Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,797,021 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayneinspain
Excuse me, but that statement reeks of bigotry.
5 smokers were forced out of their jobs at the hospital I worked at, including me.
They did not fire or reprimand the nonsmokers I worked with who:
were incompetent in their jobs
exceeded the hospital's sick leave policy (sure wasn't us smokers)
caused daily disturbances in the department
attempted to hack into other coworkers' computers
spread malicious gossip among themselves
had drug/alcohol problems that interfered with their work
verbally attacked both coworkers as well as managerial staff
Sounds to me that you have a very nearsighted view of people who smoke.
So, the rest of the population are, by default (taken from your statement), blessed with 'good' judgment?
Give me a break. Seriously.
The view I have of people who smoke depends on how old they are. If they are 60 and started before they knew about the horrible effects of smoking, that is one thing (and I don't know how they lived to see 60). If they are under 35, my view of them is that they are stupid dumb idiots. They are no better- and even worse in some ways- than Heroin addicts are. Unlike Cigarette addicts, most Heroin addicts keep their drug habit to themselves. They don't feel the need to shoot up in public or pollute everybody else's air nor do they reek and stink. Secondly in my original post I said that I do not think you should be fired for smoking if they hired you knowing you smoke. I just said that I would not hire a smoker. But if I bought a business that already had smokers, I would not fire them either.
They are no better- and even worse in some ways- than Heroin addicts are. Unlike Cigarette addicts, most Heroin addicts keep their drug habit to themselves. They don't feel the need to shoot up in public or pollute everybody else's air nor do they reek and stink.
Wow. Wrong. Visit an ER maybe.
Heroin addicts worldwide have been known to shoot up in public and around their children. Ask CPS agencies.
Many go on to their jobs. Some drive trucks, buses, planes. Others hide behind letters such as PhD, MD, DDS.
Also, heroin/opiate addicts are prone to constipation, horrible flatulence, and foul body odor.
Assumptions pale in the face of experience. I'm in the medical field. I've seen the charts. I've been next to them in the ER and in the hospital hallways and bathrooms. *shudders*
And given the choice, I'd rather the bus driver entrusted with the life of my daughter was addicted to nicotine over opiates ANY DAY.
Sorry, but I just cannot allow false statements to go unanswered.
For the record, I worked at one hospital job for over 2 years...my supervisor was amazed, on my last day, when I told her I smoked.
The insurance cost are not the main reason I would not hire smokers. It has more to do with the poor judgement it shows in the applicant. If he could care less about his own health and the health of his family and others around him, how well do you think he will care about his work and your business??
What a great judge of moral character you are! I have known senior management of companies who run their business with ethics and are smokers! I don't understand what smoking and caring about work have to do with each other.
Heroin addicts worldwide have been known to shoot up in public and around their children. Ask CPS agencies.
Many go on to their jobs. Some drive trucks, buses, planes. Others hide behind letters such as PhD, MD, DDS.
Also, heroin/opiate addicts are prone to constipation, horrible flatulence, and foul body odor.
Assumptions pale in the face of experience. I'm in the medical field. I've seen the charts. I've been next to them in the ER and in the hospital hallways and bathrooms. *shudders*
And given the choice, I'd rather the bus driver entrusted with the life of my daughter was addicted to nicotine over opiates ANY DAY.
Sorry, but I just cannot allow false statements to go unanswered.
For the record, I worked at one hospital job for over 2 years...my supervisor was amazed, on my last day, when I told her I smoked.
She had no idea.
How did management find out you smoked if you are closet smoker? Are they requiring blood/urine tests to determined tobacco use? I have heard some employers are doing this. Too bad alcohol won't show up. Maybe they should do liver scans on upper management making the rules. Might be very surprised. I have worked in healthcare as well and find it amazing how someone can have a mental health problem that truly may impair judgment and be on several drugs . . . or be an alcoholic . . . and a smoker will be singled out as "risky." Amazing. And discriminatory by anyone's standards.
Yes, I said by ANYONE's standards. Look up the definition of discrimination in the workplace. People can cloak it as a health-issue but it is still discriminatory to single out someone for a health issue. ADA protects part of society. See what happens if you single someone out for being fat, having rheumatoid arthritis wh/ inhibits their mobility, deafness, limited sight, diabetes, etc.
Last edited by brokensky; 02-24-2008 at 08:53 AM..
