I wish someone would stand-up to these people

[Browns7213]

Holy Spirit implements no-nicotine hiring policy

CAMP HILL — Beginning April 1, Holy Spirit, a Geisinger Affiliate, will no longer hire job applicants who use tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars and chewing or smokeless tobacco.

“Holy Spirit is joining numerous hospitals and medical organizations across the country that are encouraging healthier living, decreasing absenteeism and reducing health care costs by adopting strict policies that require non-nicotine use by job applicants,” said Lori Moran, director of public relations and marketing with Holy Spirit. “Our mission is healing and good health, so it is important for us to set a good example for our patients and community.”

During the hiring process, all applicants, will be tested for nicotine as part of the routine drug screening. The test, which will include screening for cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, snuff, nicotine patches and nicotine gum, only detects active nicotine users, not those exposed to second-hand smoke. The policy also affects any applicants receiving offer letters as of April 1.

Current employees are not affected by the new policy, but are encouraged to take advantage of the tobacco-cessation programs offered through Holy Spirit’s employee wellness program.

The health system said non-nicotine hiring policies are legal in 21 states, including Pennsylvania.

Geisinger Health System implemented its non-nicotine hiring policy in 2012. Holy Spirit became an affiliate of Geisinger in 2014.

[tmoran]

On one hand, I obviously don't like the policy. On the other, I think employers should be allowed to dictate their employment criteria.

[tnlawyer]

Bah, they're a private company. While I think the policy is kind of screwy, I think it's their prerogative.

[Cool Breeze]

I don't think a government organization should be allowed to do this, but privately owned businesses should be free to hire who they please.

I feel the same way about businesses who post "no guns" signs. Its silly and accomplishes nothing good, but it is their business.

I'll work somewhere else and I'll shop somewhere else.

[izkeh]

I worked for a company that tried this. It really depends upon what the firm is as to whether this will work or not. If it's a manufacturing facility, ehhhhhh, not so much. A doctor's office; sure. The company I worked for built things so the type of people they needed to hire were all failing the nic test. They rescinded the policy shortly after and were able to fill open positions within a month.

[Emperor Zurg]

On one hand, I obviously don't like the policy. On the other, I think employers should be allowed to dictate their employment criteria.


Bah, they're a private company. While I think the policy is kind of screwy, I think it's their prerogative.


I don't think a government organization should be allowed to do this, but privately owned businesses should be free to hire who they please.

I feel the same way about businesses who post "no guns" signs. Its silly and accomplishes nothing good, but it is their business.

I'll work somewhere else and I'll shop somewhere else.

Yup. Stupid policy but a private company should be able to be stupid if they want to.

On the other hand, maybe it all boils down to some sort of non-discrimination and not wanting to pay the cig smokers for a 5 minute cigarette break every 30 minutes. I could understand that.

[garublador]

The test, which will include screening for cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, snuff, nicotine patches and nicotine gum, only detects active nicotine users, not those exposed to second-hand smoke. The policy also affects any applicants receiving offer letters as of April 1.

Current employees are not affected by the new policy, but are encouraged to take advantage of the tobacco-cessation programs offered through Holy Spirit’s employee wellness program.I wonder if any of those cessation programs include the use of patches or gum.

Not hiring someone based on that criteria seems like a bad idea. Why not just charge them more for health insurance? Also the phrase "require non-nicotine use" makes me think the people running that program might not be the brightest. How can you use "not nicotine?"

[EricGagne]

You should all move to Canada. Screening smokers is not legal here and cuban cigars are :D

[cheaphumidors]

It makes me wonder how long before they decide not to hire obese people because they aren't setting good examples for a healthy life style

[Ropey]

I think it's less of a problem with anti-tobacco zealotry and more of a problem that employers have far too much power over their employees. Which is why I work for myself. I don't want a daddy telling me what to do for 8 hours a day -- I certainly don't want one telling me what to do the rest of my time on this planet.

[HIM]

I respect their right to make this kind of decision but this is really ridiculous. I can understand not allowing it on the job but what people do at home shouldn't matter if they show up sober and ready to work.

