Peoria
My Profile
My Account

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

 Bottom of the Page
** This topic has been locked by the administrator **


Post a Reply »

12
Next Page »


Effective April 1, 2011, Methodist will not hire individuals who use tobacco products. -Source


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?


Apr 13, 2012 - 11:13 am
tapeworm
tapeworm
Offline
Posting Rank: #19
Joined:
7.1 yrs ago
Elite

Back to Top



"Smokers" is not a protected class.

Apr 13, 2012 - 11:16 am
JnJ
JnJ
Available
Posting Rank: #3
Joined:
7.1 yrs ago
Elite

Back to Top



JnJ writes:
"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.


Apr 13, 2012 - 11:22 am
tapeworm
tapeworm
Offline
Posting Rank: #19
Joined:
7.1 yrs ago
Elite

Back to Top



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.

Apr 13, 2012 - 11:40 am
joepyeweed
joepyeweed
Offline
Joined:
5.2 yrs ago

Back to Top



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.



Apr 13, 2012 - 11:55 am
Pock
Pock
Offline
Joined:
5.2 yrs ago

Back to Top



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.

Apr 13, 2012 - 11:58 am
tapeworm
tapeworm
Offline
Posting Rank: #19
Joined:
7.1 yrs ago
Elite

Back to Top



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.

Apr 13, 2012 - 12:02 pm
Pock
Pock
Offline
Joined:
5.2 yrs ago

Back to Top



Pock writes:
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 second-hand exposure to the chemicals released by the smokers, and despite your personal belief, there are no safe levels of exposure to secondhand smoke.. 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.


Apr 13, 2012 - 12:05 pm
shifty
shifty
Offline
Posting Rank: #52
Joined:
6.4 yrs ago
Elite

Back to Top



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



Odd.


The dangerous particles in secondhand smoke can linger in the air for hours or even longer. It isn't just the smoke that's a concern, though. The residue that clings to a smoker's hair and clothing, as well as cushions, carpeting and other goods sometimes referred to as thirdhand smoke also can pose risks, especially for children.



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.


Apr 13, 2012 - 12:07 pm
Pock
Pock
Offline
Joined:
5.2 yrs ago

Back to Top



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

Apr 13, 2012 - 12:20 pm
1ITGuy
1ITGuy
Offline
Joined:
5.6 yrs ago

Back to Top



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

Apr 13, 2012 - 12:38 pm
tapeworm
tapeworm
Offline
Posting Rank: #19
Joined:
7.1 yrs ago
Elite

Back to Top



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.


Apr 13, 2012 - 12:41 pm
Lanfear
Lanfear
Offline
Joined:
5.5 yrs ago

Back to Top



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.

Apr 13, 2012 - 12:58 pm
1ITGuy
1ITGuy
Offline
Joined:
5.6 yrs ago

Back to Top



Lanfear writes:
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.



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?


Apr 13, 2012 - 01:13 pm
PaulaB
PaulaB
Offline
Joined:
5.1 yrs ago

Back to Top



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

Apr 13, 2012 - 01:13 pm
1ITGuy
1ITGuy
Offline
Joined:
5.6 yrs ago

Back to Top



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

Apr 13, 2012 - 01:21 pm
joepyeweed
joepyeweed
Offline
Joined:
5.2 yrs ago

Back to Top


12
Next Page »


Post a Reply to this message »








# Views: 1449





Please read the Peoria.com Community Agreement before posting to the Forums.

Have questions or problems with the Peoria.com forums?
Click here to contact us.


Counter: 1450



© 2014. Peoria.com, Peoria Illinois - All rights reserved.