mind blown about mom's job's smoke free policy (srs)

[SoberScotsman]

i'm about to call philip morris and inquire about this. i don't smoke but i think this is flat out wrong.

So you don't smoke or work there but for some reason you feel the need to kick up a fuss about it?
Where's the logic in this?

[LakeTech105]

What about smokeless tabacco? Can that cause you to fail the test as well?

[ab931]

Why doesn't your whore ****ing mother take this as an initiative to stop smoking.


brb smelling like a ****ing whore
brb lung cancer

[turbotoast]

i know. i don't understand the legality of how they can do this. not on the premises i can understand. i get smoke free in that aspect because a job can tell you what you can and cannot do AT work. i do not understand how they can tell you what you can do in your own home. it is legal, it is your own home, how do they have say?

people are always complaining about our civil liberties being trampled and i usually don't see it, at all. this though is a bit crazy. what is next?



this is a legit hospital. big hospital. my mom makes a little over 60k a year. economy is **** and so it isn't like workers who want to smoke can just leave willy nilly and find work the next day.

Point is it is completely legal for them to do this if she signed on for it. Same as Coke will fire it's employees if they are seen drinking Pepsi type of deal. There is 0 room for any legal action on your moms part.

[iamxclusive]

I can kind of see where they are coming from. If you work at a hospital you are promoting health, which does not go with smoking. Dealing with lung cancer patients and all. How you you like to see a doctor who reeked of cigarettes. They shouldn't go as far as to firing someone for having some drinks and smoking a cigarette or cigar on the weekend.

[TurdMuffin]

ohio has at will employment. they can fire you for any/no reason (barring, i assume, things that violate civil rights acts) and you can quit for any/no reason.

[KBkilla]

Current laws say otherwise, but no matter how immoral you think it may be, in a truly free society, any employer has the right to discriminate against anyone for anything. If you don't like it, don't work there. It's that simple. You can't govern or regulate morality. Just look at The Civil Rights Act. It didn't fix racism, it simply drove it underground.

[amoosenamedhank]

Many states do not require the employer to provide reason for termination. That leaves it completely at the discretion of the employer. There is no legal action that can be taken because of this.

Does it suck? Maybe... but that doesn't make it illegal.

As long as the company is picking up health care costs (which I'm assuming a hospital is), I believe they certainly do have a right to decide what they are paying for. If you're dragging their premiums down because you decide to smoke, why shouldn't they have a say?

The more strict their requests are, the less likely they will be to offer a competitive work place and the free market will weed them out.

You think it's narrow minded but as long as they're flipping the bill, it's their right; if you don't agree with their decisions, you can look for employment else where.

[wollo7]

to be hired you have to sign a waiver.

there's tons of stuff i don't agree with, but if you sign saying you'll agree with it....

[Clives_Bicep]

she told me about how they changed it six months ago. social worker at hospital in ohio. they give urine tests once a month at random for tobacco use. even one cigarette leaves cotinine (nicotine causes it to be produced in the body) in your system for 2-4 days. to be hired you have to sign a waiver. if you fail a test you are fired.

mind is blown that you can do something that is 100% legal, in your own home, and get fired for it. i don't smoke but i think it is bull **** that a place can fire you for something that is legal. contemplating emailing philip morris just to see what their lawyers have to say about it.

well its perfectly legal to bitch out your boss and complain about the company you work for, and that would get you fired.

[BloodFireDeath]

I can kind of see where they are coming from. If you work at a hospital you are promoting health, which does not go with smoking. Dealing with lung cancer patients and all. How you you like to see a doctor who reeked of cigarettes. They shouldn't go as far as to firing someone for having some drinks and smoking a cigarette or cigar on the weekend.

Same should be true for obese people then. They are obese by choice, have significantly increased risk for CAD, HTN, Metabolic syndrome, Diabeetus etc, gives a wrong impression.

But if that happened
brb huge outcry
brb national media, newspapers
brb losing lawsuit

(inb4 thyroid disorder)

If we were to go by the medical insurance cost excuse, what if an employee proves that he smokes , say 1 cigarette every 4 days, which has not been shown to put the individual at an increased risk for any disease above the general population in any study, what then?

[guest89]

I think its a good policy and support it. IMO if a smoker wants to work there they should not be allowed to have insurance through the company, and they shouldn't be allowed to smoke on the premises.

If they take too many smoke breaks you can always fire them for leaving the premises all the time while they are supposed to be working.

I never touch a cigarette at work(6-9 hours), but when I'm at home or out getting yucky and want a cig let me enjoy it. Fuk, where is my freedom man?

You have freedom to work somewhere else......

this has nothing to do with civil liberties guise

this is a contract between employer (hospital) and employee (social worker)

the hospital wants to save money on health insurance, and they can do so by implementing this policy. if the employees don't like it, they can work elsewhere.

Exactly.

Another aspect regarding smokers that i don't often see: taking breaks. although everyone is entitled to breaks, i'm sure the average non-smoker will skip taking a break here and there. you can bet your ass smokers will take literally every single break possible/make extra breaks just to have a smoke

This 100%. Assuming someone smokes 1 pack a day (a lot of people smoke double that) and you work a 8 hour period, you may literally be taking a 5-10 minute break every 30-40 minutes.

Sure, one or two isn't a big deal... But when everyone else is working and the smoker keeps taking "Smoke breaks" which means walking off the premises. Sitting around smoking. Then walking back to the premises... sh!t sucks.



With my old job all my coworkers would stop to take a smoke break at the same time. So when they started doing that I would stop working and just lay down for a bit. My boss asked me wtf I was doing being lazy and I told him I was tired of steadily working while everyone else stopped to smoke all the time. (They literally took 10 every 30 mins)...

