The Villages Regional Hospital Will not hire smokers starting January 01, 2015

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 01-30-2015, 11:44 AM
manaboutown's Avatar
manaboutown manaboutown is online now
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: NJ, NM, SC, PA, DC, MD, VA, NY, CA, ID and finally FL.
Posts: 5,027
Thanks: 3,793
Thanked 1,383 Times in 525 Posts
Default

What I have noticed over the years is that employers get far less work from smokers who need to go outside on frequent breaks to smoke. (That is the nature of the addiction. Priority one is to smoke when the urge presents itself or suffer withdrawal. Nicotine is a drug.) Meanwhile the nonsmokers inside keep working away. The nonsmokers end up carrying part of the smokers' loads as a consequence to the smoke breaks.

In a healthcare environment the other workers and patients in particular should not have to suffer the stench from the reeking clothes and bodies of smokers in close quarters to themselves.

Cheers employers who are taking this step!
__________________
"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth." Plato

“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” Thomas Paine
  #32  
Old 01-30-2015, 12:21 PM
Bogie Shooter Bogie Shooter is online now
Sage
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 14,489
Thanks: 2
Thanked 1,121 Times in 546 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jy22077 View Post
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.)
Do a Google search on banning smoking in the workplace or at home, and you will see that there are laws that support employers doing just that. Florida may be one of those states...............
__________________
The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it. George Orwell.
“Only truth and transparency can guarantee freedom”, John McCain

Last edited by Bogie Shooter; 01-30-2015 at 03:48 PM.
  #33  
Old 01-30-2015, 01:09 PM
njbchbum's Avatar
njbchbum njbchbum is offline
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Summer at the Jersey Shore, Fall in New England [Maine], Winter in TV!
Posts: 5,285
Thanks: 918
Thanked 194 Times in 78 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Allegiance View Post
Its sometimes repulsive just to be near a smoker in an elevator, maybe smokers should not be near sick people?
Have you ever had to stand next to repulsive fragrance worn by someone? Now that is repulsive!...especially when the fragrance clings to your clothes and you can't get rid of it until you wash your clothes and take a shower!
__________________
Not sure if I have free time...or if I just forgot everything I was supposed to do!


Last edited by njbchbum; 01-30-2015 at 07:37 PM.
  #34  
Old 01-30-2015, 01:18 PM
njbchbum's Avatar
njbchbum njbchbum is offline
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Summer at the Jersey Shore, Fall in New England [Maine], Winter in TV!
Posts: 5,285
Thanks: 918
Thanked 194 Times in 78 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by manaboutown View Post
What I have noticed over the years is that employers get far less work from smokers who need to go outside on frequent breaks to smoke. (That is the nature of the addiction. Priority one is to smoke when the urge presents itself or suffer withdrawal. Nicotine is a drug.) Meanwhile the nonsmokers inside keep working away. The nonsmokers end up carrying part of the smokers' loads as a consequence to the smoke breaks.

In a healthcare environment the other workers and patients in particular should not have to suffer the stench from the reeking clothes and bodies of smokers in close quarters to themselves.

Cheers employers who are taking this step!
As a Human Resources Mgr in a prior life, I frequently had to admonish the employees who often extended their break and meal time allocations - and some of them were non-smokers. So please don't lump all non-smoking employees into the group of employees who are honest about their work/break time. Frequently admonished also were the employees who arrived late to work and who punched out early from their job. Those workloads were not "carried" by anyone - they went undone!

And anyone who has overdosed in a fragrance or who has adorned themselves in any obnoxious fragrance should not be permitted in any public place.
__________________
Not sure if I have free time...or if I just forgot everything I was supposed to do!

  #35  
Old 01-30-2015, 01:19 PM
jy22077 jy22077 is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 18
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I agree. Companies have been banning smoking in the workplace for years now. I consider smoking on the job to be bad job ethics. If you are a smoker, you do such a thing on your own time and choosing. In addition, I have never supported the idea of giving smoker's cigarette breaks. They get the same breaks as everyone else. Not being able to smoke while on job and at workplace is a measure that been completely supported by most. What is really the line is when the company is telling what you can and can't do in the privacy of your own home and outside the workplace.

There is a world of a difference between a company telling you you can't smoke at work and telling you you can't smoking at home.
  #36  
Old 01-30-2015, 01:28 PM
njbchbum's Avatar
njbchbum njbchbum is offline
Sage
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Summer at the Jersey Shore, Fall in New England [Maine], Winter in TV!
Posts: 5,285
Thanks: 918
Thanked 194 Times in 78 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnyatlast View Post
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.
snipped
If the non hiring of smokers is indeed an insurance issue, how do you think employers are handling folks with chronic diseases, alcoholism, drug addictions and other infirmities which require continuing care and/or treatment facility admissions? Are they also being denied employment? I have not heard of that as an issue except in the cases where 'drug free' is a bona fide prerequisite to employment.
__________________
Not sure if I have free time...or if I just forgot everything I was supposed to do!

  #37  
Old 01-30-2015, 01:29 PM
jy22077 jy22077 is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 18
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Allowing current employees to smoke while new employees can't opens a whole can of worms of unequal protection. Just think about these instance and will see why this such a huge problem.

1. Husband and wife both smoke. Husband works at hospital and can smoke. Wife gets a job at the hospital but she is no longer allowed to smoke. Highly intrusive to intramarriagal affairs of couples.