[Cool Breeze]

You should all move to Canada. Screening smokers is not legal here and cuban cigars are :D

You do make a convincing argument.
However I want to be able to go to Wal Mart and buy an AR-15 in less than 5 minutes and take it home, so I'll stay here. :)

[Brimy]

I agree with Cole. They should have that right for the workplace, but my time is just that, MY TIME!
And tobacco products are not like other "addicting" substance where it carries over into the rest of your life when not using it.
As far as non-smokers being more healthy...
...BULL $HIT!

[Monkey]

It's kind of funny my doctor doesn't seemed concerned with my cigar smoking at all. I'm diabetic so I gotta go in every three months for another blood test. Every so often they re-ask me all the obnoxious questions about medication, drugs and smoking. Last time I was there I mentioned cigar smoking and she said "If you don't inhale just don't even tell us about it". This would probably be different if I had mouth or throat cancer.

Basically they are taking the problems of cigarette smoking and applying it over-broadly to every tobacco product probably because there's no way to find only cigarette smokers. Therefore all nicotine is bad. This is especially funny because they won't hire people trying to quit smoking using patches or gum.

[Browns7213]

My problem is that this is a legal product that causes no impairment in your ability to perform tasks at their jobs. As Kayla, said next they will discriminate against obese people, people who consume alcohol, have red hair, etc. I see that the the policy does not affect current employees which leads me to believe there are a few higher up who enjoy their occasional cigar. I worked for a company that a had a designated smoking area behind the building near the trash bin so the smokers would be hidden from public view. Yet, if you were lucky enough be on the executive wing you would often smell cigar smoke emanating from the CEO's office.

[cheaphumidors]

[QUOTE=Monkey;23436]It's kind of funny my doctor doesn't seemed concerned with my cigar smoking at all. I'm diabetic so I gotta go in every three months for another blood test. Every so often they re-ask me all the obnoxious questions about medication, drugs and smoking. Last time I was there I mentioned cigar smoking and she said "If you don't inhale just don't even tell us about it". This would probably be different if I had mouth or throat cancer.
QUOTE]

I asked both my doctor and my dentist prior to starting smoking cigars and they both said not to worry about it, anything in moderation. In fact, my doctor is a cigar smoker himself.

[quo155]

Ignorance is bliss...

First, I too believe a private company should be able to dictate anything they want when hiring and employing. Of course, its ironic that there are a hundred other things that they can not discriminate against, but they choose to here...and it's acceptable. However, do they screen for alcoholism or even the casual drinker...who also tends to have too much on a Friday night and then gets into a car and drives drunk? No, they won't do that because they may drink too.

I'm digressing...off soapbox, NOW!

Anyway and with all of that said...the two major hospital systems here in Tyler do the same exact thing. One has been doing this for the past five years now.

[Sticky B]

It's not about what you do at home, it's about your "image" as a figure. They don't want their doctors/nurses being seen as "smokers", whether it be on or off the clock. Patients who see them off the clock smoking will still think the same thing if they see them at the hospital.

Big financial companies and the likes have been doing this for some time. I've seen quite a few non-tobacco use agreements for executives and the likes. You don't want the image of someone who might be hurting their health, or doing anything else that might be negative to the public eye, running the company.

I don't like it, and I don't necessarily agree with it, but hey, they does what they does.

That's why I too work for myself.

As for targeting obese people... FAT CHANCE! Like the grandfather clause was in there to protect the higher ups who still enjoy cigars, there are just too many obese people to try to attempt to pass rules against it in any way. Look at how many people who weren't even overweight were up-in-arms that the sizes of sodas was limited in NY for a moment...

It's currently cool to hate smokers, and cigarettes have really made that easy for society pull off. But disliking obese people usually ends up making you look like you're shallow and inconsiderate. Which may or may not be the case, lol.


Also- many obese people are funny, and that's likeable, so they have THAT going for them.

NOT FUNNY:

http://oceanup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/taylor-momsen-cigarette-sassy-83.jpg




FUNNY:

http://infohealth.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/obese-man.jpg

[Branzig]

I get it. They're in the health care industry. But my wife works in health care. Guess what 90% of their staff do?

