It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Companies Not Hiring Nicotine Users

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Companies Not Hiring Nicotine Users


dailycaller.com

Starting Feb. 1, Memorial Hospital no longer will hire people who use tobacco products, making the hospital one of a small number of employers nationwide that consider smoking status in job applicants.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Are they planning on making nicotine use illegal? How can this be possible. They don't initially test for alcohol. If they do I haven't heard about it, and know plenty of folks who drink regularly who have no problem finding work. What's next? Isn't this a violation of the constitution somehow. Are they going me test to make sure you have a significant about of "Great Value" brand foods in your system next. This is going to be a very interesting year folks, very interesting indeed.

dailycaller.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 16-2-2010 by recycled]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I think people should be able to smoke all they want, on their own time. But I can see how this might be an issue at a hospital..

Ever walk by the entrance to the ER and you see 2 or 3 guys in white coats standing around having a cigarette? I have, and it's just bad for the image of the hospital; in a way it's hypocritical.

They should just ban smoking on the premises, problem solved. What anyone does outside of work though is none of their concern.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
As someone who passionately stands up to companies abusing workers rights and treating them as slaves this policy will get the hospital a lawsuit. They violate the state laws by instituting this policy.


Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304 (2004) Prohibits an employer from discharging or terminating an employee solely for using an agricultural product not regulated by the alcoholic beverage commission that is not otherwise proscribed by law, provided that the employee uses such agricultural products outside of working hours or complies with all applicable employer policies regarding such use during working hours.


An argument can easily be made that if an employer cannot fire for this smoking tobacco they cannot discriminate hiring someone for tobacco use.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
I agree it reflects bad upon a hospital, and this isn't the only hospital moving in this direction. My fear is, it won't stop at just hospitals.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Come on down to NC- you'll have more business than you'll know what to do with.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by wylekat
 


I am from and in NC
I'm currently in administrative litigation on a case of my own. Yes NC is terrible and yet there are laws protecting workers that apparently nobody here knows about.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
This is only the beginning.

Next up is the dreaded height/weight chart and the body mass index.

Looking more and more like Nazi Germany everyday.

I think the term "Anti-Smoking Nazi's" applies here.

constitutionalistnc.tripod.com...


The state performer in antismoking propaganda was Adolf Hitler. As one magazine put it: "brother national socialist, do you know that our Führer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?"



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I started a thread about this happening in Parma, OH.

In my thread, I linked to a case a smoker brought testing this policy elsewhere.

He lost.

Good bye rights.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Carseller4
 


So long as we have Vitamultin for the masses, everything is looking up. We can't let Hitler hog it all.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by hotbakedtater
 


Yeah unfortunately OHIO does not have any labor protections against use of lawful products during off duty time.

Here is a list of the states that do have protections to keep employers from becoming watchers of your personal life.

www.ncsl.org...



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
This legislation page was last updated May, 2008. I wonder if there have been updates that are not listed here.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by recycled
 


Could be revisions to laws. As always on the internet cross check source, especially posted laws such as this list. Legislation may have changed, but many states probably haven't changed these laws unless petitioned by one of these companies.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Thank you for that list. I live in what I consider one of the most behind the times states in our country, I figured smoking would be protected here.

(at least for another decade, thats about how far behind the times our politicians greasy good old boy brains are).



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Maybe I'm way off, but maybe there are insurance reasons for this? Smokers cost more to insure, and hospitals definitely have insurance plans for their employees.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Insurance would be the only reason I could come up with that would make this even remotely o.k. However, that being said the company would have to foot the bill for the insurance IMO for that to stick...



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by recycled
 


Sounds like cut and dried discrimanation which is wrong. I as nicotine user find this discrimanatory and wrong. If i can't get a job because of my habbit or something i use that is regulated then people that use persription drugs, or even if you have one beer after you come home from a long days work shouldn't be hired. After all is said and done if you are going to not hire a group of people then you should apply that to others. Of course if you do that you knock out about 90 percent of the population that is using some kind of substance that is regulated by the government.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by recycled
I agree it reflects bad upon a hospital, and this isn't the only hospital moving in this direction. My fear is, it won't stop at just hospitals.


the target stores where i live will not hire smokers. Thus why i will not apply to work there. (i live in Texas)

[edit on 16-2-2010 by ladyintheshadows]



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ladyintheshadows
 


Here is a good question that will have to be answered at some point. If you cannot find a job due to smoking tobacco shouldn't the government pay you SSI or unemployment? I would think you would be unable to work due to an addiction. In a way these moves if adopted on a larger scale is like companies forcing government to intervene in one way or another.



posted on Feb, 16 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Interesting theory there...When it is viewed that way it makes sense in a whole new way to me...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join