Too far?

Baylor Health, one of the larger healthcare providers in Texas, instituted a new policy as of 1/1/12: they will not hire nicotine users. The policy isn't just smokers, it's nicotine regardless of the source. Current employees are not affected by the new policy.

I can understand "tobacco-free" facilities ("dip-n-spit" is included in the ban), but this is reaching into personal liberty outside the workplace. What about people who have quit smoking by using (and continuing to use) alternative nicotine delivery systems such as nicotine gum, or vaping on an e-cig (which I've found to be a great alternative to my dear old Marlboros for any of you looking to quit)?

Focus: Too far?

 

This is the truth; there seems to be a lot of obesity among healthcare workers, moreso than within the normal population. If a medical facility were to target some unhealthy lifestyle, that would probably be a better choice in my opinion. Although smoking is disgusting and the less of it there is the better off I am.

 

People who come up with things like this are obviously dim. One, I doubt they thought out the "science" of this in any way whatsoever. Human health, from one individual to another is a very contextual thing. Two, it's a somewhat simple violation of personal rights. This is in Texas, right? If I were to say "You can't own a firearm and work here" do you think everyone within a 200 mile radius would lose their collective shit as soon as word got out?

On the other hand, employers are pretty much free to hire who they want. A smart business would probably want to lax on their hiring regulations, but that's their decision. I don't agree with this personally, but in the end the business is the regulator.

 

From what I have seen on TV is that there is some machine that makes every nurse fat, black, and sassy.

I detest cigarettes, snus, and all that. I don't like being around people who smoke as they tend to smell, and in my experience chicks who smoke taste like ashtrays, are likelier to litter and the world would be a better place without tobacco. (But skinny girls should keep smoking so I can look at them. From my experience they tend to pork up when they quit.)

If you want to use them on your own time at home or in your car, fine. If your employer wants to forbid use of tobacco products on their grounds, that is fine I worked for a company like that.

But banning what you do on your own time is pushing it a bit to far. But hey, as was said, you have the right to not work there.

 

I won't get into it, but I definitely don't think there's anything wrong from a liberty standpoint here.

That said, this seems pretty stupid, I mean you won't hire someone just because they use tobacco? How does that affect job performance? I can see instituting a no smoke break policy so smokers don't get that free time, but to refuse a qualified potential employee just because of their personal habits is downright silly. Are they also going to say no drinking and put calorie restrictions on their employees?

I realize this is probably more of a publicity stunt than anything, but it seems way over the top. I don't use tobacco at all, but I wouldn't apply to work there unless I was desperate.

Also, what's going to happen to the current employees that smoke? Are they all going to be fired or do they get grandfathered in?

 

It's not just Baylor doing this. I'm a rehire at memorial Hermann here in Houston and tomorrow, I have my piss test which they told me also tests for tobacco use as well. They told me that memorial Hermann is a tobacco free institution. That's ok with me. I sometimes use a pipe but it's been a while and I should be ok.

They probably only have this policy because it makes insuring their employees cheaper. They can mask it as a movement to promote better health but I think it's more about saving money.

Since tobacco use is perfectly legal over the age of 18, I don't agree with eliminating the candidate pool by restricting it. I don't smoke but I don't agree with telling people that they can't. Thinning the herds people, thinning the herds.

Plus, once you take your drug test, you can pretty much do whatever you want until they ask to take one again.

 

If only the thread starter had addressed this point. I guess we'll never know.

I don't agree with the no-hire policy because, as some have mentioned, it's probably not going to affect your work performance in an office environment, although I suppose it would cut down on sick days. However, I wouldn't have a problem if a job wouldn't offer health benefits (or made them pay more for the same benefits) to smokers.

 

I wonder how much a company would save on health insurance by implementing this. My old company gave extra off if you didn't smoke so I imagine a company with this would mean quite a bit of difference in the costs.

 

I agree that people who smoke should have to pay more because they will in all probability end up costing the system more because of their lifestyle. I even think obese people should have to pay more too.

But now you're going to have people crying discrimination because it is unfair to penalize people for completely legal behavior. If it were my company, I wouldn't insure smokers because it would save me a tremendous amount of money. But I would still hire them if they were still interested.

 

Wow, I'm more hungover than I realized.

 

As xray said, it's almost certainly for their insurance rates. A previous employer of mine instituted a "tobacco-free property" policy for a drastic reduction in insurance rates. It wasn't just a tobacco-free workplace, it was the entire property, meaning the smokers had to drive about 1/2 mile down the road to a park to smoke.

