(Ed) Cleveland Clinic will no longer hire smokers

[Katana]

Beginning Sept. 1, Ohio's second-biggest employer, with 36,300 employees, no longer will 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.

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 because virtually all hospitals ban smokers from their buildings, not hiring smokers was the next logical step.


Link (http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070629/NEWS01/706290367)

From another article, it appears that they will begin testing current and potential employees for the presence of nicotine in their systems - although they say that the job status of current employees will not be affected by the results.

Of course, along with my many other questions, how might second-hand smoke affect the testing results? I don't know enough about the testing method that they will use to say, but I would worry about this resulting in false positives, if you will.

Yes. Many health problems would be prevented (and costs reduced) if everyone quit smoking, but smoking cigarettes is legal. If a hospital wants to do drug testing and not hire people who test positive for illegal substances, that is reasonable, but I have to admit that I have a problem with this.

If you want to tell your employees that they are not allowed to smoke in or around the hospital so as not to send a "bad message" to patients, fine, but this says that you're also not to engage in a legal activity in your own, personal time if you wish to be employed there.

Charge people more for their insurance, if you wish. I would have less of a problem with that than this blanket ban.

Also, given the fact that obesity-related conditions are set to overtake the healthcare costs of smokers, are they next? Make no mistake. I'm not a huge fan of slippery-slope arguments. It just seems strange that, if a hospital is so concerned about putting forth an appearance of health in its employees, then I say smoking on one's personal time is much better-concealed from the public than is overt obesity. Why not ban obese employees, too?

Then again, if they eliminated all smokers and the obese, then they might find themselves having real problems staffing their units. They certainly wouldn't want that, now, would they?

Thoughts?

(as though I need to ask ;))

[Katana]

Crud.

Can someone help me and change "higher" to "hire" in the title?

:mgduh

[Pardalis]

Higher smokers? You mean pot smokers? :p

[Katana]

Higher smokers? You mean pot smokers? :p


:viking1

Grrrr, Pardalis!

:D

[Tony]

Thoughts?


I think it's criminal and that the people behind this either need to be forced to forgo this policy or arrested for a gross violation of civil rights.

[tsg]

Rick Wade, a spokesman for the American Hospital Association, said because virtually all hospitals ban smokers from their buildings, not hiring smokers was the next logical step.

Um, no, they ban smoking in their buildings. Smokers are free to enter provided they don't smoke while inside.

[Katana]

I think it's criminal and that the people behind this either need to be forced to forgo this policy or arrested for a gross violation of civil rights.


Asked and answered. I knew I could count on you, Tony!

:D

[BPSCG]

Is it a public hospital or private?

If it's private, they can pretty much hire or not hire whoever they want, no?

Smokers cost more than non-smokers in more ways than just insurance. They take more sick days than non-smokers, even before they get cancer or heart disease. A smoker who takes six ten-minute smoke breaks a day is spending an hour more per day away from his desk than a non-smoker, all other things being equal. That's 12.5% of the workday being totally unproductive.

Why should the hospital be required to accept those costs of doing business?

[tsg]

Is it a public hospital or private?

If it's private, they can pretty much hire or not hire whoever they want, no?

Within certain restrictions.

Smokers cost more than non-smokers in more ways than just insurance. They take more sick days than non-smokers, even before they get cancer or heart disease.

That is not true for all smokers.

A smoker who takes six ten-minute smoke breaks a day is spending an hour more per day away from his desk than a non-smoker, all other things being equal. That's 12.5% of the workday being totally unproductive.

Non-smokers get breaks as well and many companies have policies about how often you are allowed to take a break, smoker or not.

Why should the hospital be required to accept those costs of doing business?

Why should everyone in a group of people be denied jobs because some of that group are less productive or more costly? How about a ban on motorcycle riders or sky-divers?

Or how about we rate each employee's productivity individually?

[Tony]

If it's private, they can pretty much hire or not hire whoever they want, no?


No, they can't.

They take more sick days than non-smokers, even before they get cancer or heart disease.

Then non-smokers need to take more sick days.

A smoker who takes six ten-minute smoke breaks a day is spending an hour more per day away from his desk than a non-smoker, all other things being equal.

