhere move to a country with socialized medicine. But as things stand where most insurance comes through employers, don't expect me to pay.

 

[Phroge]

There is a time coming that the high courts are going to have to take an honest look at the smoking vs. smoking bans vs. freedom arguments. In my most humble opinion, no one has the right in this country to dictate what I can do on my own time, in public or private, as long as it is not against the law. Smoking is not against the law. A company does not have a legal leg to stand on if they choose not to hire someone if the reason is that they are a smoker. The only legal recourse that the company could have is to hire the smoker and disallow the smoker enrollment into any company funded healthcare program. Seeing as the healthcare programs are considered a benefit offered by the company, the company is within its rights to refuse to offer said benefit, but not within rights to refuse employment.

 

[robert shohet]

my hospital in sv has been getting bad with there smokers u get seen smoking even in designated areas(the outlying clinics have designated spots) in you scrubs or with ur badge visible instant termination last xmas a woman was fired on xmas eve it was her only source of income and her son has als its very sad the way this trend is developing

 

[LibertyValance]

Well in fairness its not just the higher healthcare costs because we don't have community ratings anymore in small healthcare pools. Each business is rated separately. If I hire you I HAVE to offer you health insurance. Thats the way it works and its fair. So my only recourse is to not hire you.

And besides the higher health costs, smoker miss more days of work. And all the smokers that work for me loose a LOT of time standing on the side of the building. So I tend not to hire smokers. Too many headaches for me.

Now it is true that the current cotinine test can't distinguish vaping and smoking, and thats too bad but life isn't perfect.

 

[Vocalek]

There IS a way to distinguish between smokers and other nicotine sources: Test for exhaled carbon monoxide. In the future as treatments that target nicotinic receptors are brought to market for AD, PD, ADHD, and mood disorders, those drugs might be giving the employer "false positives" for smoking.

 

[Vocalek]

Well in fairness its not just the higher healthcare costs because we don't have community ratings anymore in small healthcare pools. Each business is rated separately. If I hire you I HAVE to offer you health insurance. Thats the way it works and its fair. So my only recourse is to not hire you.

And besides the higher health costs, smoker miss more days of work. And all the smokers that work for me loose a LOT of time standing on the side of the building. So I tend not to hire smokers. Too many headaches for me.

Now it is true that the current cotinine test can't distinguish vaping and smoking, and thats too bad but life isn't perfect.

Why aren't you offering the smokers who work for you information on smoke-free alternatives? You would be doing their health a favor and giving your own bottom line a favor.

CASAA has a tri-fold brochure on e-cigarettes that you can download and print as handouts. http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA-Ecig-TriFold-Brochure.pdf

 

[Crumpet]

I am in an employer and this is just part of the freedom I enjoy in the US. Why would I hire a smoker when my health care expense goes through the ROOF in a small pool for smokers. And I say this as an ex-smoker myself. If you want to smoke and be able to work anywhere move to a country with socialized medicine. But as things stand where most insurance comes through employers, don't expect me to pay.

I'm curious to know if you would also refuse to hire vapers and other non-smoking users of nicotine products? If not, will you test for carbon monoxide or just test for nicotine?

 

[Kurt]

Some of these tests test for anabasine Anabasine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which is present in tobacco, but not in NRTs or normal e-juice. Not saying this is what they are doing, but it is possible. Won't help the snus/chew users though.

 

[rothenbj]

Well in fairness its not just the higher healthcare costs because we don't have community ratings anymore in small healthcare pools. Each business is rated separately. If I hire you I HAVE to offer you health insurance. Thats the way it works and its fair. So my only recourse is to not hire you.

And besides the higher health costs, smoker miss more days of work. And all the smokers that work for me loose a LOT of time standing on the side of the building. So I tend not to hire smokers. Too many headaches for me.

Now it is true that the current cotinine test can't distinguish vaping and smoking, and thats too bad but life isn't perfect.

"The man who shot Liberty Valance, he shot Liberty Valance
He was the bravest of them all. "

Just couldn't resist. So once they install the continine tests for new hires and the insurance rates still remain high the next natural step is employee testing, including management so all users of nicotine are eliminated, including you. However the insurance rates don't get lowered because they have gone up due to the increasing obesity problems so it's time for BMI testing. There is no end till you have only health nuts employed and I'll bet the rates don't move much. Anyone work at a Gym? I wonder how their health costs compare to these unhealthy companies?

 

[countrygirl1291]

rothenbj is right -- the next step would be for employers to say they won't hire anyone who's overweight or has a too-high BMI. It makes as much sense because gross obesity is at least as much of a health risk as smoking.