2. Your best friend works at the hospital and smokes. You do as well but you don't work at the hospital. You spend lots time hanging with your friend in bars and nightclubs. Now, you want to get a job at the hospital. The hospital tells you can no longer smoke but your best friend and COWORKER CAN. You can see how this would be extremely and Highly disruptive to lives of both individuals. The 2 friends would have a very difficult time trying to hang out together. So in this case, the policy is highly disruptive to close bonded friendships.
  #38  
Old 01-30-2015, 01:36 PM
jy22077 jy22077 is offline
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 18
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Obamacare has compensated for this by allowing for "Preexisting Conditions". One the only conditions though that is not covered is Smoking. If you smoke, the insurance companies are allowed to charge huge premiums on you. This is because smoking has become so socially unacceptable. The main reason is the replusiveness of smoking is highly offensive, so therefore is a way for insurance companies to get more money. There are many many other acts, conditions and lifestyles that far worse than smoking but they don't carry the replusive effect. Eg. Being Obese is far worse than being a smoker but it lacks the replusive effect. That's why Obese people are not picked like smokers even though they are in far worse shape.
  #39  
Old 01-30-2015, 02:24 PM
Chi-Town's Avatar
Chi-Town Chi-Town is offline
Sage
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 6,402
Thanks: 15
Thanked 365 Times in 197 Posts
Default

The reason that smokers pay a higher premium has nothing to do with social acceptability.
  #40  
Old 01-30-2015, 04:46 PM
CFrance's Avatar
CFrance CFrance is offline
Sage
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tamarind Grove/Monpazier, France
Posts: 13,593
Thanks: 228
Thanked 758 Times in 350 Posts
Default

It has nothing to do with Obamacare either!
__________________
It's harder to hate close up.
  #41  
Old 02-03-2015, 04:38 PM
Lynn222's Avatar
Lynn222 Lynn222 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Villages, FL
Posts: 219
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to Lynn222
Default Physical Therapy at Home

I am getting physical therapy at home twice a week. The session is not what I expected. What should I except? If you have had therapy, what did you do during the session?
__________________

Lynn Baldacci
Life is not necessarily drawing a good hand but playing a bad hand well.
Baltimore, Maryland
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Richmond, Virginia
The Villages...met a man the first month - got married 2-1/2 years later...who knew I would move to The Villages and meet a husband!
  #42  
Old 02-03-2015, 05:44 PM
Carla B Carla B is offline
Soaring Eagle member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,085
Thanks: 16
Thanked 203 Times in 92 Posts
Default

Maybe TVRH hospital should dock the wages of existing employees who smoke...that's what my daughter's employer, a major healthcare company, does. That would take some of the "$10,000,000 bonus" away.
  #43  
Old 02-03-2015, 06:32 PM
CFrance's Avatar
CFrance CFrance is offline
Sage
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Tamarind Grove/Monpazier, France
Posts: 13,593
Thanks: 228
Thanked 758 Times in 350 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=Lynn222;1006004]I am getting physical therapy at home twice a week. The session is not what I expected. What should I except? If you have had therapy, what did you do during the session?[/QUOTE
Lynn, I suggest you start a new thread with this title to get more response. Also, please state for what you are getting physical therapy, because the method of treatment could be quite different for different parts of the body.
__________________
It's harder to hate close up.
  #44  
Old 02-03-2015, 06:33 PM
TNLAKEPANDA's Avatar
TNLAKEPANDA TNLAKEPANDA is offline
Gold member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: East TN
Posts: 1,219
Thanks: 80
Thanked 62 Times in 27 Posts
Default

GOOD... but I still would not go to that hospital !
  #45  
Old 02-03-2015, 06:52 PM
graciegirl's Avatar
graciegirl graciegirl is offline
Sage
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 38,381
Thanks: 3,165
Thanked 2,748 Times in 1,005 Posts
Send a message via AIM to graciegirl
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jy22077 View Post
I don't Smoke!

These policies are a SCAM. Smokers are being played the fool and they are the suckers. It has nothing to do with promoting a healthy lifestyle. All it is is just discrimination to make the company easier to hire people so Human Resources doesn't have to work. I can PROVE why there policies are a SCAM. It's very easy. The reason is - That CURRENT employees are allowed to smoke but NEW employees can't

WOW!! Are you kidding me! That's one hell of a privilege. Current employees get basically a 10 million dollar payout - THEY DON"T HAVE TO QUIT!

That's like saying - CURRENT employees DON'T have to pay TAXES but NEW employees Do!

That's like saying - CURRENT nursing interns don't require to have a license to be RNs but NEW nurses have to have RN licenses.

This policy will likely to incite a CIVIL WAR between current employees and new employees.

I got to tell you, if my coworker CAN smoke But I am NOT allowed to smoke, I would be screaming until the beams at city hall fell to be allowed to smoke. (Just assuming I was a smoker.)

In addition, this new policy is exceptionally brutal as it does not allow for smoking OF ANY KIND or OF ANY AMOUNT.

This policy is also HIGHLY INTRUSIVE to a person's right to privacy.

Consider this.

Suppose a wife and husband both smoke. The husband currently works at the Villages Regional Hospital. The wife wishes to get a job at the Villages Regional Hospital. The Wife CAN'T smoke but the husband can.

I am all for a hiring band on smokers but it has to apply to CURRENT employees as well.

http://www.talkofthevillages.com/for...66/#post933800
__________________
It is better to laugh than to cry.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:45 AM.