And a person with a high fiber diet spends more work time sitting on the toilet than a person who rarely has to poo. So what? I drink lots of water, more than the average person, and I frequently use the restroom, should I lose my job because my good habit causes me to be away from my desk more than average?

Why should the hospital be required to accept those costs of doing business?

Because that's the price of living in a free country were people have rights.

[BPSCG]

Because that's the price of living in a free country were people have rights.Since it's Independence Day tomorrow, could you please pull out your copy of the Declaration of Independence and tell what paragraph I can find the words referring to the inalienable right to "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and a job with the employer of my choosing"?

Thanks.

[Tony]

Since it's Independence Day tomorrow, could you please pull out your copy of the Declaration of Independence and tell what paragraph I can find the words referring to the inalienable right to "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and a job with the employer of my choosing"?

Thanks.

No need, it says "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness". If someone wants to smoke, they are pursuing their happiness via their liberty. Ohh and while we're at it, can you pull out your copy and find the part where is says "but businesses are hereby permitted to use their power to coerce people to give up those rights"?

No? That's what I thought.


What's that about Western Civ declining? You were against its decline in another thread, but you're for its decline in this thread? What's up with that?

Writer's Note: Notice how BPSCG ignored my question about good habits lowering productivity?

[MelBrooksfan]

Is it a public hospital or private?
If it's private, they can pretty much hire or not hire whoever they want, no?


No, I don't believe so. Even private companies are restricted from hiring practices that discriminate based on race or sex, if I recall correctly.

[Overman]

Sounds BS...a much much more reasonable thing would to ban smoking at work...

[thrombus29]

No, I don't believe so. Even private companies are restricted from hiring practices that discriminate based on race or sex, if I recall correctly.

Race and sex are protected, smokers arent. No company has to hire smokers if they don't want to. They don't have to hire left-handed people or bald people either.

[Admiral]

Hey, Tony, this argument is familiar from another thread ("Legalizing Marijuana" in March). I can pick up where I left off.

And a person with a high fiber diet spends more work time sitting on the toilet than a person who rarely has to poo. So what? I drink lots of water, more than the average person, and I frequently use the restroom, should I lose my job because my good habit causes me to be away from my desk more than average?

You don't think that a company should be allowed to fire someone because they get up from their desk too often? I honestly don't understand. (I don't think any company would fire someone for such a reason unless it were severely restricting productivity).

Here's a question. Imagine a company has to lay someone off, and they have to decide between two employees. One of them is less productive. They decide to lay off the less productive one, but then he sues them under the claim that the reason he's less productive is that he goes to the bathroom so often. Do you think the company should be prevented from laying him off?

Because that's the price of living in a free country were people have rights.

You don't think these rights extend that far- after all, are you OK with pilots drinking before they fly a plane? How about truck drivers? Surgeons? Should employers be allowed to fire them for that?

[Tony]

You don't think that a company should be allowed to fire someone because they get up from their desk too often? I honestly don't understand. (I don't think any company would fire someone for such a reason unless it were severely restricting productivity).


Dodge noted.

Do you think the company should be prevented from laying him off?

For going to the bathroom more than the company decides is neccessary? Yes.

You don't think these rights extend that far- after all, are you OK with pilots drinking before they fly a plane?

False analogy. Pilots are responsible for the safety of hundreds of people.

How about truck drivers?

Its against the law to drink and drive.

Surgeons?

Same as a pilot, a surgeon is directly responsible for the lives of others. How about you make some apples to apples comparisons?

[Tony]

Race and sex are protected, smokers arent.

Yes, they are. It's legal to smoke, therefore, their practice is protected.

[Admiral]

Dodge noted.

I wasn't dodging. You're actually the one that's dodging, when you say:

For going to the bathroom more than the company decides is neccessary? Yes.

So all someone has to do to prevent them from EVER getting fired for unproductivity is to go to the bathroom too often. That's what you're saying: after all, they can always claim, later, that the reason they're unproductive is that they went to the bathroom too often, which they can't be fired for.

False analogy. Pilots are responsible for the safety of hundreds of people.

Its against the law to drink and drive.