Eventually I just quit because of BS like that.

i don't understand how anybody, government, employer, anybody can tell me i cannot do something in my own home and outside of work (that is legal). i'm aware of insurance costs you dumbass. why don't hospitals ban fast food and not have half of their staff being fat asses?

Hard to ban fast food because some people can't cook and don't get a long enough lunch break to go sit and eat at a restaurant.

and also blacks (statistically more at risk of high blood pressure and related complications) as well as homosexuals (more likely to have aids according to statistics)


why limit it to smokers ?

Because smoking is extremely harmful and it is a pure choice,

So you don't smoke or work there but for some reason you feel the need to kick up a fuss about it?
Where's the logic in this?

OP wants a lawsuit.

[FlyOrDie]

America ... the land of the free ....

[GloboRick]

Some jobs require micro chip implants in their employees, you'd be surprised.

[ClaptonDeCheeks]

what if you use nicoderm or the nicotine gum? you'd still get fired for that?

[zakatak333]

support an individual's right to smoke

also support an employer's right to discriminate based on lifestyle decisions that impede productivity in the workplace


the problem here is the employer's method of screening for decreased productivity

tobacco use itself is not inherently counterproductive

just simply having it in your system, you could have been smoking at home in a responsible, non-addicted manner

problems resulting from tobacco addiction, however, ARE counterproductive

smoking on hospital grounds, leaving your shift to smoke, apparent withdrawal symptoms alarming co-workers or patients, disturbing odors, etc. are legitimate grounds for dismissal


it just so happens this hospital doesn't want to expend resources to have a "fair" screening process, based soley on workplace performance

its much more cost-effective to urine test and discriminate based on nicotine metabolites


also, in my estimation, most smokers ARE addicted and WILL leave their shift to puff on a stick

this doesn't mean its fair to assume ALL smokers will cause problems in the workplace


this is another example of the fact that we don't live in a perfect world

there's a trade off here between justice and expense,

they chose keeping the cost low

[amoosenamedhank]

You seem very concerned about the liberties of the employee, but not at all concerned about the rights of the employer. You think the government should force companies to employ individuals they don't to employ? Where are the civil rights in that?

Unless you signed a contract during your hiring process with specific terms, your employer as the right to change your employment terms at any minute.

You can have been working some where for 10 years, and tomorrow they tell you that you can no longer work there if you smoke. That is their right.

If anyone's first response is to sue.... you are what is wrong with this country.

[Sathane]

strong narrow mindedness and inability to see the actual issue with this. 19...

Age: 28

Doesn't get the point regarding workplace rules.

If the conditions of employment state that she can't be a smoker, then she agrees to those conditions by accepting employment. Simple as that. The only recourse she has for anything is if she's worked there for a while and this is a new thing. However, if she signed the document, she's agreed to it. Also, it would be difficult for a workplace to conclusively prove that she's smoked with that test since cotitine will show up after exposure to second hand smoke as well.

Her workplace probably has health benefits, and if that's the case then they are well within their right to push that policy. It pisses me off that I pay inflated taxes to cover the additional billions of dollars required in health care costs to take care of these tards that do it to themselves.

[zakatak333]

It pisses me off that I pay inflated taxes to cover the additional billions of dollars required in health care costs to take care of these tards that do it to themselves.

solution = add more taxes to tobacco products, use THAT money to fund health care for tobacco related health problems

[DiamondSwagg]

i don't understand how anybody, government, employer, anybody can tell me i cannot do something in my own home and outside of work (that is legal). i'm aware of insurance costs you dumbass. why don't hospitals ban fast food and not have half of their staff being fat asses?

Say you start a business. You want your business to be successful. In your lifetime you've noticed that people who speed have a poorer performance than those who drive the speed limit. You have every right to say "If you get a speeding ticket while working here you will be terminated."

[Sathane]

solution = add more taxes to tobacco products, use THAT money to fund health care for tobacco related health problems

Irrelevent when it comes to employers paying for health benefits.

And they do that here already. I don't smoke but I remember when a pack cost around 3-4 dollars, now it's around 10.

[Sathane]

Say you start a business. You want your business to be successful. In your lifetime you've noticed that people who speed have a poorer performance than those who drive the speed limit. You have every right to say "If you get a speeding ticket while working here you will be terminated."

Only 22 and he gets it. Faith in youth restored.

[QuadraQuint]

That's pretty harsh but honestly, but I feel like it's a step in the right direction. Smoking kills. I don't even think smoking should be legal. Consequence should be different and more fair especially when we're talking about firing and replacing skilled workers. Productivity will plummet for sure, especially with familiarizing new workers taking place of old ones for failing a stupid test, not to mention the current epidemic regarding unemployment. Get fired? Ok, they really need to think this through, every single social worker was a smoker and they failed the test, what now? Fire them all and replace them? Does this go for doctors and nurses as well? The next issue is this and it might blow your mind, but nicotine is good for you. Not smoking and the other 4000+ chemicals, but nicotine.

[Sergis]

You seem very concerned about the liberties of the employee, but not at all concerned about the rights of the employer. You think the government should force companies to employ individuals they don't to employ? Where are the civil rights in that?

Unless you signed a contract during your hiring process with specific terms, your employer as the right to change your employment terms at any minute.

You can have been working some where for 10 years, and tomorrow they tell you that you can no longer work there if you smoke. That is their right.

If anyone's first response is to sue.... you are what is wrong with this country.

fuk you this is amerika im entitled to smoke