Cleveland Clinic will no longer hire smokers…
I read this yesterday on the Keeler Political Report and even though it doesn’t affect Toledo residents, it’s very possible that something like this could head our way. According to the Columbus Dispatch article, Cleveland Clinic bans hiring of smokers:
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.
I don’t dispute the right of any employer, including a hospital to ban smoking on their site. I do however not support the idea that an employer should discriminate in it’s hiring practices something that is legal. I can understand not hiring people who can not pass a drug test, as an example, because drugs are illegal. I can understand an employer firing someone for being drunk on the job, etc., but this one to me goes too far. I wonder what’s next? Telling employees if they don’t divorce a spouse they will drop them from their health coverage if the spouse smokes?
[...] UPDATE: Lincoln Logs, Right Angle Blog, and Glass City Jungle also weigh in. Bookmark | Trackback URI [...]
June 29th, 2007 at 2:33 pmLost time due to illness and the high cost of health insurance are two of the biggest money eaters facing corporate America. I think employers absolutely should be able to do this. In fact, I applaud them. Smoking kills not just people; it kills the bottom line.
June 29th, 2007 at 2:54 pmThen they should also be able to not hire fat people, people with hereditary health issues and people like me with my health problems? I’d be more expensive and hurt their bottom line…Or…what about people with children facing severe health problems?
That’s my problem with this, once corporate America feels they have the “right” to determine what we can do outside of our jobs it’s easy to see where it can go next.
Cost of health care is a serious issue but this to me isn’t the way to solve it.
June 29th, 2007 at 3:09 pmI put cigarettes in the same category as illegal drugs. They can reasonably be predicted to cause health problems (and in the case of smoking, they can also cause health problems among the workers’ relatives who are covered by the same health care insurance). They are also substances that people choose, or don’t choose, to use. If I were an employer, I’d want employees who don’t choose to use them. I would hire a qualified cadidate who does neither. If I had someone on staff who was already smoking or using drugs, I’d offer them a program to stop. If they failed to use that opportunity to quit, it would tell me they value their unhealthy habits over their employment — and I’d use Ohio’s “at-will” employment laws to find someone else to fill the job.
I do not see the other health categories you list as problems created by free choice, so I would view people in those categories entirely differently than I do smokers — except for the fat ones (though even that isn’t always a result of the choices made). But … if I fired my fat workers, I’d have to fire myself. Not sure I’d do that.
Still, faced with a candidate who weighs 150 versus one who weighs 350, all else being equal, I’d choose the 150 lb. candidate. Unless I’m hiring someone to play Santa, or to play me in the movie of my life.
June 29th, 2007 at 4:41 pmCleveland Clinic will end up getting away with this because Ohio doesn’t protect workers but there are other risky choices people take if you want to only focus on the selectiveness issue. Eating trans fats, the Clinic has banned it from their machines, are they going to not hire people who eat foods with transfat or with high cholesterol? It’s after all a choice to eat healthy or not at home. They banned drinks with sugar, should they be able to not hire someone who drinks regular soda? That’s not a healthy choice. Riding a motorcycle increases your risk, not wearing a seat belt is not only illegal but is said to put you at risk. If, they are going to not hire anyone who eats transfats, drinks beverages with sugar, is over weight, has high cholesterol and anything else could be considered also a matter of choice? At least they’d be consistent.
June 29th, 2007 at 4:51 pmMaybe next on the list to not be hired will be people who drink alcoholic beverages.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:27 pmI’ll drink to that!
(coffee, that is)
Hopefully decaffeinated coffee Roland, caffeine is bad for you and could be the next thing that gets you fired for drinking.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:30 pmOh, no! Fired again!
June 29th, 2007 at 5:41 pmNo caffeine — shoot there goes a lot of soda pop down the drain.
Good thing, I am not pregnant. That’s on the list, also.
I forgot that one, good point Roland, after all having a child would be a choice and would cost an employer more money in health care.
Soon it will be only single vegans who exercise daily and only drink filtered water and eat organic foods who live in communes with nature, wearing sun block of course since those UV rays can be dangerous and that’s a choice too, will be the only ones who have jobs.
Let’s hope they make enough to support the rest of the US on unemployment or welfare.