Same as a pilot, a surgeon is directly responsible for the lives of others. How about you make some apples to apples comparisons?

I'll buy that. (Would you describe your claim as that that people have inalienable rights until they endanger other people?)

[BPSCG]

Yes, they are. It's legal to smoke, therefore, their practice is protected.There are all kinds of things that are legal that can prevent you from getting a job. Imagine trying to get a job that requires a security clearance, and the background check reveals you go to bars every night, you spend a lot of money at the track, and you appear to be living barely within your financial means. All perfectly legal, but you won't get that top-secret clearance, and you won't get the job.

BTW, FWIW, I'll bet Ohio's second-biggest employer ran this idea by a whole team of lawyers before making it their policy, so I'll bet it has an excellent chance of holding up in court, should it come to that.

[Tony]

I wasn't dodging. You're actually the one that's dodging, when you say:


Yes you were, you completely failed to address these questions:

And a person with a high fiber diet spends more work time sitting on the toilet than a person who rarely has to poo. So what? I drink lots of water, more than the average person, and I frequently use the restroom, should I lose my job because my good habit causes me to be away from my desk more than average?

So all someone has to do to prevent them from EVER getting fired for unproductivity is to go to the bathroom too often.

Yes.

That's what you're saying: after all, they can always claim, later, that the reason they're unproductive is that they went to the bathroom too often, which they can't be fired for.

Good for them. This says nothing, all you're doing is pointing out that people can abuse rights and lie.

Would you describe your claim as that that people have inalienable rights until they endanger other people?

Not really. We endanger other people by simply getting in our cars everyday. A cop technically endangers other people simply by being armed. I'd say that unneccessary danger is what could cause someone to forfiet some of their rights, atleast temporarily. Like if I was driving drunk or if the cop was waving his gun around and firing rounds into the air.

[BPSCG]

Since you're complaining about my dodging your question, which someone else answered anyway...

And a person with a high fiber diet spends more work time sitting on the toilet than a person who rarely has to poo. So what? I drink lots of water, more than the average person, and I frequently use the restroom, should I lose my job because my good habit causes me to be away from my desk more than average?If it's causing a significant drop in your productivity, yes.

Let's let someone else use your argument:
"I run five miles every weekday on company time - I'm gone from my desk about an hour every day. Should I lose my job because my good habit causes me to be away from my desk more than average?"

[Tony]

There are all kinds of things that are legal that can prevent you from getting a job. Imagine trying to get a job that requires a security clearance, and the background check reveals you go to bars every night, you spend a lot of money at the track, and you appear to be living barely within your financial means. All perfectly legal, but you won't get that top-secret clearance, and you won't get the job.


False analogy.

I'll bet Ohio's second-biggest employer ran this idea by a whole team of lawyers before making it their policy, so I'll bet it has an excellent chance of holding up in court, should it come to that.

Yeah, and as well all know, lawyers are never wrong.

[Tony]

If it's causing a significant drop in your productivity, yes.


Define "significant drop".

I run five miles every weekday on company time - I'm gone from my desk about an hour every day. Should I lose my job because my good habit causes me to be away from my desk more than average?

No.

[DanishDynamite]

Smokers are now a persecuted minority. In a way, its nice.

[Tony]

Smokers are now a persecuted minority. In a way, its nice.

True, the fascists are running out of people to pick on and since they must pick on someone, it might as well be people who can control and cease the reason for which they're being picked on. ;)

[Katana]

Since you're complaining about my dodging your question, which someone else answered anyway...

If it's causing a significant drop in your productivity, yes.

Let's let someone else use your argument:
"I run five miles every weekday on company time - I'm gone from my desk about an hour every day. Should I lose my job because my good habit causes me to be away from my desk more than average?"


But is that what we're talking about?

Productivity is not measured by one's time at one's desk (or at least it shouldn't be). One could be a smoker or a frequent-pooer and be just as productive as the next person. This ban on the Cleveland Clinic's part is not taking a position on any staff person's productivity. It is taking a stance against a legal pursuit that it happens to take issue with and one that may not affect its employees' performance at all.

ETA: And for Ed's sake, will someone please fix the title of this thread?