And what's after that? Should employers be allowed to require employees to attend monitored exercise periods to make sure they're not unhealthy couch potatoes? Or how about limiting the number of children a job applicant can have before being considered for a job? After all, it costs more to provide health benefits for 6 kids than it does for 2. Where does it stop?

My employer handles the benefits issue by offering a premium discount to non-smokers and to people who pass tests showing they don't have metabolic syndrome. I still feel kind of 'picked on' since other high-risk groups aren't targeted, but I can live with it. I couldn't live without my job, on the other hand.

 

[D103]

I totally agree with Jim. And to LibertyValance.....I understand your dilemma, I do, but consider this...when the logical extension of this maniacal healthist movement in combination with the long standing extortion/protection racket of the insurance industry inevitably winds up at your doorstep, targeting your and/or your family's behaviors don't expect me to help and certainly don't expect me to pay the increased cost of whatever your company's product is that you will likely have to pass along to consumers to maintain the bottomline.

I understand your wanting to contain costs and it certainly is your right to do so, but I also believe firmly that if businesses and the general public do not begin standing up, pushing back and demanding reforms when it comes to the insurance industry, healthcare costs, and the Pharmaceutical industry, then we are ALL going to continue to lose rights, freedoms and quality of life.

Left unchallenged these industries will continue to ride roughshod over the American public and our political/legislative system while pursuing ever burgeoning profits at the expense of small businesses, our nations economy and the public health.

 

[rothenbj]

My memory is a bit unclear, but I believe there was a town or local government department in Fla that went non-smoking a few years back and won in court the right to deny smokers employment. After a year or two they removed the smoking policy since it wasn't saving them what they expected.

Perhaps another poster could correct me on this or add some details,

 

[dspin]

Well said. I might also add the Cleveland paid for their stadium by taxing the smokers and drinkers. Sin tax they called it. Maybe next time they can pick on another group of people. Take away peoples rights and see where that gets you. I personally would not hire women w/children over smokers. All the ones I have ever worked w/called off when their kids are sick or have the sniffles. Just sayin, who really misses more work.

rothenbj is right -- the next step would be for employers to say they won't hire anyone who's overweight or has a too-high BMI. It makes as much sense because gross obseity is at least as much of a health risk as smoking.

And what's after that? Should employers be allowed to require employees to attend monitored exercise periods to make sure they're not unhealthy couch potatoes? Or how about limiting the number of children an job applicant can have before being considered for a job? After all, it costs more to provide health benefits for 6 kids than it does for 2. Where does it stop?

My employer handles the benefits issue by offering a premium discount to non-smokers and to people who pass tests showing they don't have metabolic syndrome. I still feel kind of 'picked on' since other high-risk groups aren't targeted, but I can live with it. I couldn't live without my job, on the other hand.

 

[Vap0rJay]

Well said. I might also add the Cleveland paid for their stadium by taxing the smokers and drinkers. Sin tax they called it. Maybe next time they can pick on another group of people. Take away peoples rights and see where that gets you. I personally would not hire women w/children over smokers. All the ones I have ever worked w/called off when their kids are sick or have the sniffles. Just sayin, who really misses more work.

I hear ya. I worked in an office like that. 12 people in the office, me and my buddy were the only two guys. School let out 3 hrs early, 2 guys got stuck pickining up the slack for 10 people who had to go get their kids. It ...... me off royally.

Now, I carry a pic of my cousins kid and have 2 pics on my desk. It's "MY" kid. I learned the hard way -- and like hell. Guess what, I can be 2 hrs late too "because the kid missed the bus." It's awesome. Got to go get the kid from the "nurse office." Do I feel guilty, oh hell no. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Vocalek]

Just found the perfect excuse for failing the test: Third Hand Smoke.

THS persists in real-world residential settings in the air, dust, and surfaces, and is associated with elevated levels of nicotine on hands and cotinine in urine of nonsmokers residing in former smoker homes.

Environmental Health Perspectives: Thirdhand Tobacco Smoke: Emerging Evidence and Arguments for a Multidisciplinary Research Agenda

 

[rothenbj]

"Such a research agenda is necessary to illuminate the role of THS in existing and future tobacco control efforts to decrease smoking initiation and smoking levels, to increase cessation attempts and sustained cessation, and to reduce the cumulative effects of tobacco use on morbidity and mortality."

That conclusive statement pretty well sums up the plea for funds. Translated, give us the money, we'll give you the "growing body of evidence".

Let's look at the topic from a historical perspective. Post WW2 there was such a pandemic proliferation of THS that nobody should have survived. However anecdotal evidence provided by my post suggests that at least a few of us survived. Even with over indulgence in FHS for way too many years.