Did You Know?
allnurses is the largest community for nurses on the web. We now have over 388,779 members! Join today to network with other nurses, laugh, share, and much more.
| No. 20 | 
Jul 01, 2007, 08:23 PM
 Re: Cleveland Clinic will not Hire Smokers
At another hospital, I actually saw a senior staff RN carrying cigarettes in her scrub pocket clearly visible to patients. Our hospital will be switching to smoke-free this fall. As a non-smoker, I think they should commit to providing ways to quit smoking for staff who will soon have to go cold-turkey.
 | | Advertisement Sponsored Links | | | | No. 21 |
Jul 01, 2007, 08:24 PM
Re: Cleveland Clinic will not Hire Smokers Originally Posted by milkshake1  I have to agree with this decision. We as nurses are suppose to promote health and it is hard to take a nurse seriously when he/she smells of smoke. Another issue is all the breaks. I am a non-smoker and rarely take a break, but my smoking counterparts seems to make their way downstairs hourly. Is that really fair?
As was posted above, body odors (including perfume, smoke, etc.) are dress code violations. A company has every right to control what happens on their property, and what their employees do on the job.
Off the job? And a legal activity to boot? None of their damned business.
By the way, for those arguing about the smoke odor, this tests for a metabolite of nicotine. Smokeless tobaccos are included in the ban.
| | No. 22 |
Jul 01, 2007, 08:52 PM
Re: Cleveland Clinic will not Hire Smokers
RE: not hiring smokers. I think if they are going to do this for nurses then they should require a total ban on hiring any smokers in the entire hospital. This includes doctors, receptionists, etc...it shouldn't just be against nurses. And by the way I think it is mean thing to do because smoking is for some more addictive than heroin. They should provide cessation treatment for all hospital employees if they really want a smoke free staff.
| | No. 23 |
Jul 01, 2007, 09:06 PM
Updated
Jul 01, 2007 at 09:37 PM by heartICU
Re: Cleveland Clinic will not Hire Smokers Originally Posted by jzzy88 I think if they are going to do this for nurses then they should require a total ban on hiring any smokers in the entire hospital. This includes doctors, receptionists, etc...it shouldn't just be against nurses. They should provide cessation treatment for all hospital employees if they really want a smoke free staff.
This applies to all employees, not just nurses. And, they offer smoking cessation treatment to all employees, and also offer free help to people whose urine screen turns up positive during pre-employment screening. Those potential applicants are eligible to reapply after 90 days. Also - this does not affect current employees at the Cleveland Clinic. Originally Posted by pat8585 Are they going to start telling people who drink alcohol they dont need to apply for work too?
Everyone targets smokers. What about alcohol?
If a nurse wants to have a drink AFTER her shift,,,,why shouldnt a Nurse be allowed to have a Cigarette after her shift?
Alcohol in moderation has not been proven to have the effects smoking does. Smoking, whether "a little" or "a lot" is detrimental to your health. Some alcohol use, especially red wine, has been proven to be beneficial.
As a current CCF employee, I do not have a problem whatsoever with this policy. Yes, there are some economic motivations. Fewer days of missed work, less expensive health insurance for ALL employees, etc. Since it does not affect current employees, I do not think it is a discriminatory issue. Smokers are free to choose other facilities in which to work. The occurence of many diseases is based partly on modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. I have a hard time understanding the backlash a company (Cleveland Clinic or any company for that matter) would receive for choosing not to employ people with modifiable risk factors. Being denied employment for being male (and therefore higher risk for heart disease) would be discrimination. Being denied employment for being a smoker (and therefore higher risk for heart disease, etc) is not discrimination. In this age of "choosing", you have many choices. You can choose to not smoke. You can choose to quit if you do smoke. [Addiction or not, people quit every day.] You can also choose to work elsewhere.
I find it odd that some expect to be able to choose whatever unhealthy behaviors they want, expect their insurance company/employer to pay for costs resulting from those behaviors, yet get upset when said facility chooses to protect its interests by minimizing risk. Excuse me for sounding a bit harsh, but I think it needs to be said.
| | No. 24 |
Jul 01, 2007, 09:17 PM
Re: Cleveland Clinic will not Hire Smokers
So they are testing to see if people are smokers? Wow, I don't think I agree with that. I do not believe in drug testing because I think infringes upon civil liberties. Once a precedent is set for that type of thing then it opens the door for other things. I dislike smoking, but think this is an issue of civil rights. I think the best thing to do is ban smoking when at work. Going beyond that is a bad idea. If I were employees at that hospital I think they should protest.
| | No. 25 |
Jul 01, 2007, 09:45 PM
Re: Cleveland Clinic will not Hire Smokers Originally Posted by jzzy88 I do not believe in drug testing because I think infringes upon civil liberties.