Edited again to add: Thanks, Darat!

[luchog]

Yes. Many health problems would be prevented (and costs reduced) if everyone quit smoking, but smoking cigarettes is legal. If a hospital wants to do drug testing and not hire people who test positive for illegal substances, that is reasonable, but I have to admit that I have a problem with this.

Do you oppose testing for alcohol use? If not, do you oppose it for some professions and not for others?

Alcohol is a legal drug, but is implicated in far more on-the-job accidents and incidents of violence than all illegal drugs combined.

Tobacco smokers have higher rates of absenteeism due to illness, and use a disproportionately higher amount of health insurance resources than non-smokers.

Personally, I have problems with all drug testing, legal or illegal, except in certain high-risk positions, where I would support testing for all potentially impairment-inducing substances, regardless of legality.

[Katana]

Do you oppose testing for alcohol use? If not, do you oppose it for some professions and not for others?

Alcohol is a legal drug, but is implicated in far more on-the-job accidents and incidents of violence than all illegal drugs combined.

Tobacco smokers have higher rates of absenteeism due to illness, and use a disproportionately higher amount of health insurance resources than non-smokers.

Personally, I have problems with all drug testing, legal or illegal, except in certain high-risk positions, where I would support testing for all potentially impairment-inducing substances, regardless of legality.


True. Perhaps the legality of the substance should not be the only issue.

[luchog]

Let's let someone else use your argument:
"I run five miles every weekday on company time - I'm gone from my desk about an hour every day. Should I lose my job because my good habit causes me to be away from my desk more than average?"

No.
So, by your logic, no one could ever be fired for non-productivity as long as they can come up with a good enough excuse for not bothering to do any work. Not sure if I'd want to live in a world like that or not. On the one hand, I wouldn't even have to show up or do anything productive as long as I can think of a good enough excuse, which I'm very good at; and I could still count on getting my paycheck. On the other hand, in such a world there wouldn't be anyone to employ me, since all businesses would very quickly go bankrupt. On the gripping hand, you clearly have no clue what you're talking about, and nothing you post has the slightest bit of logical thought behind it; so I really have no reason to take anything you say even slightly seriously.

[BPSCG]

False analogy. Sorry, Tony, you have to do better than that. That's not argument, that's simply contradiction. Argument is an intellectual process; it's not the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person happens to make (pace Monty Python). Why is it a false analogy?
Yeah, and as well all know, lawyers are never wrong.If it comes down to betting on whether someone who gets paid big bucks to know the law is right, or you are, I'm going with the guy who gets paid to know. BTW, if you read the link in the OP, you'll see that other employers have done this, too.

[Tony]

Why is it a false analogy?


You're a big boy, if you think really hard about it, you'll be able to figure it out.

[BPSCG]

But is that what we're talking about?

Productivity is not measured by one's time at one's desk (or at least it shouldn't be). One could be a smoker or a frequent-pooer and be just as productive as the next person. This ban on the Cleveland Clinic's part is not taking a position on any staff person's productivity. It is taking a stance against a legal pursuit that it happens to take issue with and one that may not affect its employees' performance at all.May not individually, but may well as a group. Your 16-year-old boy may be an excellent, responsible driver, but his auto insurance rates are going to be based on the statistics for his age group. People bitch and moan about it all the time, but it's perfectly legal, and I think this non-hiring of smokers will hold up for similar reasons.


ETA: And for Ed's sake, will someone please fix the title of this thread?

And now that it's been fixed, can someone tell me who this Ed Cleveland guy is?

[BPSCG]

You're a big boy, if you think really hard about it, you'll be able to figure it out.I may be big, but I'm also thick, so help me out.

[Tony]

So, by your logic, no one could ever be fired for non-productivity as long as they can come up with a good enough excuse for not bothering to do any work.

No, I'm just giving them stupid answers because trying to reason with free-market fundies is a waste of time. They're too dim to realize that when their ideas are taken to their logical conclusion the result is that employers would have the right to regulate everything about a worker's life, what/how much they eat and drink, how much they excercise, how much they sleep, how much they use the restroom, what/how much they smoke, who they associate with and who they marry. In short, they want an economy where the employer is dictator and every aspect of an employee's life can be controlled for the sake of productivity, profit and the reputation of the company.