Over worked, under manned, and way over stressed. They all smoke a carton a day haha [emoji14]

[Lostmason]

Holy Spirit implements no-nicotine hiring policy


reducing health care costs



This is the true reason,with Obama care forcing companies to provide health care they have to reduce costs where they can.Also,I agree that the next targets will be obese,and quite likely people engaged in risky lifestyles such as sky diving and rock climbing.We already have employers that will fire you for comments on Fb and Twitter.Do we really have a private life anymore?

[Old Smokey]

My employer takes out a life insurance policy on nearly all of their employees so they hope I die and don't care if I smoke or not. Rumor has it that if you retire they keep the insurance policy active to eventually collect. Oh, and if a current employee does pass, not once have I seen any management attend the service. Yet they preach how we are family. Yeah, right.

[Monkey]

This is the true reason,with Obama care forcing companies to provide health care they have to reduce costs where they can.Also,I agree that the next targets will be obese,and quite likely people engaged in risky lifestyles such as sky diving and rock climbing.We already have employers that will fire you for comments on Fb and Twitter.Do we really have a private life anymore?

They are a hospital they were already providing healthcare to their employees so Obamacare has nothing to do with this. They won't even get a break on insurance premiums because they aren't forcing the current employees to stop tobacco products. It's an image thing.

[Lynn]

Im so glad I ran to the hills 20 yrs ago and got out of that rat-race. I understand the company line..and its my time...but it still comes down to do you want the job or not???

[Tobias Lutz]

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/26/10/2610f82fc894befd79ba8b09083632be.jpg?itok=yuhyQlSn

[stonecutter2]

http://171.67.24.121/tobacco_web/images/tobacco_ads/doctors_smoking/more_doctors_smoke_camels/large/camels_doctors_whiteshirt.jpg

What's YOUR T zone telling you?

[Lynn]

havent seen those in years...thanks

[stonecutter2]

Here's another good one.

http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/Conspiracy/images/Smoking/chesterfield-scientificevidence.jpg

By the way - Arthur Godfrey got lung cancer and died of emphysema.

[jpalamar]

It makes me wonder how long before they decide not to hire obese people because they aren't setting good examples for a healthy life style

This was the first thing I thought about when i read the first post too!

Wonder if you could agrue the grandfather clause to be discrimination?

[UncleFesterESQ]

Still my all time favorite commercial.... Ahhhhh, the good ole' days!


http://youtu.be/NAExoSozc2c

BTW, Fred. Barney, and Wilma died of natural causes. Betty was killed by a drunken driver.

[TCBSmokes]

How are people supposed to shower then??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5URCGyMINg

[Lynn]

Here's another good one.

http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/Conspiracy/images/Smoking/chesterfield-scientificevidence.jpg

By the way - Arthur Godfrey got lung cancer and died of emphysema.


no problem there, they keep trying to give low cal, no sugar, no salt and other things they think are healthy...my question is who, is it healthy for....., not me

[Engineer99]

A few months ago I was sent paperwork to work at Levi Stadium by the temp agency that Local 134 uses to book employees. In the 30 some odd pages, there was an agreement to a drug test. Drug testing stagehands? Really? Maybe they were making sure you were smoking weed instead of not. "Yeah, we got another non stoner here. I recommend an eighth of Skywalker and a gram of hash stat.".

I worked the NHL stadium series hockey game a few weeks ago and I saw all the familiar faces. I don't think a single one of us has peed in a cup.

[thechasm442]

I think it's less of a problem with anti-tobacco zealotry and more of a problem that employers have far too much power over their employees. Which is why I work for myself. I don't want a daddy telling me what to do for 8 hours a day -- I certainly don't want one telling me what to do the rest of my time on this planet.

Plus all the companies telling you what you can do with your personal freedom outside of work by the means of drug testing.

I have a friend who works for a railway/distribution company and if he takes more than a 1 week vacation he is automatically drug tested before he returns to work. So much for that vacation to Colorado!

[BMack]

This entire country is all about double standards. You see these grizzly anti-tobacco adds but could you imagine how quickly they'd be sued if they showed diabetic ambulations from eating fast food? MANY more people die each year from unhealthy eating than tobacco use.

