![]() |
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. |
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
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.
|
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. |
Its sometimes repulsive just to be near a smoker in an elevator, maybe smokers should not be near sick people?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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: |
Quote:
Smoking is banned in public places and as far as I'm concerned even the golf course is a public place. |
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.
|
Most new policies grandfather in people who are already in place. They are looking toward the future to effect a large change.
|
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.... |
"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. |
I was just really irrated and annoyed that current employees didn't have to quit but new employees did. just isn't right.
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
It was a free country
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.- See more at: Can and Should You Link Health Insurance Rates and Smoking? |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
I'm sure if you were to ask any smoker, they would consider that a $10,000,000.00 bonus.
|
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zWB4dLYChM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_th5U5hRu8k |
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.)
|
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! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
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. |
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.
|
The reason that smokers pay a higher premium has nothing to do with social acceptability.
|
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.