[Tony]

I may be big, but I'm also thick, so help me out.

Then if you're thick, it's unlikely that working with you will bear any fruit.

[Gurdur]

Fascinating. :)

Since smokers hired by a clinic would not be allowed to smoke on clinic grounds, therefore the clinic is actually making demands on their private life, demands that have no real valid reason to be made.

But BPSCG finds that perfectly OK, while BPSCG finds Germany terribly terribly unfree for prohibiting the public advocation of Naziism.

So it looks like BPSCG really has double standards, doesn't it? But then, that's old news, and like finding out that the Pope is a Catholic all over again for the umpteenth time.

[Miss Anthrope]

Personally, I have problems with all drug testing, legal or illegal, except in certain high-risk positions, where I would support testing for all potentially impairment-inducing substances, regardless of legality.

With you 100% here.

[Miss Anthrope]

No, I'm just giving them stupid answers because trying to reason with free-market fundies is a waste of time. They're too dim to realize that when their ideas are taken to their logical conclusion the result is that employers would have the right to regulate everything about a worker's life, what/how much they eat and drink, how much they excercise, how much they sleep, how much they use the restroom, what/how much they smoke, who they associate with and who they marry. In short, they want an economy where the employer is dictator and every aspect of an employee's life can be controlled for the sake of productivity, profit and the reputation of the company.

It's a slippery slope argument, but I have a hard time completely disagreeing with it.

[Tony]

With you 100% here.

Me too luchog.

[Admiral]

No, I'm just giving them stupid answers because trying to reason with free-market fundies is a waste of time.

So you admit that you're being intentionally unreasonable...

So how am I the fundamentalist again?

[Darth Rotor]

Link (http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070629/NEWS01/706290367)

From another article, it appears that they will begin testing current and potential employees for the presence of nicotine in their systems - although they say that the job status of current employees will not be affected by the results.

Of course, along with my many other questions, how might second-hand smoke affect the testing results? I don't know enough about the testing method that they will use to say, but I would worry about this resulting in false positives, if you will.

Yes. Many health problems would be prevented (and costs reduced) if everyone quit smoking, but smoking cigarettes is legal. If a hospital wants to do drug testing and not hire people who test positive for illegal substances, that is reasonable, but I have to admit that I have a problem with this.

If you want to tell your employees that they are not allowed to smoke in or around the hospital so as not to send a "bad message" to patients, fine, but this says that you're also not to engage in a legal activity in your own, personal time if you wish to be employed there.

Charge people more for their insurance, if you wish. I would have less of a problem with that than this blanket ban.

Also, given the fact that obesity-related conditions are set to overtake the healthcare costs of smokers, are they next? Make no mistake. I'm not a huge fan of slippery-slope arguments. It just seems strange that, if a hospital is so concerned about putting forth an appearance of health in its employees, then I say smoking on one's personal time is much better-concealed from the public than is overt obesity. Why not ban obese employees, too?

Then again, if they eliminated all smokers and the obese, then they might find themselves having real problems staffing their units. They certainly wouldn't want that, now, would they?

Thoughts?

(as though I need to ask ;))
This is rich. If I smoke dope, no nicotine traces. They'll hire a weekend stoner?

DR

[Tony]

It's a slippery slope argument

It is, but I think is apt. in this case. Free-marketeers advocate the sweeping and comprehensive adoption of their ideals throughout the market, cheif among them, businesses can hire and fire anyone, at anytime for any reason. With that in mind, its easy to see how the employee's private life can become subordinate to the needs and whims of the company (lord).

[Tsukasa Buddha]

First they came for the smokers, but I said nothing because I was not a smoker.
Then they came for the drinkers, but I said nothing because I was not a drinker.
Then they came for the elderly, but I said nothing because I was not elderly.
Then they came for the mentally ill, but I said nothing because I was not mentally ill.
Then they came for the LGBT, but I said nothing because I was not LGBT.
Then they came for the mothers, but I said nothing because I was not a mother.
And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

[Katana]

Then if you're thick, it's unlikely that working with you will bear any fruit.


