[kstew43]

repulsive is a strong word......People have the right to do what ever they choose.....maybe not in public place...
But if I smoke in the privacy of my own home, you have no right to call me wrong.....


Its a matter of choice......if you dont like the way I smell or look, get up and MOVE......away from me.

The new rule grandfathered in the current employees, that is totally not fair to the new hires and should be taken to court.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander....

[jy22077]

"Most new policies grandfather in people who are already in place."

Like I said before that is one hell of privilege. Everyone knows how difficult it is to quit smoking. It is one the hardest things to do in a person's life. Any reformed smoker will tell you that. For current employee, being told that don't have to quit, that is one nice privilege of epic proportions. (Assuming you smoke) That's like paying current employees a $10,000,000.00 Bonus and paying new employees a zero bonus.

[jy22077]

I was just really irrated and annoyed that current employees didn't have to quit but new employees did. just isn't right.

[jy22077]

The proper way to enforce this policy is forbid the hiring of new smokers and current employees who already smoke are to be given 3 months to quit or face termination. That I believe is completely fair and nondiscriminatory.

[jnieman]

Originally Posted by sunnyatlast

These policies were put into effect in other states a long time ago.

It's probably more about the health insurance rates the hospital pays for its employees, and the premium incentives for having a drug-tested and smoke-free workforce.

I was hired by a company back in 1990 and was told they do not hire smokers. I was a smoker but told them I was not. That was incentive enough for me to quit and I'm glad I did. I got a pretty good job out of the deal. I stayed there 13 years.

[bobbym]

It was a free country

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by jy22077

"Most new policies grandfather in people who are already in place."

Like I said before that is one hell of privilege. Everyone knows how difficult it is to quit smoking. It is one the hardest things to do in a person's life. Any reformed smoker will tell you that. For current employee, being told that don't have to quit, that is one nice privilege of epic proportions. (Assuming you smoke) That's like paying current employees a $10,000,000.00 Bonus and paying new employees a zero bonus.

You are making my point. Grandfathering is a common practice when making a change specifically because the change is too difficult or expensive or impossible for those already in place.

[sunnyatlast]

Originally Posted by bobbym

It was a free country

In the overall sense, yes. But in this particular case, employers have the freedom, thank God, to hire whom they see fit to hire and pay insurance premiums on which are skyrocketing because of riskier people (who generate more medical bills to pay) being added into the insurance pool.

Faced with skyrocketing increases in health insurance premiums, employers are wisely seeking ways to manage and limit those costs. One way to do so is to focus on the lifestyle choices of their employees and how those choices might influence premium costs. Lately, one lifestyle choice receiving particular attention is smoking and the use of other tobacco products.

Numerous studies have focused on smoking and its deleterious effects, not just on health but also on employee productivity.

A study of 20,000 employees showed that smokers had more hospital visits per 1,000 employees (124 vs. 76), had a longer average length of stay (6.5 days vs. 5) and made six more visits to health care facilities per year than nonsmokers.

Another study recently found that smokers miss an average of about 6.16 days of work per year, compared to 3.86 days missed by nonsmokers, and that smokers taking four 10-minute smoke breaks per day actually work one month less per year than nonsmoking employees.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each employee who smokes costs a company an additional $3,391 per year�including $1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical expenses. So focusing on employees who smoke seems to be an excellent idea for employers trying to manage the cost of providing health care.

- See more at: Can and Should You Link Health Insurance Rates and Smoking?

[jy22077]

It has been shown and proven, that making the claim that it is too difficult or impossible to quit is an argument of no merit. Millions of people have quit smoking, therefore there is no merit to that argument. The Grandfathering in of smokers is just wholly unfair.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by jy22077

That's where the slippery slope lies. I'm really not much against the band. I really more against the unequal treatment of employees. It's clearly discrimination and if they can do with smoking, they can do it with other things. Also remember, if you are a smoker, in this day and age, smoking is highly covetted privilege because smoking has been banned in some many places. Current employees have been given this privilege but New employees can't have it. In fact, as far as a new employee is concerned, smoking is privilege that CAN NEVER EVER be granted by the hospital regardless of rank, merit or position. But even the lowest workers can still smoke just because they were employed at the hospital 24 hours before a new employee was hired.

This is an extremely dangerous precident. The hospital can change policy, polices of great importance, then apply them to new employees and not current employees. This is clearly discrimination and there is no way a hospital can justify it.

Are you a hospital employee?

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by jy22077

"Most new policies grandfather in people who are already in place."

Like I said before that is one hell of privilege. Everyone knows how difficult it is to quit smoking. It is one the hardest things to do in a person's life. Any reformed smoker will tell you that. For current employee, being told that don't have to quit, that is one nice privilege of epic proportions. (Assuming you smoke) That's like paying current employees a $10,000,000.00 Bonus and paying new employees a zero bonus.

What is the data to come up with this figure?

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by bobbym

It was a free country

Not sure what you mean "was"/
In the 1990's the company I worked for told all empoyees that in six months no smoking in any buildings.............in 9 months no smoking on company property.
Guess what, it worked! And it was a free country,either comply or find other employment.

[jy22077]

I'm sure if you were to ask any smoker, they would consider that a $10,000,000.00 bonus.

[sunnyatlast]

Originally Posted by jy22077

I'm sure if you were to ask any smoker, they would consider that a $10,000,000.00 bonus.

Yeah. They'd consider it a "bonus" until they are diagnosed with a mess like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zWB4dLYChM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_th5U5hRu8k

[jy22077]

I couldn't agree more. That's the choice smoker's make for themselves. But, they have that right. That is their own choosing. Remember, smoking is neither an illegal act or an unethical act. If someone wants to smoke, they certainly have that choice. With regards to the hospital, telling new employees that they can't smoke (In Privacy of their own homes and lives) is a highly intrusive invasion to the Right of Privacy. Whether, an employee chooses to smoke in the Privacy of their own home and lives is absolutely none of the hospital's business. Therefore, current employees who are allowed to continue to smoke do not have suffer a HIGHLY INTRUSIVE invasion of privacy. That being so, the privilege to being able to continue smoke is a privilege that is worth $10,000,000.00. In fact it is a privilege that is virtually priceless (The Privilege of the hospital no invading on the privacy rights of an individual.)