Just curious - will you consent for drug testing when you apply for your first job as an RN?
| | No. 26 |
Jul 01, 2007, 09:48 PM
Re: Cleveland Clinic will not Hire Smokers
[quote=heartICU;2277493]This applies to all employees, not just nurses. And, they offer smoking cessation treatment to all employees, and also offer free help to people whose urine screen turns up positive during pre-employment screening. Those potential applicants are eligible to reapply after 90 days. Also - this does not affect current employees at the Cleveland Clinic.
If an applicant is using a nic patch or lozenges, I'm guessing that nicotine would show on a UDS, wouldn't it? I wonder if that applicant would be considered for hire.
Hmmm,
Mary
| | No. 27 |
Jul 02, 2007, 12:36 AM
Updated
Jul 02, 2007 at 12:37 AM by DarrenWright
Re: Cleveland Clinic will not Hire Smokers Originally Posted by mercyteapot Wow, I applaud you. I knew when I read the OP that the issue of overweight nurses would arise, but never did I dream that someone was going to find a way to stretch this to include a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose. There is no such protection extended to smokers.
The fact is that there are all kinds of private unhealthy behaviors in which nurses may engage. How do you suppose Cleveland Clinic is going to ascertain who has had an abortion? Are we now going to ignore HIPAA, too? Maybe all women should have mandated quarterly testing to ensure that they are complying with such a policy. And what about men and the risks STDs pose to their health? How often should they be tested?
Talk about banging a square peg into a round hole...
It appears you actually got my point, but it also appears you still instinctively had to disagree because abortion was used in the comparison, unless you would suggest that it's OK to occupationally disriminate against people who choose to smoke (because it is psychologically therapeutic), but not OK to discriminate against someone who chose to have an abortion.
BTW, the Constitution has nothing to do with it; the Constitution allows me to own a gun and carry it in public, but my employer says I cannot bring it on the property. This is occupational.
The Clinic could determine abortion history the same way they determine smoker history; ask. If you ask and the employee answers, that's not a HIPAA violation.
Men should never be tested by their employer for STD's as a condition of employment (except I know it happens in the entertainment industry); that's my point. If you want to base employment on health factors such as smoking, then you need to be prepared to accept other such discrimination (such as abortion), that is statistically shown to predispose the person to other risks later.
| | No. 28 |
Jul 02, 2007, 12:51 AM
Re: Cleveland Clinic will not Hire Smokers Originally Posted by DarrenWright It appears you actually got my point, but it also appears you still instinctively had to disagree because abortion was used in the comparison, unless you would suggest that it's OK to occupationally disriminate against people who choose to smoke (because it is psychologically therapeutic), but not OK to discriminate against someone who chose to have an abortion.
BTW, the Constitution has nothing to do with it; the Constitution allows me to own a gun and carry it in public, but my employer says I cannot bring it on the property. This is occupational.
The Clinic could determine abortion history the same way they determine smoker history; ask. If you ask and the employee answers, that's not a HIPAA violation.
Men should never be tested by their employer for STD's as a condition of employment (except I know it happens in the entertainment industry); that's my point. If you want to base employment on health factors such as smoking, then you need to be prepared to accept other such discrimination (such as abortion), that is statistically shown to predispose the person to other risks later.
Actually, the Constitution does have something to do with it. You were suggesting that women who have had abortions not be hired because of an alleged correlation with higher rates of other unpleasantries. Asking applicants or employees for this piece of information is prohibited by law. Constitutional law. Ditto with the STDs for men. Ditto with a plethora of behavior induced health troubles. Not ditto, apparently, with Cleveland Clinic's decision. They clearly feel that they are on solid legal ground and there are precedents for their decision. I'm sure it will be challenged. So be it.
| | No. 29 |
Jul 02, 2007, 12:57 AM
Re: Cleveland Clinic will not Hire Smokers Originally Posted by Suesquatch What peer-reviewed, non-biased studies have concluded the above?
I know of none.
There are about 20 of them on the controversial breast cancer link, and some of them are international. This includes research showing that carrying the first child to full-term decreases risk of breast cancer.
There are at least fifty on the link to prematurity and low-birth-wt infants.
The Univ. of Minnesota found that teens who aborted were more likely to committ suicide.
I'm not making this up; I never do. The Truth is Out There. (Mulder).
|
| 102 members
1,056 guests 1,158
| 5 | | | 48 | | | 0 | | | 7 | | | 12 | | | 26 | | | 2 | | | 14 | | | 63 | | | 14 | |
| 46 | | | 1 | | | 13 | | | 2 | | | 10 | | | 17 | | | 11 | | | 16 | | | 16 | | | 42 | | | 14 | | | 21 | | | 23 | | | 20 | | | 24 | |
|
Nursing News