I just applied for a Student Nurse Associate position at a hospital affiliated with the organization that runs all the big hospitals in my area- (basically everyone in my state who works in healthcare has at one time done some training at one of the hospitals or worked for the hospitals) and even before I even filled out the application online a huge notification pops up that reads something like
ATTENTION YOU MUST ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT TOBACCO USE, as of 1/1/2012 X WILL NO LONGER HIRE USERS OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS
it was in a huge box in big red letters
I just found this interesting because I am a former smoker and just quit about 2 years ago. I want to hear what you guys think.
Although I don't agree with not hiring smokers (because it is a legal activity), I can understand why some hopsitals would make this rule. I work on a mother-baby unit and there have been several instances where patients have complained about a nurse smelling like smoke. I know I wouldn't want someone holding my baby if they smell like cigarettes. Especially with all the teaching we give them about not smoking and the dangers of second hand smoke.
However, since they are testing for nicotine in general, who's to say some of these people who test positive weren't just chewing some nicotine gum? I think it should be handled on a case by case bases for staff who come in to work reeking of cigarettes.
I cannot find a a single reputable news agency that has covered this. Not even CNN or MSNBC. If it were true they would be all over it. Also addictinginfo.org is such a reputable site they refuse to post who their writers are.
Anyone in the health care industry knows releasing info of this nature at will is a big HIPPA violation. HIPPA is a Federal law, which supercedes any State law.
They sound like a bunch of loones trying to upset people over nothing.
There are only 2 major hospitals in my area, one is a Catholic hospital. It doesn't cover oral contraceptives and doesn't allow it's physicians to perform tubal ligation's,or vasectomies. If you have your 4th child in their hospital, and want a tubal you have to make an appointment later with a physician not affiliated with their hospital, even if you have a c section and they are "in there" anyway!
Specializes in Critical Care, ED, Cath lab, CTPAC,Trauma.
Huh?? What does being a girl have to do with it? And smoking does cause lung problems. This post confuses me. I am not sure what it has to do with the ethics/legality of governing what employees do on their own time.
Specializes in Critical Care, ED, Cath lab, CTPAC,Trauma.
i cannot find a a single reputable news agency that has covered this. not even cnn or msnbc. if it were true they would be all over it. also addictinginfo.org is such a reputable site they refuse to post who their writers are.
anyone in the health care industry knows releasing info of this nature at will is a big hippa violation. hippa is a federal law, which supersedes any state law.
they sound like a bunch of looney trying to upset people over nothing.
it's hipaa not hippa
the health insurance portability and accountability act of 1996 (hipaa; pub.l. 104-191, 110 stat. 1936, enacted august 21, 1996)
Specializes in Nurse Leader specializing in Labor & Delivery.
As a nonsmoker married to a smoker and had a father who smoked my whole life.... If I were tested, I'd be fired and I haven't had a cigarette to my mouth but I do inhale or I would die.. :) so now what? It's unfair I have to agree.
Cotinine levels are different depending on if it's first-hand or second hand smoke. Meaning, they can tell if you're a smoker, or if you just live with one.
"...A new study reveals that the residue of nicotine that lingers on surfaces can react with another chemical in the air to form potent carcinogens — chemicals linked to various cancers. While first-hand smoke is that inhaled directly by the smoker and second-hand is the smoke exhaled (and inhaled by others), third-hand smoke is the residue from second-hand smoke.....Anyone who has entered a confined space — a room, an elevator, a vehicle, etc. — where someone has recently been smoking, knows that the scent lingers for an extended period of time.
"The burning of tobacco releases nicotine in the form of a vapor that adsorbs strongly onto indoor surfaces, such as walls, floors, carpeting, drapes and furniture. Nicotine can persist on those materials for days, weeks and even months,"......
I think it's total BS. If an employee chooses to smoke off campus, then it should not be a problem.
However, it becomes a problem when employees think they have a right to their 15 min breaks, rather then it being a privelage (spelling?) when time allows. This was always a problem on a unit I used to work on, it'd be crazy busy and you always had your few who HAD to go out at the same time everyday and it was just too busy that they shouldn't have gone, especially since 15 min always turned into 17 or 20.
On another note, I realize healthcare facilities are trying to be healthy, but then if that's the case where they refuse to hire smokers, they should not be hiring anyone who is overweight or obese and eats garbage food all the time, because that is also extremely unhealthy. What is that teaching our patients? It's a double standard also.
Almost all the hospitals in my area put their foot down on hiring smokers last year. They even gave their current employee's the ultimatum to either quit smoking or lose your job.
IMO, I think it's a little extreme. Hospital's should be allowed to regulate what goes on while you're at work but what you do at home is your own business. Flat out refusing to hire smokers is just the beginning of more future problems.
Our hospital has a no smoking policy on campus. I'm a smoker, and I work my 12.5 hour shift and then go home and smoke. What I do on my own time is my business, as long as I am not engaging in any illegal activity. If hospitals want to start refusing to hire smokers, why not refuse to hire people who consume alcohol. Both are legal activities, however smoking does not make one stupid. If they can tell employees not to smoke in their own homes, what's stopping them from telling employees that they can not drink in their own homes. Oh and 15 minute breaks are not a privilege, they are a right according to the labor laws, at least in New York state. Not that many of us get to take one. I can understand employers wanting to curtail unhealthy, illegal behaviors, but where will it end?
.... in addition, there's a law that is been consider in az, that employers won't hire females that use contraceptives."
what employer would refuse to hire a woman using contraceptives even they could legally refuse to hire her? women who use contraceptives are much better employees than those who don't, because they won't be pregnant every year and out on fmla leave all the time. in the 1970's and before employers were way of hiring women because they thought the woman would get pregnant and quit, the widespread use of contraceptives is what truly allowed women to have careers with continuity.
and besides - how would the employer even know who is using contraceptives? unless they want to strap me down and give me an ultrasound, there's no way they can know i have a mirena if i don't tell them.
.thumb.jpg.4ad5bc0dd1a7f59b50d4f547a1cc178d.jpg){kind=small}
stillwaiting123
18 Posts
Although I don't agree with not hiring smokers (because it is a legal activity), I can understand why some hopsitals would make this rule. I work on a mother-baby unit and there have been several instances where patients have complained about a nurse smelling like smoke. I know I wouldn't want someone holding my baby if they smell like cigarettes. Especially with all the teaching we give them about not smoking and the dangers of second hand smoke.
However, since they are testing for nicotine in general, who's to say some of these people who test positive weren't just chewing some nicotine gum? I think it should be handled on a case by case bases for staff who come in to work reeking of cigarettes.