Cleveland Clinic will not Hire Smokers

I have to agree wholeheartedly! The Clinic isn't talking about employees who smell of smoking exacerbating an asthmatic. They're talking about lowering insurance rates in the name of "modeling... appropriate heathy behavior." By that argument, people with high cholesterol or obesity who aren't following a prescribed diet are in the same category as smokers, as people who are actively doing something legal but not good for them. While I think everyone should do what it healthy, I am well aware as a smoker that not everyone does. But on my own time, I don't believe my work has the right to pick on me for smoking unless they're picking on EVERYONE who does something they know they shouldn't, based on their health. Next, it'll be noncompliant diabetics.

I don't think those who've had a one-off thing in the past, should be targeted. Would we think it ok if someone who had a drug problem 20 years ago (or even 2 years ago) but is now clean, should be banned from employment? Even nurses who are in recovery are not discriminated against in this way (in theory).

Oh as for those who say all smokers take hourly breaks... I take small mini-breaks, less than 2 minutes, a couple times on my shift... but I also am the first one back from my regular break, and don't sit on the internet and don't chat for 30 minutes about my personal life with my coworkers when there's work to be done, etc. Don't paint all smokers with the same brush - many of us are insanely anal about not abusing our smoking habit at work and don't participate in the many other non-work time consuming activities others do.

I suspect that this new policy has little to do with positive health practices per se; rather it's all about reduced employee insurance cost for Cleveland Clinic which translates to increased profits.

We MUST take the profit motive out of health care.

What would stop employees from lying about their smoking habits until they get hired?

The move ensures the Clinic will "walk the walk" of a health-care institution that stands for wellness, Chief Executive Dr. Toby Cosgrove said Wednesday.

Here's the thing, though. I don't think you should base your decisions on what "might" happen down the road. You can't judge that smoking should be allowed just because someday, someone might try to ban obese employees, and that wouldn't be right. Or someday, the company might not hire people who sleep around, or people who speed. The issue is smoking. Obesity or speeding or sexual behaviors are other issues, and could be dealt with if/ever they come up.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying if you're going to ban employees for engaging in ONE healthy behavior then you have to ban them for all. Obesity, driving without a seat belt, speeding, unprotected sex with strangers, for example are all poor health behaviors which can result in significant disability or death. Why pick and choose which health behavior you want to model?

Driving without a seat belt and speeding can't be monitored by the hospital directly. Neither can unprotected sex with strangers.

Smoking is something that hospital can test for.

They can pull your driving record from the DMV. A few tickets here and there and bam! no job for you.

As for unprotected sex, again, all they have to do is pull your health record and a STD here or there and again, no job for you. You're not modeling healthy behaviors.

They already pull your credit report, why not your medical and driving records?

Sound silly? Of course it is, but so is testing people to see if they engage in a behavior that while unhealthy, expensive and unwise, is still legal. I guess some people are championing this as a way to encourage good health, but I am not impressed by the tactics being used at all.