Page 1 of 2
Legal or Illegal? Right or wrong?
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:15 pm
by dergon darkhelm
http://www.dispatch.com/dispatch/conten ... okers.html
Cleveland Clinic bans hiring of smokers
CLEVELAND (AP) -- The Cleveland Clinic, which has targeted fatty foods at its lunch counters and scooted smokers away from its buildings and sidewalks, now will ban the hiring of anyone who smokes.
The move is part of a healthy work force initiative that included the appointment Thursday of Dr. Michael Roizen, author of a series of best-selling books on making healthy lifestyles, as the first chief wellness officer of the research hospital.
Beginning Sept. 1, Ohio's second-biggest employer with 36,300 employees will no longer hire smokers. The policy will not affect current employees, who can get free stop-smoking help from the clinic. Prospective employees will be tested for tobacco use along with drugs.
The ban is “essentially a challenge to every other major health-care organization that we want them to focus on wellness as well as illness too,” Roizen said Wednesday.
The step comes after the clinic removed trans fats from its cafeteria menus and sugar-sweetened beverages from its vending machines.
Rick Wade, a spokesman for the American Hospital Association, said since virtually all hospitals ban smokers from their buildings and banning the hiring of smokers was the next logical step.
Other employers also are taking steps to get employees to stop smoking.
Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. based in Marysville, Ohio, near Columbus, stopped hiring smokers last year and ordered employees who do smoke to quit.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 3:41 pm
by fluffmonster
Well, its been found that smokers cost a business more than non-smokers, primarily in more sick days but also higher health costs and lower productivity. Thus, from a strictly bottom-line perspective it is an economically rational decision. Whether its right or wrong is another question. My libertarian side says that business should only care about employee outcomes...if a person is productive and has good attendance, it doesn't make much sense to care whether they smoke or not. Actual drug testing is not an insignificant expense either.
Of course, this move seems as much about a moral position as an economic one. I think it seems rather paternalistic myself.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:25 pm
by Lusipher
Im not sure how constitutional that is to discriminate against a certain group of potential workers, but I applaud it non-the-less. Im glad more states are passing smoking bans and that companies are enforcing them early. As someone who has a child with really bad sinus and slight asthma Im glad smoking will almost be stamped out completely except in the smokers own homes. We dont need it.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:18 pm
by Grand Fromage
They appear to be a private business, so it's in their rights to do this. It's stupid, but.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:37 pm
by Nyarlathotep
The more worrisome aspect is if such bans on risky behaviors would be extended to other aspects of an employees life that could be considered unhealthy ie multiple sexual partners, motorcycles (though the NFL does this laready but as contract workers it is a bit different), weight and/or diet, sports, hunting, gun ownership, or at the extreme end would they be allowed to screen for genetic disorders or allow an employees medical history to be a determination in hiring. Its a slippery slope because ultimately it is predicated upon the assumption that an employer has a right to know what an indivdual does in their private life.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:37 pm
by mxlm
Gattaca, here we come!
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:44 pm
by Grand Fromage
Nyarlathotep wrote:The more worrisome aspect is if such bans on risky behaviors would be extended to other aspects of an employees life that could be considered unhealthy ie multiple sexual partners, motorcycles (though the NFL does this laready but as contract workers it is a bit different), weight and/or diet, sports, hunting, gun ownership, or at the extreme end would they be allowed to screen for genetic disorders or allow an employees medical history to be a determination in hiring. Its a slippery slope because ultimately it is predicated upon the assumption that an employer has a right to know what an indivdual does in their private life.
Yeah, I'm not liking the possibilities, though this started with the "war on drugs" and pee-in-a-cup days. More important than the employer's right to hire or fire on whatever standards they wish is that the employee's personal life should be none of the employer's business.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:53 pm
by Nyarlathotep
My solution is to continually develop new risky behaviors quicker than they can ban them. For example if they decide to ban rock climbing I will instead develop a new sport that I will call "Mafioso Slapping", that should be good for a few thrills.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:57 pm
by Mikayla
Nyar
My solution is to continually develop new risky behaviors quicker than they can ban them. For example if they decide to ban rock climbing I will instead develop a new sport that I will call "Mafioso Slapping", that should be good for a few thrills.
Ok, I actually laughed out loud in my office at that one. That little tidbit is worthy of a Jack Handy saying Nyar, well done. And thanks for the laugh!
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:36 pm
by NickD
I'm pretty sure that would be illegal here. You're not allowed to discriminate against anyone when deciding who to employ. The only thing you're allowed to consider is their ability to do their job. Of course it's hard to prove the reason you weren't hired over someone else though.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:23 pm
by NESchampion
Nyarlathotep wrote:My solution is to continually develop new risky behaviors quicker than they can ban them. For example if they decide to ban rock climbing I will instead develop a new sport that I will call "Mafioso Slapping", that should be good for a few thrills.
May I quote you? That's pure gold humor there.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:40 pm
by Zakharra
So when will they stop treating people who do smoke? I find it ironic that they are not going to hire people for using a legal substance. This is a very slippery slope to stand on.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:00 pm
by Burt
So when will they stop treating people who do smoke? I find it ironic that they are not going to hire people for using a legal substance. This is a very slippery slope to stand on.
It's legal to be an alcoholic, but you wouldn't hire one would you? Reckon you need a better grievance than the legality.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:22 pm
by Zakharra
You drink on the job and your performance suffers. You smoke on the job and your performace doesn't suffer. The damage comes much later.
Posted: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:34 pm
by Burt
I'm not disagreeing with you there. Just pointing out that I don't see any relevance in the argument of its legality.