Well, being big and thick can certainly bear fruit in certain contexts.

:duck:

[BPSCG]

Then if you're thick, it's unlikely that working with you will bear any fruit.Maybe. Or maybe you're incapable of forming an intelligent argument to back up your assertion.

[Tony]

So you admit that you're being intentionally unreasonable...


Yes, I'm being intentionally unreasonable. What's your excuse for being unreasonable?

So how am I the fundamentalist again?

Because, like all fundamenalists, you advocate the extreme adoption of your ideas to the disregard of logic and humanity. Everyone must bow to and conform to the demands of your god, which, in this case, is the pursuit of money.

[Darth Rotor]

First they came for the smokers, but I said nothing because I was not a smoker.
Then they came for the drinkers, but I said nothing because I was not a drinker.
Then they came for the elderly, but I said nothing because I was not elderly.
Then they came for the mentally ill, but I said nothing because I was not mentally ill.
Then they came for the LGBT, but I said nothing because I was not LGBT.
Then they came for the mothers, but I said nothing because I was not a mother.
And then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

I'd like to introduce you to the Second Amendment. Ignore it at your peril.

I know what I'll kill for.

Do you?

DR

[Ranillon]

Since smokers hired by a clinic would not be allowed to smoke on clinic grounds, therefore the clinic is actually making demands on their private life, demands that have no real valid reason to be made.


I hate to say this, but there is a "valid" reason (or, at least, one that is so in a practical sense) -- economics.

That is the one aspect so far everyone seems to have mostly missed. While the link doesn't say this explicitly (not surprising -- doing so would have negative PR effects) I bet a large part of the reason for their decision was just money. Not just savings from not having to deal with higher-health-risk smokers, but also in more indirect ways like a positive public image and so forth.

I used to work for a hosiptal chain (in I.T.) and what always amazed me was how the best way to find a crowd of smokers was to go to the hosiptal proper. Outside the door there was an almost constant gaggle of hosiptal employees puffing away. Considering that the supposed point of the place was to improve and perserve good health, such a spectacle probably isn't the best image to present to potential customers and the community at large.

I'm not saying I agree with this being a justifiable reason to ban smokers from your employment rolls, but it's not just a case of sheer prejudice. Push comes to shove the medical powers-that-be will inevitably pull out the argument that smokers on the payroll cost them "too much" money. Given how our society has become increasingly competitive expect this trend to continue and likely expand into other areas. If you want to stop it you'll need to make a good economic argument on top of the moral one.

[Admiral]

Yes, I'm being intentionally unreasonable. What's your excuse for being unreasonable?

So you're blaming your inability to come up with a reasonable argument on me?


Because, like all fundamenalists, you advocate the extreme adoption of your ideas to the disregard of logic and humanity. Everyone must bow to and conform to the demands of your god, which, in this case, is the pursuit of money.

Those are some seriously ad hominem accusations there, Tony. I'm just trying to have a logical argument with you here.

Could you point out where I disregard logic or humanity? Could you point out where I declare my god to be money?

[Admiral]

I'd like to introduce you to the Second Amendment. Ignore it at your peril.

I know what I'll kill for.

Do you?

DR

Ummmm... I'm sorry, DR, but I don't understand how that relates.

[Tony]

Maybe. Or maybe you're incapable of forming an intelligent argument to back up your assertion.

Maybe. Or maybe you wouldn't recognize an intelligent argument if it crapped gold bricks on your bed. I recognize and respect intelligent argument, which is why I gave up on the free-market lunacy years ago. I realized, if I am to respect the values of civil rights and freedom, that the free-market isn't the fix-all solution its advocates claim it is.

[Katana]

I hate to say this, but there is a "valid" reason (or, at least, one that is so in a practical sense) -- economics.

That is the one aspect so far everyone seems to have mostly missed. While the link doesn't say this explicitly (not surprising -- doing so would have negative PR effects) I bet a large part of the reason for their decision was just money. Not just savings from not having to deal with higher-health-risk smokers, but also in more indirect ways like a positive public image and so forth.

