Talk of The Villages Florida

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   Medical and Health Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/medical-health-discussion-94/)
-   -   The Villages Regional Hospital Will not hire smokers starting January 01, 2015 (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/medical-health-discussion-94/villages-regional-hospital-will-not-hire-smokers-starting-january-01-2015-a-141327/)

jy22077 01-29-2015 10:02 PM

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

lafoto 01-29-2015 10:14 PM

Its not clear from your post.
Is the new policy....
A) The hospital will no longer hire smokers on or off the job.
B) New employees will no longer be allowed to smoke in the smoking areas of the hospital.

jy22077 01-29-2015 10:18 PM

I believe the policy is that NEW employees won't be hired. (They will be tested for nicotine and have be free for 90 days in order to be considered.) CURRENT employees are EXEMPT from the policy. They can still smoke and don't have to quit. Smoking has been banned from hospital for years now.

NYGUY 01-29-2015 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jy22077 (Post 1003424)
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.

WOW, an incoherent rant....:Screen_of_Death:

lafoto 01-29-2015 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jy22077 (Post 1003432)
I believe the policy is that NEW employees won't be hired. (They will be tested for nicotine and have be free for 90 days in order to be considered.) CURRENT employees are EXEMPT from the policy. They can still smoke and don't have to quit. Smoking has been banned from hospital for years now.

Sounds rather discriminatory to me. Can they ban fat people or folks with a family history of cancer?

jy22077 01-29-2015 11:07 PM

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.

jy22077 01-29-2015 11:14 PM

Today in hospitals, smokers are vermin. The hospital does not value smokers. The only reason why the hospital doesn't apply the policy to current employees is because if they were to fire them, the hospital would lose a lot of good people and could not function. It's a lesser of 2 evils. Does the hospital want have some smokers or lose it's ability to function. Just remember though, if you are a smoker working at the hospital, the hospital does not value you and they consider you vermin. The only reason why you remain is to keep the hospital from shutting down.

sunnyatlast 01-29-2015 11:32 PM

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.

Allegiance 01-29-2015 11:52 PM

Its sometimes repulsive just to be near a smoker in an elevator, maybe smokers should not be near sick people?

KayakerNC 01-30-2015 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jy22077 (Post 1003452)
This is clearly discrimination and there is no way a hospital can justify it.

If I'm supposed to feel bad for smokers....it's not working.:cryin2:

Bay Kid 01-30-2015 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allegiance (Post 1003460)
Its sometimes repulsive just to be near a smoker in an elevator, maybe smokers should not be near sick people?

The smell. Agreed. Also loss of time while they have smoke breaks. Then there is the smokers cough.

rubicon 01-30-2015 07:03 AM

These sort of stories remind me of how utterly misguided people are who support legalized recreational marijuana use.

There is an insurance company in Iowa that refused to hire a person unless they agreed that they would not drink or smoke. Why because one of their primary classes of insureds were churches. I am not certain if that rule still applies there?

The ban on smoking and smokers at hospitals makes sense. I expect that once the new rules settle in on new employees further attention will be directed at current employees and done carefully to avoid discrimination suits.
I found it quite a paradox when at a hospital in Minneapolis you would see medical personnel outside smoking with lung cancer patients:shrug:

karostay 01-30-2015 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allegiance (Post 1003460)
Its sometimes repulsive just to be near a smoker in an elevator, maybe smokers should not be near sick people?

It's repulsive to be near a smoker anywhere any time !

Smoking is banned in public places and as far as I'm concerned even the golf course is a public place.

jy22077 01-30-2015 08:52 AM

I agree on that. Being next to a smoker is quite replusive. I think is is good that they have banned smoking in many public places. However, I do believe heartly on the right to privacy. Smoking is a legal act and if person wishes to do it on their own time and in their own place, it is none of the hospital's business. However, if the hospital is really trying to save money, I do agree on a ban which forbids hiring smokers. Where it is really crossing the line and wholly unfair and discriminatory is allowing the current employees to still smoke but new employees can't. There is no way to justify this.

CFrance 01-30-2015 09:04 AM

Most new policies grandfather in people who are already in place. They are looking toward the future to effect a large change.

kstew43 01-30-2015 09:06 AM

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 01-30-2015 09:10 AM

"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 01-30-2015 09:13 AM

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

jy22077 01-30-2015 09:17 AM

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 01-30-2015 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnyatlast (Post 1003459)
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 01-30-2015 09:25 AM

It was a free country

CFrance 01-30-2015 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jy22077 (Post 1003541)
"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 01-30-2015 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbym (Post 1003554)
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 01-30-2015 09:53 AM

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 01-30-2015 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jy22077 (Post 1003452)
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 01-30-2015 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jy22077 (Post 1003541)
"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 01-30-2015 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbym (Post 1003554)
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 01-30-2015 10:50 AM

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

sunnyatlast 01-30-2015 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jy22077 (Post 1003624)
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 01-30-2015 11:23 AM

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.)

manaboutown 01-30-2015 11:44 AM

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!

Bogie Shooter 01-30-2015 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jy22077 (Post 1003641)
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...............

njbchbum 01-30-2015 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allegiance (Post 1003460)
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!

njbchbum 01-30-2015 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manaboutown (Post 1003658)
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.

jy22077 01-30-2015 01:19 PM

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.

njbchbum 01-30-2015 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunnyatlast (Post 1003572)
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.

jy22077 01-30-2015 01:29 PM

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.

jy22077 01-30-2015 01:36 PM

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.

Chi-Town 01-30-2015 02:24 PM

The reason that smokers pay a higher premium has nothing to do with social acceptability.

CFrance 01-30-2015 04:46 PM

It has nothing to do with Obamacare either!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.