Wow They Are Really Serious - smokers not hired - Page 5Register Today!
- Mar 14, '12 by Esme12Quote from not.done.yetI think it's a language barrier.Huh?? What does being a girl have to do with it? And smoking does cause lung problems. This post confuses me. I am not sure what it has to do with the ethics/legality of governing what employees do on their own time.
- Mar 14, '12 by Esme12Quote from cpl_dvldogit's hipaa not hippai cannot find a a single reputable news agency that has covered this. not even cnn or msnbc. if it were true they would be all over it. also addictinginfo.org is such a reputable site they refuse to post who their writers are.
anyone in the health care industry knows releasing info of this nature at will is a big hippa violation. hippa is a federal law, which supersedes any state law.
they sound like a bunch of looney trying to upset people over nothing.
the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 (hipaa; pub.l. 104-191, 110 stat. 1936, enacted august 21, 1996)
- Mar 14, '12 by kloneQuote from canchaserCotinine levels are different depending on if it's first-hand or second hand smoke. Meaning, they can tell if you're a smoker, or if you just live with one.As a nonsmoker married to a smoker and had a father who smoked my whole life.... If I were tested, I'd be fired and I haven't had a cigarette to my mouth but I do inhale or I would die.. so now what? It's unfair I have to agree.
- Mar 14, '12 by źNurseDangers of "Third Hand Smoke" revealed.
The Dangers of Third-Hand Smoke Revealed | LiveScience
"...A new study reveals that the residue of nicotine that lingers on surfaces can react with another chemical in the air to form potent carcinogens — chemicals linked to various cancers. While first-hand smoke is that inhaled directly by the smoker and second-hand is the smoke exhaled (and inhaled by others), third-hand smoke is the residue from second-hand smoke.....Anyone who has entered a confined space — a room, an elevator, a vehicle, etc. — where someone has recently been smoking, knows that the scent lingers for an extended period of time.
"The burning of tobacco releases nicotine in the form of a vapor that adsorbs strongly onto indoor surfaces, such as walls, floors, carpeting, drapes and furniture. Nicotine can persist on those materials for days, weeks and even months,"......
- Mar 14, '12 by lilliben1I think it's total BS. If an employee chooses to smoke off campus, then it should not be a problem.
However, it becomes a problem when employees think they have a right to their 15 min breaks, rather then it being a privelage (spelling?) when time allows. This was always a problem on a unit I used to work on, it'd be crazy busy and you always had your few who HAD to go out at the same time everyday and it was just too busy that they shouldn't have gone, especially since 15 min always turned into 17 or 20.
On another note, I realize healthcare facilities are trying to be healthy, but then if that's the case where they refuse to hire smokers, they should not be hiring anyone who is overweight or obese and eats garbage food all the time, because that is also extremely unhealthy. What is that teaching our patients? It's a double standard also.
- Mar 14, '12 by Julie19Almost all the hospitals in my area put their foot down on hiring smokers last year. They even gave their current employee's the ultimatum to either quit smoking or lose your job.
IMO, I think it's a little extreme. Hospital's should be allowed to regulate what goes on while you're at work but what you do at home is your own business. Flat out refusing to hire smokers is just the beginning of more future problems.
- Mar 14, '12 by PudnluvOur hospital has a no smoking policy on campus. I'm a smoker, and I work my 12.5 hour shift and then go home and smoke. What I do on my own time is my business, as long as I am not engaging in any illegal activity. If hospitals want to start refusing to hire smokers, why not refuse to hire people who consume alcohol. Both are legal activities, however smoking does not make one stupid. If they can tell employees not to smoke in their own homes, what's stopping them from telling employees that they can not drink in their own homes. Oh and 15 minute breaks are not a privilege, they are a right according to the labor laws, at least in New York state. Not that many of us get to take one. I can understand employers wanting to curtail unhealthy, illegal behaviors, but where will it end?
- Mar 14, '12 by 33762FL".... in addition, there's a law that is been consider in az, that employers won't hire females that use contraceptives."
what employer would refuse to hire a woman using contraceptives even they could legally refuse to hire her? women who use contraceptives are much better employees than those who don't, because they won't be pregnant every year and out on fmla leave all the time. in the 1970's and before employers were way of hiring women because they thought the woman would get pregnant and quit, the widespread use of contraceptives is what truly allowed women to have careers with continuity.
and besides - how would the employer even know who is using contraceptives? unless they want to strap me down and give me an ultrasound, there's no way they can know i have a mirena if i don't tell them.
- Mar 14, '12 by RNsRWeAh, the joys of an employment-at-will State. No contract, no right to stay employed (or get hired) if the employer decides smoking is a deal-breaker.
- Mar 14, '12 by locolorenzo22My employer requires that the campus is entirely non-smoking. Also, they charge a $50 surcharge per person on the insurance plan who smokes, per paycheck, so that starts adding up. I believe that if you cause my insurance premium to go up, they have every right to charge more. In terms of hiring, though, I don't agree. If you do a legal activity that is not impairing your judgement or ability, what business is it of mine?