I used to work for a hosiptal chain (in I.T.) and what always amazed me was how the best way to find a crowd of smokers was to go to the hosiptal proper. Outside the door there was an almost constant gaggle of hosiptal employees puffing away. Considering that the supposed point of the place was to improve and perserve good health, such a spectacle probably isn't the best image to present to potential customers and the community at large.

I'm not saying I agree with this being a justifiable reason to ban smokers from your employment rolls, but it's not just a case of sheer prejudice. Push comes to shove the medical powers-that-be will inevitably pull out the argument that smokers on the payroll cost them "too much" money. Given how our society has become increasingly competitive expect this trend to continue and likely expand into other areas. If you want to stop it you'll need to make a good economic argument on top of the moral one.


The community at large is going to go there because it's the Cleveland Clinic - whether or not there are a few nurses and docs out back having a puff.

[Ranillon]

The community at large is going to go there because it's the Cleveland Clinic - whether or not there are a few nurses and docs out back having a puff.

This doesn't negate my point -- smokers will still cost more and those who do have a choice might go someplace else if they see employees smoking by the entrance. It can also have general negative effects on the clinics public image.

Again, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with their policy, but I don't think it's enough to merely denounce the policy on moral grounds if you want effective change.

[Tony]

So you're blaming your inability to come up with a reasonable argument on me?


Yes.

I'm just trying to have a logical argument with you here.

Me too, but my logic is grounded in the values of civil rights, individual rights and so forth ie, values that improve the human condition. Your logic seems to be grounded in only the value of money.

Could you point out where I disregard logic or humanity?

So then you don't think employers should have the right to fire employees for any reason, at anytime even if the reason is something that has nothing to do with the company and is on their own private time?

Could you point out where I declare my god to be money?

You've never "declared" it. You demonstrate it with every argument you make about this subject. Everything, the civil rights of the employees, the health of society, the personal freedom of the individual, ultimately boils down to cost and the interests of the employer.

[Katana]

This doesn't negate my point -- smokers will still cost more and those who do have a choice might go someplace else if they see employees smoking by the entrance. It can also have general negative effects on the clinics public image.

Again, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with their policy, but I don't think it's enough to merely denounce the policy on moral grounds if you want effective change.


I should have pointed out again that this isn't just about banning smoking on the hospital grounds. It is about not hiring people who smoke in any context, including within the confines of their own homes.

[BPSCG]

Since smokers hired by a clinic would not be allowed to smoke on clinic grounds, therefore the clinic is actually making demands on their private life, demands that have no real valid reason to be made.I've read that sentence three times now and it still doesn't make sense.

The clinic is saying it is not going to hire smokers at all, not that it will hire them and make them smoke outside.

But BPSCG finds that perfectly OK, while BPSCG finds Germany terribly terribly unfree for prohibiting the public advocation of Naziism.I don't even understand what you're trying to say here, so it's kind of silly to say I find it perfectly okay.
So it looks like BPSCG really has double standards, doesn't it? But then, that's old news, and like finding out that the Pope is a Catholic all over again for the umpteenth time.Gurdur, you've been around here for a while, and by now, you've seen enough of these "individual rights vs. government powers" threads to understand that individuals and organizations are permitted to do things that government is not.

The Constitution says that congress "shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech."

That does not mean that I may not throw you out of my house if you speak well of Hitler (and I will). It is a restriction on government's powers, not on my rights. It is not illegal for you to speak well of Hitler, but it is also not illegal for me to refuse you my hospitality if you do.

You may not refuse to hire someone for a job because you disapprove of his race, religion, or sex. The reason is that those characteristics generally have no bearing on a person's ability to do a job.

But an employer has every right to refuse to hire someone if he believes the employer engages in behavior that will hurt his business. The smoker has a right to smoke. But the employer has the right to make a profit. If the employer, with good cause, believes smokers will hurt his bottom line, under what theory of individual rights do you claim he must hire the smoker anyway?

[BPSCG]

It is, but I think is apt. in this case. Free-marketeers advocate the sweeping and comprehensive adoption of their ideals throughout the market, cheif among them, businesses can hire and fire anyone, at anytime for any reason. That's not nonsense; that's double nonsense.