[FireRunner]

Many fire departments, prior to being hired, require you to sign a document stating you will not use any form of tobacco on or off the job. If found guilty it could lead to immediate termination without recourse. This sort of policy is common in many companies (even government ones). The reality is...it's all about insurance. I'll leave it at that and let you folks think about my second to last sentence ;)

[Cool Breeze]

This entire country is all about double standards. You see these grizzly anti-tobacco adds but could you imagine how quickly they'd be sued if they showed diabetic ambulations from eating fast food? MANY more people die each year from unhealthy eating than tobacco use.

Yeah I agree with all of this.
And of course the U.S. is all about double standards. Hell, we were founded on a very basic double standard. We were founded by a group of slave owners who wanted to be free. Doesn't get much more of a double standard than that.

[HIM]

A few months ago I was sent paperwork to work at Levi Stadium by the temp agency that Local 134 uses to book employees. In the 30 some odd pages, there was an agreement to a drug test. Drug testing stagehands? Really? Maybe they were making sure you were smoking weed instead of not. "Yeah, we got another non stoner here. I recommend an eighth of Skywalker and a gram of hash stat.".

I worked the NHL stadium series hockey game a few weeks ago and I saw all the familiar faces. I don't think a single one of us has peed in a cup.

Don't forget the Northern Lights and NYC Diesel lol.

[bobajob]

I don't think a government organization should be allowed to do this, but privately owned businesses should be free to hire who they please.

I feel the same way about businesses who post "no guns" signs. Its silly and accomplishes nothing good, but it is their business.

I'll work somewhere else and I'll shop somewhere else.

Really though? How about 'No blacks, asians, women, homos or wops need apply.'

I use the racially charged language here deliberately to make a point. Smoking is legal.

[Cool Breeze]

So the government should be able to tell a small business owner that he can't hire who he wants to hire?

Wow.

Tattooing your face, gauging your ears to the size of dinner plates and trying to convert everyone to Satanism is legal too. Think those people are getting hired? Perhaps you think the government should force businesses to hire them. After all, its legal. Being legal means absolutely nothing in this situation.

And whether or not behavior is legal or not has nothing to do with someone's race, gender or sexuality. That is an apples to oranges comparison.
Big difference in something that is in your control and something that isn't.

That's all we need is more government control over private citizens and private businesses.

[BMack]

So the government should be able to tell a small business owner that he can't hire who he wants to hire?

Wow.

Tattooing your face, gauging your ears to the size of dinner plates and trying to convert everyone to Satanism is legal too. Think those people are getting hired? Perhaps you think the government should force businesses to hire them. After all, its legal. Being legal means absolutely nothing in this situation.

And whether or not behavior is legal or not has nothing to do with someone's race, gender or sexuality. That is an apples to oranges comparison.
Big difference in something that is in your control and something that isn't.

That's all we need is more government control over private citizens and private businesses.

Agreed. While I think it's a crappy practice not to hire someone that does something perfectly legal, they shouldn't be forced to hire or no hire anyone...we're also not forced to support their crappy business :)

[Cool Breeze]

That's my point. The government doesn't have to do anything.
We the people can decide what businesses stay in business and which ones do not by voting with our wallets. There are several businesses I won't spend money in because I don't agree with their practices.

[Ropey]

Reminds me of the story I read about some huge company that basically set up an entire town for its workers... probably an oil or mining company somewhere in the boonies of America back in the early part of the 20th century. I don't remember exactly where or when.

The company provided infrastructure, utilities, housing, police, firefighting, schooling, etc for its employees/citizens. But it suspended many Constitutional rights in the town. Workers sued for violation of Constitutional rights. Usually you can only sue the government for violation of Constitutional rights, which was the company's defense.

Supreme Court said that if a company or non-governmental entity provided services that were very similar to what a traditional government provided, it was considered the government. Employees won.

[Tobias Lutz]

Really though? How about 'No blacks, asians, women, homos or wops need apply.'

I use the racially charged language here deliberately to make a point. Smoking is legal.

One doesn't just decide in their 20s to quit being "black, asian, a women" etc. Personally I don't support the idea of anti-discrimination clauses extending to tobacco users.

[Aithos]

Really though? How about 'No blacks, asians, women, homos or wops need apply.'

I use the racially charged language here deliberately to make a point. Smoking is legal.

