Two large Detroit hospital systems won't hire users of e-cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, cigars or cigs

[Bill Godshall]

Henry Ford and Beaumont health systems (MI) to discriminate against (by refusing to hire) e-cigarette, smokeless tobacco and cigar consumers despite no burden or cost for employers, negligable health risks for consumers.
Henry Ford, Beaumont health systems adopt no-smoking hiring policy | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com
Smokers need not apply: 2 Detroit-area health systems announce tobacco-free hiring policies | MLive.com

 

[sonicdsl]

Henry Ford and Beaumont health systems (MI) to discriminate against (by refusing to hire) e-cigarette, smokeless tobacco and cigar consumers despite no burden or cost for employers, negligable health risks for consumers.
Henry Ford, Beaumont health systems adopt no-smoking hiring policy | The Detroit News | detroitnews.com
Smokers need not apply: 2 Detroit-area health systems announce tobacco-free hiring policies | MLive.com

I understand with smoking as related to health care costs, etc., etc. But they've gone too far banning nicotine in general.

The lunacy marches on!

 

[Petrodus]

Another case of ...
Even if it reminds some one of tobacco ... Ban It

 

[Linden]

They are privately owned so legally they can hire who they want. Doesn't mean I think its at all intelligent.

 

[Vocalek]

Michigan is among 21 states that allow hiring policies that prohibit smokers and tobacco users. Twenty-nine states have laws that classify smokers as a protected class.

Exactly what is the wording of the Michagan law? Of is the point that there is no special law protecting the "class" of smokers?

Presumably there are laws that protect those with disabilities such as cognitive deficits or mood disorder.

Found this: Employment Discrimination — Michigan Legal Aid

I have two doctors who can verify that my disabilities respond well to a legal drug, nicoitine. Allowing me to use a non-smoked product would be a "reasonable accommodation" if I lived in Michigan and wanted to work for employers who are so ignorant of the science invovled.

 

[VaprMade]

I have to agree with Linden. While I think it's abhorrent, private owned businesses should be able to hire whoever they want. Discrimination happens all the time. If it didn't then everyone would be friends with everyone. We as a people are discrimatory by nature, and creating special classes of people or protecting those with disabilities, is foolish.

Any employer would want the best possible employees' possible. There should be no fault at that. Having someone outside your business, come in and tell you to hire a person you normally wouldn't is wrong! As a vaper if I owned a business that sold vaporizers and juice, would I want a non-smoker/vaper to sell my products to consumers? Of course not, I'd want vapers perferably.

I think these hospitals are foolishly limiting their options from qualified, and competent health care professionals who happen to use nicotine, but at least have the guts to show some moxie.

 

[tommy2bad]

I have to agree with Linden. While I think it's abhorrent, private owned businesses should be able to hire whoever they want. Discrimination happens all the time. If it didn't then everyone would be friends with everyone. We as a people are discrimatory by nature, and creating special classes of people or protecting those with disabilities, is foolish.

Any employer would want the best possible employees' possible. There should be no fault at that. Having someone outside your business, come in and tell you to hire a person you normally wouldn't is wrong! As a vaper if I owned a business that sold vaporizers and juice, would I want a non-smoker/vaper to sell my products to consumers? Of course not, I'd want vapers perferably.

I think these hospitals are foolishly limiting their options from qualified, and competent health care professionals who happen to use nicotine, but at least have the guts to show some moxie.

Definitely a pond thing but that point of view wouldn't fly in Europe. Here we insist that people are hired on their ability to do the job, what they do on their own time is none of the employers business.

 

[Petrodus]

Definitely a pond thing but that point of view wouldn't fly in Europe. Here we insist that people are hired on their ability to do the job, what they do on their own time is none of the employers business.

Wow ...
That sounds like what America used to be like

 

[propagandax]

Definitely a pond thing but that point of view wouldn't fly in Europe. Here we insist that people are hired on their ability to do the job, what they do on their own time is none of the employers business.

Its about controlling people, that's the real motivation. You see it in every facet of american life.

 

[Bill Godshall]

While increasingly more hospitals have adopted these hiring policies, I'm not aware of anyone actually being denied a job because they tested positive for nicotine.

Besides, anyone who tests positive for nicotine can say they are using NRT to quit tobacco use (as most hospitals that have adopted these policies don't prohibit NRT use, and the the nicotine tests cannot tell if the nicotine came from NRT, tobacco or e-cigarettes.

 

[Petrodus]

If the hospitals aren't going to deny someone of job if tested positive for nicotine ...
Why go through the bother of testing for nicotine ??

 

[Territoo]

If the hospitals aren't going to deny someone of job if tested positive for nicotine ...
Why go through the bother of testing for nicotine ??

Because no one is going to go through the trouble or expense to fight it in court. A qualified healthcare worker can find another job easily, usually in within a day. The ones that lose are the unskilled workers. They can't afford to fight it and they can't easily find other jobs. They usually can't afford the NRT products anyway, so it's usually a moot point with them. Without the job, they can't get the insurance to help them get the prescription smoking cessation products, and they can't get the job without smoking cessation. Can't win for losing.

 

[JENerationX]

OK... maybe this is a stupid question, but a recovering addict in the state of NY as I understand it, someone in treatment, like a diagnosed alcoholic has protection under the ADA as far as being granted reasonable accommodations for treatment. Has nicotine addiction as a disability every been pursued? Would that be something to look into? If it were classified as a disability, then NRTs with a Dr's verification of condition and treatment would prevent any discriminatory action.

 

[Territoo]

OK... maybe this is a stupid question, but a recovering addict in the state of NY as I understand it, someone in treatment, like a diagnosed alcoholic has protection under the ADA as far as being granted reasonable accommodations for treatment. Has nicotine addiction as a disability every been pursued? Would that be something to look into? If it were classified as a disability, then NRTs with a Dr's verification of condition and treatment would prevent any discriminatory action.

If nicotine addicts would come together and stand up for the same rights under the ADA, they could be treated in the same way as any other group with a disability. But currently, nicotine addition is not seen as a disability, but instead as a class distinction. They are not allowed in public areas such as restaurants and malls, in hotel rooms, in travel, and now it seems as if they are to be discriminated against in certain areas of employment. What next, housing? Religion? The right to vote?

 

[xanderxman]

The housing thing has already happened. Check this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/u...y-ban-indoor-smoking.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Our government sure seems to know what is good for us, don't they. I just wonder how many of them use tobacco. Seems a slight conflict of interest but that is another thread entirely.

EDIT - I realize this does not apply to vaping, yet. But how long do you think it will take before vaping is included in those bans? Our rights are taken away one small step at a time so that we don't notice until it is too late. Thankfully we vapers have CASAA on our side to stop that from happening.

 

[Territoo]

Makes me glad I own my own house. Wonder how they would approach smokeless tobacco or e-cigs?

 

[sherid]

The fact that we accept smoking as a reason not to hire people is why the zealots now refuse to hire anyone who uses nicotine. As is already evident, the next step will be overweight people followed by drinkers, etc. etc. OPEN your eyes, people.

 

[sherid]

A friend of mine had a job as a nurse rescinded because she tested positive for nicotine. Although she agreed to quit smoking immediately, they said no because their policy demanded that job candidates be free of nicotine for a year.

 

[Bill Godshall]

JENerationX inquired:

Has nicotine addiction as a disability every been pursued?

Yes. Several federal lawsuits were filed alleging that smoking or nicotine addiction is a disability protected under the ADA. The courts disagreed and rejected the claims.

Besides, the ADA only covers former drug addicts/users who no longer use.

 

[JENerationX]

What about addicts on methadone?