Businesses may not fire someone "for any reason." You may not fire someone because she refused to sleep with the boss, or because she's an Episcopalian, or because she's 52 years old, or because she's Hispanic.
Free-marketers do not advocate the above, in any case. If you can show me where Milton Friedman or Alan Greenspan or Adam Smith claims as such, I will retract.

[Tony]

I've read that sentence three times now and it still doesn't make sense.


Big surprise. BPSCG doesn't understand a simple concept written in plain english.

The clinic is saying it is not going to hire smokers at all

Exactly. The clinic is saying "if you work here, you better not smoke, even in private".

[Tony]

Businesses may not fire someone "for any reason." You may not fire someone because she refused to sleep with the boss, or because she's an Episcopalian, or because she's 52 years old, or because she's Hispanic.[/LIST]

Says you. Other freemarket JREFers have said otherwise.

Free-marketers do not advocate the above, in any case. If you can show me where Milton Friedman or Alan Greenspan or Adam Smith claims as such, I will retract.

I'm not talking about Milton Friedman or Alan Greenspan or Adam Smith, I'm talking about people at JREF, and they have advocated the above.

[Ranillon]

I should have pointed out again that this isn't just about banning smoking on the hospital grounds. It is about not hiring people who smoke in any context, including within the confines of their own homes.

I know. My point is that -- well, I strongly suspect -- the primary motive of the clinic is economic (e.g. it'll cost them money). As such most of the economic reasons merely require someone to smoke. It doesn't matter where. That they don't do so in front of potential customers is a bonus, but still doesn't get around basic health issues.

[BPSCG]

So how am I the fundamentalist again?You disagree with Tony and ask him to support his position. That makes you a fundy. Understand, the universe of people who qualify as "fundies" by Tony's standards encompasses approximately half the population of the United States of America.

ETA: Mrs. BPSCG just got home, and it's time to celebrate Independence Day. Y'all have a great one.

:USA: :VIRGINIA: :NEWYORK: :TEXAS: :yahoo

[Tony]

ETA: Mrs. BPSCG just got home, and it's time to celebrate Independence Day. Y'all have a great one.

:USA: :VIRGINIA: :NEWYORK: :TEXAS: :yahoo

Don't get too wasted, you remember what happened last time. ;)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'd like to introduce you to the Second Amendment. Ignore it at your peril.

I know what I'll kill for.

Do you?

DR

:)

[Susan Gerbic]

I'm not too crazy about this Cleveland law. But from personal experience I do not want to hire another smoker again. Where I live, almost no one smokes. In my entire building of 100+ people maybe only 8-9 people smoke. And I could probably name each one of them, Why, because my department is next to the door and I see these same people walking in and out all day long for just a "quick break". It really is annoying for the other workers to see two of the managers "out for just a minute".

I had one woman I hired who worked for me. I hired her because she was pretty good at her job. BUT she stank like crazy when she returned from her breaks. Customers and other employees did not want to be around her for at least 5 minutes after she returned. She would chew gum thinking that was fixing the problem, yet it was her whole body that stank.

She HAD to have a break even when we were busy with customers, everyone else would just continue to work. We are in retail, no one is on a specific schedule with lunches or breaks, we just take them when we have time, or when we are at our slowest. But this woman made sure she went for about 10 minutes to smoke (said she was getting a water or going to the bathroom) yet she really went to smoke and then for a least 5 minutes no one could be around her, even though customers were waiting for her. Let me be clear, She was entitled to her breaks but we didn't need to smell the lingering remains of her break, also others put their breaks off for slower times. This woman was always stressed and high-strung.

A few months ago a woman was going to transfer to my work, she came by for a visit to see if she could find a place to live in my area. She walked in and smelled like she was still smoking a couple smokes right there in front of us. Happily she could not find an affordable place to live so I didn't have to deal with her. I was pre-occupied with how I was going to tell her we weren't comfortable being around her.

I have had maybe 100 employees over the years. We have problems with them from time to time, but smokers are just one problem I want to eliminate. I would not hire someone who had horrible B.O. or really bad breath so why would I hire someone who smokes?

Susan