Isn't this discrimination? on the Peoria.com Forums

I don't see how this is any different than testing peoples DNA for a specific gene that puts them at high risk. How can they get away with that?

"Smokers" is not a protected class.

Well neither are "blondes" but I'm pretty sure if a company refused to hire them it would be pretty ridiculous.

That is interesting...if the employee is smoking at home, the company shouldn't haven't a say.

OTOH, its a medical facility.... and nothing looks worse than a group of hospital staff standing out on the street corner in front of the hospital smoking.

Second-hand exposure is a public safety issue. At least 69 of the toxic chemicals in secondhand tobacco smoke cause cancer. The hospital has an obligation to it's patients, and I am sure the safety of those patients far exceeds someone's feelings.

who says the designated smoking area needs to be ANYWHERE around others, or that it shouldn't have ventilation restrictions of its own, pock? that's a separate issue. please don't be biased. i'm not talking about public exposure.

Tapeworm,

The toxins are IN THEIR clothing. They go out and smoke, their clothing absorbs the toxins, and nurse goes off break, walks into a patients room and starts treatment.

I'm not being biased, I am talking about exposure to the chemicals released by the smokers, and despite your personal belief, first,second,third,forth hand exposure, there are no safe levels of exposure to the toxins released.. even small amounts are harmful.

There is absolutely zero evidence that this is true. In any case, the toxins are only "second-hand" when they are airborne.

Odd.

www.mayoclinic.com/health/secondhand-smoke/CC00023

Are you absolutely sure, there is absolutely zero evidence? You seem pretty sure, and Mayo Clinic disagrees with you and that was just from a simple Google search.

Exposure to the chemicals released from smokers is harmful, first,second,third, etc, etc. Bottom Line. It is harmful, and a hospital has an obligation to protect it's patients from harm.

Oh my god, thirdhand smoke, I've seen it all now! Go ahead and turn the lights out.

pock, this rule is worded in such a way that also includes chewing tobacco. you are being COMPLETELY biased.

I think it has more to do with the additional healthcare costs of a smoker rather than patient safety.

It really comes down to $s, nothing more.

Some companies charge higher insurance premiums for smokers, and that's fair. I don't see how you can discriminate against smokers for a potential job though. Next will be obese people, they carry higher healthcare costs too.

I agree - pretty sure it boils down to the increasing cost of insurance - health care facility or not. Many companies are charging a higher co-pay to their employees who smoke. But, it certainly calls the question as to when will they start that for people who are obese?

In fact, this is discrimination in the state of Illinois.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID

(820 ILCS 55/5) (from Ch. 48, par. 2855)
Sec. 5. Discrimination for use of lawful products prohibited.
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided by law and except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) of this Section, it shall be unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise disadvantage any individual, with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because the individual uses lawful products off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours.
(b) This Section does not apply to any employer that is a non-profit organization that, as one of its primary purposes or objectives, discourages the use of one or more lawful products by the general public. This Section does not apply to the use of those lawful products which impairs an employee's ability to perform the employee's assigned duties.
(c) It is not a violation of this Section for an employer to offer, impose or have in effect a health, disability or life insurance policy that makes distinctions between employees for the type of coverage or the price of coverage based upon the employees' use of lawful products provided that:
(1) differential premium rates charged employees

reflect a differential cost to the employer; and
(2) employers provide employees with a statement

delineating the differential rates used by insurance carriers.
(Source: P.A. 87-807.)

http://www.lungusa2.org/slati/appendixf.php

Look at the second paragraph. I suspect the hospital is exempted from that law per the second paragraph.