Reason: changed word
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,797,021 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by anifani821
How did management find out you smoked if you are closet smoker? Are they requiring blood/urine tests to determined tobacco use? I have heard some employers are doing this. Too bad alcohol won't show up. Maybe they should do liver scans on upper management making the rules. Might be very surprised. I have worked in healthcare as well and find it amazing how someone can have a mental health problem that truly may impair judgment and be on several drugs . . . or be an alcoholic . . . and a smoker will be singled out as "risky." Amazing. And discriminatory by anyone's standards.
Yes, I said by ANYONE's standards. Look up the definition of discrimination in the workplace. People can cloak it as a health-issue but it is still discriminatory to single out someone for a health issue. ADA protects part of society. See what happens if you single someone out for being fat, having rheumatoid arthritis wh/ inhibits their mobility, deafness, limited sight, diabetes, etc.
If I was hiring, that is what I would do. They can test for nicotine in urine the same as any other drug. Positive is no hire for me! If they tested negative for urine but positive for marijuana then I MIGHT hire them!
I just returned from an interview today for a job I was 100% qualified for but after an hour of interviewing, was declined for the position due to not only being "geographicaly undesirable" (34mi. distance) but mainly because I smoke cigarettes.
And how did they know...? Doesn't sound like a question they could ask...
If I was hiring, that is what I would do. They can test for nicotine in urine the same as any other drug. Positive is no hire for me! If they tested negative for urine but positive for marijuana then I MIGHT hire them!
I'd love to tell you what I think about your "views" , but it's not allowed. I can only hope at least you're capable of figuring that out.
Well ... I just quit four months ago after I don't know how many years of smoking (too many to count) ...
Mostly because I'm busting my tail saving for retirement and I realized it would be pretty stupid to jeopardize my long term health prospects when I am finally able to retire.
I'm trying not to become one of those anti-smoking Nazis (whom I hated when I smoked) but, once I got my sense of smell back ... I couldn't stand to be around anyone who did smoke anymore.
Even if they don't smoke around me, I can now always smell it on them. I had no idea that the smell was that bad when I did smoke. Smokers may be unaware of the effect the smell has on others because I certainly didn't realize how bad it was until I quit.
As for companies not hiring people who smoke, they may have a right to do so if they're footing a big chunk of the health insurance bill. The fact is ... smoking causes so many health problems ... I probably wouldn't want to pay for that either.
Well ... I just quit four months ago after I don't know how many years of smoking (too many to count) ...
Mostly because I'm busting my tail saving for retirement and I realized it would be pretty stupid to jeopardize my long term health prospects when I am finally able to retire.
I'm trying not to become one of those anti-smoking Nazis (whom I hated when I smoked) but, once I got my sense of smell back ... I couldn't stand to be around anyone who did smoke anymore.
Even if they don't smoke around me, I can now always smell it on them. I had no idea that the smell was that bad when I did smoke. Smokers may be unaware of the effect the smell has on others because I certainly didn't realize how bad it was until I quit.
As for companies not hiring people who smoke, they may have a right to do so if they're footing a big chunk of the health insurance bill. The fact is ... smoking causes so many health problems ... I probably wouldn't want to pay for that either.
I understand what you are saying but I still find it perplexing that employers can't fire others who cost much more and use many more healthcare resources, such as diabetics, the obese, people w/ disabilities . . . kidney disease . . . yet they will single out smokers. I totally get it if work flow is being disrupted by smoking breaks, for example, but that would be an observable situation and work efficiency is something that can attributed to many factors. So if someone is just inefficient, an employer does not have to base the firing on "smoking." An employer can document someone being away from his/her desk . . . or poor performance . . . regardless of "why."
If someone is a "closet" smoker and does not smoke on the worksite . . . and the only way an employer is determining that the person smokes is by doing a blood/urine test . . . then that seems terribly discriminatory to me. That is like testing for alcohol when the person is not drinking at work . . . only at home and on the weekends. See what I mean?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Doesn't sound like a question they could ask...
, but it's not allowed. I can only hope at least you're capable of figuring that out.
but I still find it perplexing that employers can't fire others who cost much more and use many more healthcare resources, such as diabetics, the obese, people w/ disabilities . . . kidney disease . . . yet they will single out smokers. I totally get it if work flow is being disrupted by smoking breaks, for example, but that would be an observable situation and work efficiency is something that can attributed to many factors. So if someone is just inefficient, an employer does not have to base the firing on "smoking." An employer can document someone being away from his/her desk . . . or poor performance . . . regardless of "why." 
