I was looking at nursing positions and clicked at a hospital to find out more about its policies. I'm not a smoker, and I really can't stand it, but even I found it a little fascist that a hospital would rescind a job offer if you tested positive for nicotine. Not only that, but you cannot reapply for an entire year!
Sounded pretty punitive for a legal chemical/drug, as distasteful as nicotine is. I wonder how else this hospital thrusts themselves into staff's personal, legal activities. It being a 'faith based' hospital, would they bring your birth control practices up? What else can administration meddle in?
oh you better believe that faith based hospitals have a say in their employees birth control options. I work for a Catholic facility and if you have their insurance and see their docs, birth control is not covered (have to pay out of pocket if you want it) and the doc's cannot be prescribe birth control. Not only that, but they dont do tubals there either after delivering a baby.
oh you better believe that faith based hospitals have a say in their employees birth control options. I work for a Catholic facility and if you have their insurance and see their docs, birth control is not covered (have to pay out of pocket if you want it) and the doc's cannot be prescribe birth control. Not only that, but they dont do tubals there either after delivering a baby.
Now isn't that crazy. What world are we living in...or should I say what century? I have to wonder if Dr. is able to write Rx for Viagra.
wow this thread just turned so snarky so quickly because one poster misinterpretted the OP. let's go ahead and set some rules on AN, shall we? let's start with number one being "read the OP carefully and thoroughly before posting a rude response to it." ugh. what a rude world we live in these days...
Tobacco users actually are a protected class in some states - for example, here in Kentucky. Obesity is a protected class in MI, but nowhere else (yet) as far as I know. If obesity is caused by a disability, though, the obese person might be protected from discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
I know this is slightly off topic, but just wanted to address the legalities of refusing to hire smokers or obese individuals.
Found this on a labor law forum, and it was posted by a moderator there. That doesn't mean it's completely accurate, but it's a starting point for further research.
Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have laws in effect elevating smokers to a protected class. It's illegal for companies to impose smoking bans on their employees when they are off duty.
State Year Code
California 2005 CA LABOR CODE 96(k) & 98.6
Colorado 1990 CO REV. STAT. ANN 24-34-402.5
Connecticut 2003 CT GEN. STAT. ANN. 31-40s
District of Columbia 1993 D.C. CODE ANN. 7-1703.3
Illinois 1987 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. 55/5
Indiana 2006 IND. CODE 22-5-4-1 et seq.
Kentucky 1994 KY REV. STAT. ANN. 344.040
Louisiana 1991 LA REV. STAT. ANN. 23:966
Maine 1991 ME REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 26, 597
Minnesota 1992 MINN. STAT. 181.938
Mississippi 1994 MISS. CODE ANN. 71-7-33
Missouri 1992 MO. REV. STAT. 290.145
Montana 1993 MONT. CODE ANN. 39-2-313 & 39-2-314
Nevada 1991 NEV. REV. STAT. 613.333
New Hampshire 1991 N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. 275:37-a
New Jersey 1991 N.J. STAT. ANN. 34:6B-1 et seq.
New Mexico 1991 N.M. STAT. ANN. 50-11-1 et seq.
New York 1992 N.Y. [LABOR] LAW 201-d
North Carolina 1991 N.C. GEN. STAT. 95-28.2
North Dakota 1993 N.D. CENT. CODE 14-02.4-01 et seq.
Oklahoma 1991 OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 40, 500
Oregon 1989 OR. REV. STAT. 659A.315 & 659A.885
Rhode Island 2005 R.I. GEN. LAWS 23-20.10-14
South Carolina 1991 S.C. CODE ANN. 41-1-85
South Dakota 1991 S.D. CODIFIED LAWS 60-4-11
Tennessee 1990 TENN. CODE ANN. 50-1-304
Virginia 1989 VA. CODE ANN. 2.2-2902
West Virginia 1992 W. VA. CODE 21-3-19
Wisconsin 1991 WIS. STAT. 111.31 et seq.
Wyoming 1992 WYO. STAT. ANN. 27-9-101 et seq.
Last updated: 5/20/09
ETA: I looked up one of the state's statutes. It includes this clause:
(b) This Section does not apply to any employer that is a non‑profit organization that, as one of its primary purposes or objectives, discourages the use of one or more lawful products by the general public. This Section does not apply to the use of those lawful products which impairs an employee's ability to perform the employee's assigned duties.
if smokers are the target now, i can see future rulings against high bmi's, cholesterol and blood alcohol.. all are bad choices yes, and cause a strain on health care and it's cost..
you may not be a smoker, but i am sure they will not stop at just that.. you are right, it is a slippery slope.
a hospital in my area put nurses on probation for having a high bmi and cholesterol
they had 6 months to lose it or lose their jobs.....
To me, I like the idea of smoke free campus. After almost 20yrs of ER nursing it gets really, really, really, really freaking old covering other nurses for smoke breaks. I worked with this one lady that took so many smoke breaks I'd finally got to where if she went on a smoke break I went too. I stood there holding an unlit cigarette til she finally got the idea. Just cause you have a habit doesn't mean I should have to suffer.
Every one is entitled to a break; how they use it should be up to them. However it sounds like you're saying that this person was taking unauthorized breaks just to smoke?? If so you should not have covered for her.
.thumb.gif.a0171653eaae518ecf728198d692fc48.gif){kind=avatar}
SunnyPupRN
289 Posts
I believe it.