The point you guys are missing is that this is a free country and they are allowed to make hiring decisions based on things that are PERSONAL CHOICES. You don't choose your race, you don't choose your sex, you don't choose your sexual orientation and all of those things are protected by hiring laws. You *do* choose whether you're a smoker or not, whether you do drugs or not and companies are well within their rights to make hiring decisions based on those things. I would be a lot MORE concerned if as a PRIVATE BUSINESS you were not legally allowed to choose the sort of employees you want to hire. I also think that hiring based on obesity is absolutely fine and a lot of companies already do it.

As someone who has been a store manager and hired employees here are some of my thoughts (and you're welcome to disagree, it's a free country):

1) If you are 300+ pounds you don't take care of yourself, you aren't even remotely physically fit which makes any job requiring you to do something besides sit behind a desk a challenge. Your insurance costs are higher, you probably aren't as healthy and therefore miss more work, you probably don't work as hard because there is a higher chance that you're lazy than someone who is fit and somewhat in shape. Etc. Now I'm talking about morbidly obese people, not people with a beer belly or a bit of pudge. You can see where the thought process is though, and it's well within my rights to make those kinds of judgements. Being obese is a personal choice in all but the most extreme genetic circumstances. Losing weight can be tough, but anyone willing to commit FULLY to doing it will be successful.

2) If you're a smoker many of the same things apply - your healthcare costs are higher, you probably miss more days of work, you probably don't work as hard (because you take more breaks), you are probably less physically fit for any manual labor type job, etc. Again, it's a completely valid reason to judge someone. Also, if you show up to a job interview reeking like cigarettes and couldn't refrain from smoking after you shower/dress for an interview (meaning you can't go a couple hours without a smoke) then I'm not hiring you. It means you either 1) don't care you smell like shit or 2) you smoke over a pack a day and you'll always be outside smoking and not working.

I get the fact that its your life and your choice what you want to do - and I FULLY support your right to make that choice. I won't judge or criticize you for it, I really don't care at all. I just ALSO fully support *MY* right and the right of anyone who owns a business to NOT hire you for those choices. It's not a double standard and it's not hypocritical, freedom works both ways and people in groups that are often discriminated against like to forget that when it's convenient.

People also like to conveniently forget that there are very real consequences to drug use (and nicotine is a drug) - do you want your air traffic controller fiending for a smoke when he's calculating your flights approach? I don't. How about your doctor when you're having surgery or the nurse who's assisting? You think maybe during a lengthy procedure someone who normally smokes every hour might perform less well (mentally and physically) when their body doesn't have that drug they are used to? Ever been around a smoker when they are craving badly? They are irritable, they get shaky, their attention span is bad, it affects their memory and their attitude. Not exactly the kind of people you want helping patients.

BTW - I am a strong advocate of smokers rights. I just don't feel that your right to smoke gives you the right to decide whether or not someone hires you. If I don't like tattoos I don't have to hire people with them. If I feel that stereotypes and the impressions of my customers will be negative toward someone with visible tattoos - tough shit. I fully support your right to get them, it's your choice whether you want to (and I think tattoos are awesome), but you didn't have to get them and you knew there would be repercussions when you did it. Just like if you smoke, you KNOW there are repercussions to it and you better be prepared to deal with them.

EDIT for TLDR:

TLDR - People making the argument against businesses that hire based on personal choices need to put themselves in the shoes of the people on the opposite side. It's really easy to get offended or feel that it's unfair when you sympathize with the smoker, but pretend you're the business owner for a minute and you've got an entire staff of people who take 5 breaks of 15 min or more a day to smoke ON TOP of their lunch break, who miss a couple days of work every month for health reasons, who constantly reek of cigarette smoke and cause customer complaints. Then on top of everything else the cost of heath insurance goes up and cuts into the profitably of your business, which for some small businesses can be a big deal...

[Sigaar]

Beauty of being self-employed. Me and my wife make our own rules...period.:cool:

[OB1theStogie]

Problem is... What's next? Testing your cholesterol?