(Yes, I’m being overly dramatic)
June 29th, 2007 at 5:48 pmGetting pregnant isn’t always a choice, Lisa. Oh don’t I know it…
I’ve never been one to think that taking action A necessarily means actions B-Z must also be taken. It kinda reminds me of folks who say, “If I make an exception for you, I’ll have to make an exception for everyone.” Nah. Common sense comes into play at some point and I think common sense tells us that smoking is a detriment to health and costs corporate America dearly.
Roland, the jury is still out — or rather in and out — when it comes to caffeine. One day it’s gonna kill you, the next it sharpens your brain. Not too long ago I read that, in moderation, it actually has health benefits. So drink up.
June 29th, 2007 at 5:58 pmThat’s based on the belief that smoking costs industries more than other health issues, which I don’t think is a valid one. Health costs are driven up by those who don’t have insurance or are under-insured, malpractice, drug companies who delay generics, the bloated medical system itself that is heavy on administrative costs, the insurance industry who does not self police fraud and over billing and…I could go on. All of those issues make health care costs even more expensive and I don’t see corporate America taking any steps to deal with that other than making people pay more for their insurance. Now, if Company A did the same as some life insurance policies do and charge you a higher monthly fee for smoking? That would end the problem for the companies and place the responsibility back on the employee. Which would not take away the employees right to do something that is legal…
June 29th, 2007 at 6:06 pmAnd as a ps, unless you are raped, having sex is a choice and when having sex getting pregnant is a natural consequence from time to time.
June 29th, 2007 at 6:07 pmCan I just please ask and have someone answer:
Whatever happened to just wanting the best person for the job? How have we defined away so many personal habits as automatically disqualifying someone from being eligible to BE the best person for the job?
My asking this question has NOTHING to do with whether I support or oppose the Clinic’s step. I’m just not sure.
But have been thinking a lot about, what does it have to do with whether someone can perform the essential functions of a job? What are we getting into? Is it really the direction we want to go in?
I do NOT have an answer on this myself yet. But I’d love to read what others think.
Others?
June 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pmSo THAT’S what causes pregnancies? If only I had known…
I’ll agree that having sex is a choice, but can’t agree that having a baby is therefore a choice. Failed birth control pills, burst condoms, babies born clutching IUDs — nope, not always a choice.
I disagree with you that we need to go down the list of other things that cause health care to be so costly, dealing with each of them before we can deal with smoking. That kind of thinking invites straw man arguments, gets in the way of solving ANY problem, and ignores the wisdom and benefits of not smoking. The way to eat a pie is to start with one bite, not swallowing the pie whole.
June 29th, 2007 at 8:14 pmJill, I’m guessing what will happen is these employers will come to the realization that a) they will eventually have to settle for candidates that don’t meet the real criteria for jobs. Personally I’d rather have the best nurse or the best doctor taking care of me, rather than “hey…she’s barely qualified as a nurse but? She doesn’t smoke”. Or, they’ll realize that this doesn’t work.
Good analogy on the pie, Lilly, personally I’d rather have Corporate America focus on the piece of the pie that affects everyone which would be lack and under insured or fraud/pricing/malpractice as the issues to focus on that would reduce health care costs for everyone…I realize it’s easy to believe getting rid of the smokers will solve the problem, but once they discover it doesn’t? Maybe then they’ll move on to something that will actually help everyone who has to pay for health insurance.
Then again, having dealt with Cleveland Clinic and their over billing and fraud, perhaps they don’t want that to go away since it would cut into their profits. Hence deciding smoking is a more viable issue for them. Creating less expensive health care would mean even less profits for them, especially if people started paying attention to what they bill.
I’ll never forget their classic billing of charging my father for food and for pills that could only be swallowed when they had him on Life Support which was a minuscule amount of the hell we went through with them.
June 29th, 2007 at 8:50 pmAnd sometimes smoking isn’t a choice either. I won’t sit here and argue with you about why I smoke, but I will tell you that I have tried to quit DOZENS of times. It’s an addiction, just like alcohol or drugs. The more you do it, the harder it is to quit. I’ve smoked for 2/3 of my life, a fact that I am not proud of at all. But I do know that quitting smoking is something I want to do, but my addiction to it is harder than hell to fight.
