Posted on 06/30/2013 4:32:19 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
With just days to go before two of Philadelphia's most prestigious hospitals refuse to hire smokers, the ban has relit a debate about the wisdom of regulating workers' behavior away from the workplace.
Both the highly rated University of Pennsylvania Health System, which includes the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, as well as the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, named by US News and World Report as America's top children's hospital this year, will join dozens of hospitals across the country when they implement their policy on Monday, July 1.
The move has generated criticism among civil liberties activists, hospital employees and even doctors who fear that smokers will lie about their habit - and therefore become less likely to seek help in stopping it.
"It's not all slopes that are slippery, but this one really is," said Lewis Maltby, a former American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who now runs the National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J. He is critical of an employer's intrusion into the private time of employees.
"What you do in your own home on your own time is none of your boss's business unless it affects your work," he said.
Maltby noted that drinking alcohol, eating lots of junk food and not exercising are also bad for you. "Virtually everything you do in your private life affects your health," he said, wondering what other kinds of hiring restrictions could come to pass.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Ping-A-Ling!
Corporate Employment Nazi Nanny State PING!
What about gays who might be carrying aids. Soooo beserk, no common sense anymore.
I can’t support that.However,I could support an employer charging smokers more for health premiums,giving smokers fewer sick days...and maybe other things as well.
The Miami PD just reversed it’s policy of not hiring smokers. It turns out that they had difficulty in hiring not only enough staff, but the most qualified as well.
As long as employment entails health benefits, especially if the employer is self-insured, what else can they do?
Our local hospital evicts patients for smoking. They used to have a smoking area but they closed that and made them go outside then they made them leave the property. Once they leave the property they become a voluntary check out and have to start the admittance process over.
Seems to me that the need for nicotine is an addiction, and those so addicted would be disabled.
If that is the case, then smokers should be covered by “The Americans with disabilities act”, and the employer should make reasonable accommodations for them to be able to smoke.
What about my chocolate addiction? Does that apply? *SMIRK* (As if I’d take a dime...)
“What you do in your own home on your own time is none of your boss’s business unless it affects your work,” he said.
Hummm, this’ll be a tough one for the Libs.
Solution is easy, and already in practice in some States...Right to Work. It’s not the employees job. The employer is more than welcome to NOT hire smokers, as they are to NOT hire anyone they don’t wish.
Why would an employer hire a smoker, knowing they must supply ‘smoke breaks’ (anyone else get that benefit)? Already that’s, what, 30 min. of unproductive time? Let alone the proclivity for more health issues (paid time off).
Might as well hire a 7-month pregnant woman knowing she’s gonna download as soon as she’s through her training period; PLUS then having to hold the position in case she wants to come back into the workforce (how long is that lull?)...
Yeah, I can see why business don’t want to start in the U.S. anymore.
Wait until they refuse to hire asmoker who also happens to be here because of amnesty.Boy,will it ever hit the fan then.
“The move has generated criticism among civil liberties activists, hospital employees and even doctors who fear that smokers will lie about their habit “
And this is going on more than most people would imagine. Many of my friends lie about smoking when asked by anyone. I wont tell anyone in the Medi-Obama-Care cartel that I smoke, I have never told a single doctor I smoke, and would lie like a rug when it came to any job asking about it. Pee tests, go right ahead.. there are ways around that too. Go ahead nanny state, make me a liar lol I could care less anymore.
What about gays...
Bone smokers are celebrated!
So in your eyes, smokers are less American than non smokers. How hypocricital of you. Nice to see we have an increasing amount of leftest plants here on Free Republic.
Let’s go down that road, shall we?
Overweight? Not worth hiring.
Drink booze? Not worth hiring.
Have past medical problems? Don’t bother applying.
Over 40? Don’t even bother.
Have any run in with the law? Even a traffic ticket? We don’t hire convicted criminals, period.
Perception is everything. The perception is that employer large and small are chomping at the bie to ram through amnesty, and kick the indigenous workforce to the curb. I say go ahead, make it happen, and then you have to as an employer, deal with the consequenses. When your unemployment insurance rates and tax rates go through the roof, to pay for all of those employees you kicked to the curb, no matter how productive they were, over the issue of the day, I won’t say you had it coming. The illegals you hire will be far worse than any native workforce you hire, because you’ll have to deal with the backlash, lost productivity, and worst of all putting yourselves in real physical jeapordy.
The profits at all cost crowd, and their modern day mexican slave drivers and outsourcing/offshoring firms are really pushing their luck.
So smokers, not corporate taxes and regulations are the reason businesses don’t want to start in the U.S. anymore. Who would have know?
Smokers have been paying higher premiums for ages.
“know” should have been “known”.
Nope.Try applying for life insurance and telling the company that you're a skydiver....or a race car driver.For that matter,try applying to a "civilian" life insurance company while a member of the US Armed Forces.In situations like that you'll either be denied a policy all together,will be charged a higher premium than otherwise or the policy they write will contain a specific clause denying benefits for deaths caused by skydiving...or car racing...or service in the Armed Forces.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.