[Chris0673]

I have to admit I'd be pretty cheesed off if I found out I didn't get hired because I use tobacco products. I don't think ANY company, private, government, or whatever has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do when you are not at your place of employment. My time is my time. On the other hand, it really used to piss me off when my soldiers would take 10 minute smoke breaks every hour. I hated smelling that foul reek of stale cigarette smoke for the rest of the day too. What really used to get me is that, if you add up 10 minutes an hour over the course of a 10 hour day these people were missing almost two hours of work every day. And I got grief for taking one 20 minute pipe break around lunch time.

I don't care if you want to ban tobacco use at the workplace but don't tell me I can use it at home. As long as I'm coming to work looking and smelling like a professional, who cares? And, for the record, my tobacco use has NEVER caused me to be late or miss work. As a matter of fact, I usually get more work done because I can go home and relax with a pipe or cigar and come back to work recharged and ready rock the day!

[BMack]

Problem is... What's next? Testing your cholesterol?

I'm surprised this isn't already a thing. Testing your blood for this and must have kale present.

[UncleFesterESQ]

Reminds me of the story I read about some huge company that basically set up an entire town for its workers... probably an oil or mining company somewhere in the boonies of America back in the early part of the 20th century. I don't remember exactly where or when.

The company provided infrastructure, utilities, housing, police, firefighting, schooling, etc for its employees/citizens. But it suspended many Constitutional rights in the town. Workers sued for violation of Constitutional rights. Usually you can only sue the government for violation of Constitutional rights, which was the company's defense.

Supreme Court said that if a company or non-governmental entity provided services that were very similar to what a traditional government provided, it was considered the government. Employees won.

I believe this is Marsh v. Alabama. (2 years out of law school here)
We can thank the Jehovah's Witnesses for this. Those damned kids and their free-speech needs.

[Branzig]

Problem is... What's next? Testing your cholesterol?

My company tests BMI, Cholesterol, Blood Sugar, and Blood Pressure every year and for every new hire.

Obviously it isn't grounds for termination, but it is used for insurance coverage and the more unhealthy you are the higher your insurance deductibles are.

And yes, under my company's terms and conditions, I am a "smoker" so even though I meet all BMI, Cholesterol, Blood Sugar, Blood Pressure standards I still have to pay an extra 150 a month because I have a cigar or pipe every once in awhile.

Not right now, but who knows, maybe at some point if you are "unhealthy" to the company you work for it could be grounds for termination or not being hired.

[Cool Breeze]

My company tests BMI, Cholesterol, Blood Sugar, and Blood Pressure every year and for every new hire.


Yep. Me too.
I had to take a physical and I sit at a desk all day.

I went in for it last month (have worked there part time for 2 years and my patience paid off and just got on full time) and was told he thought I was diabetic. He circled "No" on cleared to work. I have 90 days to follow up, get tested and if positive to get on a treatment plan or I'm out the door. I assume this is because of insurance reasons.

One of his questions was do I smoke. I explained that I have a cigar or pipe 3-4 times a week. He made a note of it and said that they do distinguish between cigarette and cigar/pipe smokers. He didn't bitch at me at all, which kind of surprised me.

He did tell me to lose 50 pounds but hell, I already knew I need to do that.

[Branzig]

Yep. Me too.
I had to take a physical and I sit at a desk all day.

I went in for it last month (have worked there part time for 2 years and my patience paid off and just got on full time) and was told he thought I was diabetic. He circled "No" on cleared to work. I have 90 days to follow up, get tested and if positive to get on a treatment plan or I'm out the door. I assume this is because of insurance reasons.

One of his questions was do I smoke. I explained that I have a cigar or pipe 3-4 times a week. He made a note of it and said that they do distinguish between cigarette and cigar/pipe smokers. He didn't bitch at me at all, which kind of surprised me.

Yeah it all comes down to insurance.

I told them I smoke cigars and pipes too, and they do distinguish between those and cigarettes, but in their definition I would have to smoke less than 1 bowl a week and less than 2 cigars a month to be classified as a "none smoker."

What it comes down to is if you are a liability or not in the eyes of the company. Which makes me angry for a lot of reasons that I cannot post in open forum...but it is really hypocritical for a lot of these companies because you would lose your mind if you knew how much they pay out in general liability anyways....

[Ropey]

One more reason to get health insurance out of the hands of employers.

[Monkey]

One more reason to get health insurance out of the hands of employers.

Or just get rid of the health insurance industry entirely.