If I owned a company I would not hire nicotine users either. Let's be honest - tobacco users on average are not as smart as the rest of the population. A person who is using nicotine gum is a former tobacco user, so they fall into that category. I know lots of you will be offended by that, but go ahead and try to defend smokers. You cannot argue that a person who knowingly partakes in an addictive habit that has numerous well-known health risks with zero health benefits is smart or has good decision-making abilities or possesses strong self control. The adverse effects of tobacco use have been well-known for 40 years. Any person under the age of 50 who smokes can instantly be identified as "not very bright."

To be fair, I wouldn't hire obese people for the same reasons.

How about some funny smoking stories? When I was about 6 I was staying with my grandpa for the afternoon. He was a smoker and I found his cigarettes on the table. I picked them up and read the label on them: "The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health." My obvious next step was to ask "Grandpa, why do you smoke? It says right here on the package that it's bad for you." He snatched the pack out of my hands and told me that wasn't mine and to leave it alone. He never did answer my question, but he did die 10 years later of - can you guess? - complications from emphysema.

One time my wife and kids met me at work so we could go out to eat. My daughter was 13 at the time and was riding with me. She saw two women outside the office smoking and said "Dad, they don't know, do they?" I asked her what she meant. She said "They don't know that smoking is going to make their faces wrinkly and ugly when they're old." At 13, she already understood.

 

As others have said, I assume the argument is that they are unreasonably expensive from a benefits perspective. It's probably true, although a selective application of such a standard. I'm sure their group benefits costs will look much better for this.

What's the policy here for enforcement? Are employees being subjected to random piss tests, or is this more of an on-paper thing?

You do know the audience you're talking to, right? Because the difference between the drinking habits of this place and smoking doesn't strike me as particularly meaningful. Sure, one can drink in a way that is beneficial to health, but that doesn't exactly describe behavior among posters here.

Your language about smoking seems kinda hyperbolic for a country that eats too much, eats too poorly, sleeps too little, exercises too little, works too much, drinks too much, doesn't go to the doctor's office enough, sits too often, does too many dangerous drugs, etc.

We make the decision to hurt our long term health for our short term pleasure literally every day. Smoking isn't some kind of aberrant behavior in our society.

 

According to the CDC* a tobacco-using employee costs the employer an extra $3,391 per year in "direct medical costs and lost productivity".

For an organization as large as Baylor that sounds like a compelling number.

*http://www.in.gov/quitline/2343.htm

 

Just out of curiosity, where are you pulling your statistics from?
You could say that about a million things, specific examples:
1. People who drive to fast.
2. People who train too hard (at risk for injury)
3. People who drink more than two drinks in a sitting.
4. People that have risky sex
5. Vegetarians (at risk for whatever that disease is that makes soars all over your body)
6. People with kids get sick all the fucking time. And miss work because their kids are sick.

If you find a human I will find something unhealthy they do. Every fucking human does it. You just point out smoking because it is visible.

And as far as your self control comment goes- Do you think anyone above the age of 25 really wants to smoke? No they want to quit, but are addicted. I've personally quit 3 times for long periods of time. I picked it up sometime there after. Did I want to? no. But the stress level of things going on in my life was too much and I cracked.

The problem with nicotine is that it is so easily accessible. You want to quit heroin? Don't hang out with heroin users. Are you trying to quit smoking? Well that blows because they sell them within a quarter mile drive of everywhere.

With all that said, I have no problem with a company doing this. I feel like as a private establishment they can hire whomever in the fuck they want. I think they should tell kids in High School this so they don't ever end up addicted in the first place.

 

This isn't about the health or decision-making capabilities of employees. Like xrayvision said, this is all about money and productivity. I think part of their argument is that, not even addressing long-term health concerns and diseases, smokers are likely to become sick more often than non-smokers. If you're sick you aren't working.

Baylor has a great reputation in terms of quality of care, customer service, and employee satisfaction. I don't think a ban on hiring smokers will have any effect on number of applicants. Plus, if someone doesn't want to quit smoking there are literally dozens of hospitals in DFW affiliated with other private companies. Smokers can drive down the street to a Texas Health or HCA facility.

 

I too agree that having a smoke can help erase pretentiousness we have already heard a billion times since 1982. However, since I have lived in a cave my entire life with gum jammed in my ears and my eyelids stiched shut, I had no idea that smoking was bad for you.

zzr, I'm a smoker. Do you know who isn't? Tyra Banks. Do you know what she did? She waved at Stevie Wonder. I would never do that. Do you know why? Because stupidity isn't triggered by smoking. Stupidity is a gift bestowed on you and if you don't believe me, just ask Melissa Hasselbeck.

This company isn't hiring smokers not because they're not bright, it's so they can save a bundle on health insurance policies and it's as simple as that. 90% of the guys who worked for NASA smoked.

 

You know how much more productive it would be if they just started making employees pay 100% of the insurance above single coverage? They'd save a boat load more money in insurance and lost productivity by deterring people with families from working there.