Pre employment substance testing

WookieeRN, BSN, MSN, RN · Apr 22, 2015

An employer can use any reason to disqualify you as long as it isn't because of a protected class. If I dont like the perfume you wore to the interview, I could refuse to hire you and its legal. Hospitals in the Philadelphia area, for example, can fire you for smoking cigarettes or refuse to hire you, and it's legal.

Altra, BSN, RN · Apr 22, 2015

This is not new - I first heard of a (non-healthcare) employer denying employment to those who tested positive for nicotine about a decade ago. As you said - tobacco users are not a protected group. I can recall being asked about tobacco use as part of the employment screening process as long ago as the late '80s. And as long as these practices do not specifically violate a state law, they have been upheld in judicial review.

Emergent, RN · Apr 22, 2015

Cigarette smokers are less productive workers.

Smokers drag down a workplace, study says - CNN.com

But a new study shows smokers have poorer-than-average work performance and productivity; they also tend to call in sick more.In a study of more than 14,000 Swedish workers, Petter Lundborg, Ph.D., an economist at the Free University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, found smokers took an average of almost 11 more sick days than non-smokers.
The number was adjusted to account for smokers' tendency to choose riskier jobs and have poorer underlying health, bringing the difference to just below eight days a year, Lundborg wrote in his study, which was published in the April 2007 issue of Tobacco Journal.
"The results suggest that policies that reduce and/or prevent smoking may also reduce the number of days of sick leave," Lundborg wrote. He recommends more research into the link between sick leave and smoking, as factors other than tobacco use may play a part in the absences.

AJJKRN · Apr 23, 2015

Cigarette smokers are less productive workers.
Smokers drag down a workplace, study says - CNN.com

Maybe and maybe not. I have coworkers that are smokers than rock out the shift and I coworkers that are young and healthy, eat vegan, work out every day in the gym but can't stay off of social networks/phones long enough to be productive. Now cigarette smokers do have increased documented health risks that can cause health care entity's to pay more for their healthcare costs. As for the healthy but glued to social media types, so far I'm not aware that they have any statistics showing increased health risks (such as PE's from sitting too long). Just my two cents :blink:

klone, MSN, RN · Apr 23, 2015

I wasn't aware that testing included substances such as tobacco, I naively thought the testing was only for illicit drugs.

Not all facilities do test for cotinine.

For the hospitals that don't hire cigarette smokers that I've applied to, it clearly states on their website when you apply for a job "We do not hire tobacco users, by applying you are stating that you haven't used tobacco in x months, blah blah"

At my hospital, when we do a urine drug test on patients, our facility no longer even tests for marijuana.

Libby1987 · Apr 23, 2015

I wasn't aware that testing included substances such as tobacco, I naively thought the testing was only for illicit drugs.
I'm just wondering how they get around declining hiring based on legal substance use? I know medication users and smokers are not protected groups but couldn't these be spun into discrimination without cause, particularly medications?

After seeing my post quoted, yikes, I tangled my thoughts.. Screening for tobacco use, testing for nicotine (but I see that isn't correct either).