And yes, I do know that there are things out there to help you quit smoking, but my problem is that I do not buy my cigarettes a carton at a time, I buy them a pack at a time, and to dish out $40+ in one lump sum when I have bills I could put it on isn’t feasible for me.
By “allowing” employers, states and governments to tell us what we can and can’t do in our own free time (as long as it is legal) we are allowing them to take away the freedoms that our forefathers fought at died for. Did anyone die for my right to smoke? NO, but they did die for my right to freedom and to make my own choices, just like they did for you.
But, as you stated, our lovely state is an at will state as for employment. An employer can fire you for any reason they want to and get away with it, I’ve learned that first hand. For our government to sit back and allow employers to take away and employees right to do something that is 100% legal while they are NOT on the clock is one of the biggest crap stories I’ve ever heard! It crosses a line that I don’t feel any employer has the right to cross. What I do in my free time is my own personal choice, and as long as I don’t break the law or do something that affects my employer, they should have no say in it.
I can’t wait to see what happens when they add other things such as being overweight or being in the child bearing years or having mental health issues. Trust me, they will start adding these if they aren’t stopped soon.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:00 pmNo doubt cigarettes can lead to serious health issues, but to put them in the same category as illegal drugs? Um duh, they are legal and if our greedy as government didn’t love the money they make out of them they would make them illegal. It seems like a double standard. Cigarettes are being banned in more and more public places yet their still legal???
It seem that most Americans support not allowing smokers in publics which is fine. Then why cant they get organized to get them banned or made illegal? Why? Because the “politicians” will never let those dollars go bye-bye.
I am so sick of hearing about these cigarette issues, please America pick one or the other. Either let us smoke something that is legal in public or simply ban it. I am fine both ways, because I have much more to worry about that someone else’s cancer causing product.
OK I am done with my rant for the day!
June 29th, 2007 at 9:07 pmLisa, I don’t think that giving a problem some attention means you can’t also be attacking other problems. I don’t see this as an either/or situation.
Holly, I know how hard some habits are to break. I am also acquainted with some that, for me, seem impossible to break. But the points I’m making are not about that. They’re about what I think an employer has the right to do.
Yes, cigarettes are legal, but that’s beside the point in terms of the discussion that I (maybe alone) am having. Also, I’m unmoved by arguments that claim members of our military died for our freedom, including the freedom to smoke. That reduces their sacrifice to something I consider to be an insult to their memory. I’ll bet my next week’s allowance that if you give a soldier a choice between a bullet to the heart or your right to smoke a cigarette, he’ll tell you to try the patch.
Jaan, I was not equating the legality of drugs and cigarettes. I was equating them in terms of them being substances that people choose to use. As Holly points out, that choice can eventually lead to addiction — but that’s a whole other story. I’d have no problem with cigarettes being pulled off the market. When I’m dictator, I’ll decree it. Instead, our government subsidizes death. How much nicer if they’d just give us health care.
June 29th, 2007 at 10:16 pmIt is the proverbial “slippery slope” when business, government or some other group unilaterally pokes their noses into people’s private lives. Yet we find people praising the enlightenment of these folk that want to take away freedoms.
It is example of that opening of the Pandora’s box where people condemn an activity they think is wrong. We all cheer. The media cheers. Isn’t it great that we save people from themselves and made them stop smoking? Smoking is an easy one folks, people shouldn’t smoke, but it still doesn’t mean you have the right to tell these people what to do and how to live their lives.
I don’t smoke and I don’t like to be around it, but it concerns me that people will go along like docile sheep with something like this without seeing the real possibility that someday they (some bureaucrat, business person, etc.) decide that your particular activity or consumable item isn’t good for you and decides that you can’t do it or consume it. That’s when the one’s that cheer against smoking will indignantly exclaim that “they have gone too far.” No….they went too far a long time ago.
So live it up, eat french fries, chocolate, popcorn with butter and salt, drink caffeinated beverages with lots of sugar and stay up late watching television because someday if certain people get their way, it will all be gone. A fond memory of yesteryear when people had the freedoms to do as they please. It’s just tragic.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:20 pmToo often, the “slippery slope” is a boogey man hauled out to yell “boo” when folks want to scare others away from taking progressive and sensible steps.
