Cleveland Clinic will not Hire Smokers

If you're not hired for a job because you aren't able to perform the essential functions of it, for whatever reason, you're not being discriminated against. You are simply unqualified for the position.



This has nothing to do with what the patients are capable of "knowing," but more rather the function of the facility. They are attempting to reduce lost work time and probably insurance cost. If they choose to eliminate an employee based on simple "unhealthy" appearance, they can't just choose one behavior that is even less obvious than others (i.e. such as obesity, and there are no doubt obese people working in the Clinic).

There is absolutely no way you can isolate smoking as a behavior with no valid comparisons in this issue.

BTW, I work with smokers, some of which I never knew smoked until they took a smoke break...there was no odor.

And as much as I despise smoking, I don't believe an employer can ethically discriminate against just one kind of behavior. And if people decide that it would be OK for the Clinic to discriminate against smokers because of the health risk, then they have nothing to stand on if another employer chooses to deny employment to motorcyclists, or to people who undergo medical procedures that place them at proven risk for later health problems that can be very costly and problematic (i.e. cause them to miss a lot of work).

By that same argument do you think pre-employment drug screening to weed out people who take intoxicating substances is wrong because it discriminates against them?

I do see your point, if the CC moves the line up from people who take drugs to people who smoke and we don't object and later they move that line up to include people who don't wear a helmut when they ride a motorcycle, we loose a little bit of ground if we object.

Despite those fears, I do support the CC drawing the line here and wanting employees who not only talk the talk but walk the walk. The same as gyms want their gym trainers to be in shape, or trying to get in shape, it's not a stretch for me to think a hospital would want employees who don't smoke.

Hey there Darren -

There are some air medical providers that are moving to independent providers and their medical crew can be required to meet FAA regulations. So....

I also think that the "strict" rules from years ago on weight are eased in certain programs based on the aircraft.

Thin is nice. Competent is absolutely required. We have a couple of medics over 250# at 6'3". I think that would feel pretty tight, but .... no real problems.

But now when the "spit cups" that were left by prior crew rolls out of the helicopter door it does p(&% you off - wonder how to stop THAT? And the smoking thing does irk me, but much less so that when I did ICU and "they" were taking breaks every hour or so! But, I would vote FOR a nicotine ban as a prohibited substance.

And what about pretty? That is "required" too!? (Kinda kidding..)
And NO, I really don't take myself that seriously!

Your gym analogy would be fine if the Clinic was doing it for the same reason. I'm sure the gym wants 'in shape' employees because customers won't want to be trained by an unfit trainer, but the Clinic isn't trying to protect it's consumer base with this policy; they are trying to reduce cost by discriminating against one specific type of behavior that is otherwise socially acceptable.

CC hasn't said that they're trying to reduce costs; they've said that they're trying to avoid employees who model unhealthy behavior. You keep pointing this out to people who mention the effect smokers have on their patients, saying that CC hasn't made this decision based on that. It is unfair for you, then, to keep mentioning cost when that also isn't what CC is claiming as their motive.

Of course they said that. It's blatantly false. There is no financial incentive for the Clinic to influence non-smoking behavior among it's patients, but significant financial benefit to dictate employee behavior. And if they want to suggest that there is no financial impact on lost time due to smoking related illnesses, then they are hypocrites to suggest that there is then a need to model healthy behavior by banning smokers.

Next they will be turning away people with elevated blood sugar or high cholesterol, or forcing a genetics screening for certain diseases...all unethical big brother behavior that is a violation of civil liberties.

Would they suggest that Barak Obama is uneligible to be president? Would Dr. Freud would be turned away for a job in psychiatry?

Oh, wow, you mean they were smoking in the patients rooms, or the hallways or what? How were the smokers endangering their patients?
By carrying an unpleasent odor?

Smoking is dangerous to your health, no one should smoke. But it is still legal, and if someone wants to do it they should not have their employment endangered as long as they are not endangering others.

Come on, with the intent of "we're modeling what we think is appropriate healthy behavior." the next thing is to not hire overweight people, or those who drink alcohol.

This is simply another example of the steady erosion of personal rights in this country. The liberal left seems to always know what is better for others and to force that on the population as a whole.

Let me take care of myself in my personal life, if what I do is endangering others than put a stop to it, but if it is only myself than that is my right in this country to do so.