I’m far more concerned about the rights we’ve lost under the current administration than I am about the prospect of chocolate being pulled off store shelves.
I think it’s good that we all have our list of most-treasured rights. It’ll keep us fighting for them when they’re threatened, and help reduce the slipperyness of all slopes.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:06 amHow many alcoholic doctors are there? Will they also be tested? No one is immune to bad habits, stigmas, or any other forms of discrimination? People who are for this may one day find themselves labeled as something as bad as smokers. When that’s done, welcome to the club.
June 30th, 2007 at 6:00 amI have often thought that smokers ought to have a small room on the worksite to inject nicotine in their veins every 20 minutes or so.
Clean needles, of course.
June 30th, 2007 at 8:13 amI have always thought that beer drinkers and hard alcohol drinkers ought to have a small room on the worksite to inject alcohol in their veins every 20 minutes or so.
Sarcasm intended. —– And no, I am not a smoker.
June 30th, 2007 at 9:11 amPersonally, I’d rather stay at my desk and work — with a Demerol drip via an IV.
June 30th, 2007 at 10:57 amWow! Demerol drip. Far out!
June 30th, 2007 at 1:08 pmI am pretty sure that this issue has already been litigated in Ohio and a few other states, including Michigan. And the courts have found that the restriction on hiring is acceptable because smokers are not a protected class. They look at these cases in terms of contract law – you agree to give me something (smoke free work) and I agree to give you something (a job and income). I’m sure some of us have worked at those jobs where people are taking 2-3 smoke breaks an hour or are out sick more frequently.
Of course, the market will eventually bear out the strength of this type of restriction. As someone said above, if an employer starts failing to acquire the skilled employees he needs, then the smoking ban might go the way of the Dodo.
Personally, I fall on the side of employer discretion (even though I’m a cigar puffing elitist).
Smoke If You Got ‘Em
July 1st, 2007 at 9:31 pm[...] A lesson about out-of-control movements: At the beginning of the antismoking movement, of which I was an early member in the 1970s (long since not), activists said this would never happen. It doesn’t matter if they were lying from the start, or if they just got more intrusive as time went on. It’s happened. Comments come from the newly- and nicely-redesigned RAB, Columbuser, Glass City Jungle, Keeler Report, and Lincoln Logs. [...]
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:14 amWhat is with all this smoke free stuff??
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:01 amI just don’t understand.
I was under the impression that a person had to pay money to buy cigarettes, cigars, pipes and pipe tobacco, etc.
Now, y’all are trying to tell me that the government and now even the Cleveland Clinic say that people can smoke free.
Hrumpf — another waste of my tax and health insurance premium dollars!!!
As a person who has suffered serious illness and still does from secondhand smoke, I think it is necessary to keep workplaces and many other public places smokefree. I disagree with this practice of refusing to hire smokers. It confuses the issue, which should be a simple air quality issue. The focus should be on protecting people from INVOLUNTARY exposure to smoke. Employers should not be permitted to base hiring decisions on employees’ outside activities or lifestyle choices, or even ask them about those activities. I understand that some states or localities have already passed laws prohibiting employers from doing so.
July 2nd, 2007 at 6:55 pmThere are many different factors that contribute to a person’s health needs and healthcare costs. No one chooses to be sick. Some illnesses are caused at least partially by lifestyle choices but many are not. Healthcare should be a public service available to all citizens as it is in most countries, and should be separate from employment.
Employers who do provide healthcare can keep their costs down by providing a smokefree workplace-which is also healthy for smokers- and including in the healthcare package smoking cessation services to employees who want them.
There are a few occupations for which it is reasonable to hire only non-smokers. Those include rescue workers such as firefighters and lifeguards who need to be extremely physically fit with excellent lung capacity in order to save peoples’s lives. This is a life-and-death situation in which benefits of such a policy outweigh the privacy issues.
Hello Everyone,
I am a golfer myself and I like to play whenever I get a chance.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:51 amA short while ago, a very good friend of mine told me about a great golfing equipment and accessories website that has discounted prices on all their products, same day shipping in most cases and there is no state sales tax, they are paying that.
So if any golfer here is ready to save some money on quality products at highly discounted prices, you might want to check out their site at; http://hoffmangolf.com
road to hell is filled with good intentions
July 18th, 2007 at 10:54 am