Can they do that?

buffettgirl

buffettgirl

Cathlete
I just saw on the news that the Cleveland Clinic will no longer hire anyone who uses tobacco products. They will test applicants for nicotine. Last I heard, smoking wasn't illegal. I understand the health care industry should try to set an example and there are the health care cost concerns for employees who smoke, but this seems a little bit too big brotherish for me. Does that mean they won't hire anyone overweight next?
 
Here we go again...

It will never end now.

I agree with you, Robin. It's ridiculous and should not be allowed to happen...
 
A major police department (I think it was the Miami PD, but I'm not sure) tried that a few years ago and it failed miserably; what they got were #1 far fewer applicants and #2 even fewer qualified ones.

What's weird about testing people for nicotine is that many smokers who are quitting the habit use nicotine replacement therapies like inhalers, patches, or gum, and these NRTs help people stay off of cigarettes. So they have effectively ruled out a group of ex-smokers as well.

A-Jock
 
i don't think they can,but then again i dont' know every law. this will certainly cause some lawsuits. as you said, granted setting examples for better health and cost of health care from related illnesses are a concern, this is essentially denying somebody their livelyhood to work by discriminating against them. isn't the healthcare system short-staffed as it is that we are going to start picking and choosing,what could be the right ppl for the job, b/c of bad habit choice. seems stupid!!

kassia

http://www.picturetrail.com/ldy_solana

"And do what thee wilt as long as ye harm none"

http://images.meez.com/user03/06/01/04/060104_10010099873.gif
 
Your right to smoke isn't a 'protected' right. Meaning, it isn't covered by Fair Employment and Equal Opportunity Laws. If the Cleveland Clinic is a private sector business than they have the right to choose who they hire however they want. They can choose not to hire someone on the basis of smoking or any other factor that isn't protected by the above laws.
 
Wow. That's a bold step - and Robin, I agree - it does sound pretty "Big Brotherish." But with the huge trend to ban smoking in public places, and with so many companies banning smoking while employees are on the clock, it's not exactly surprising. It'll be interesting to see how it goes.
 
Not to say it's either right or wrong, but it seems more *big brotherish* to tell a private organization how to select employees. At least to me.
 
What if someone said they weren't going to hire homosexuals? No matter what your moral beliefs, this is a high risk group of individuals health-wise. Or someone who has multiple sex partners? Or someone who doesn't wear a seat belt regularly, which is illegal in many, if not all places. Seems to me that denying someone as job because they engage in a high-risk-health behavior that has little or nothing to do with their job could be construded as discrimination. What about someone who sky dives? The list is endless.
 
>What if someone said they weren't going to hire homosexuals?
>No matter what your moral beliefs, this is a high risk group
>of individuals health-wise. Or someone who has multiple sex
>partners? Or someone who doesn't wear a seat belt regularly,
>which is illegal in many, if not all places. Seems to me that
>denying someone as job because they engage in a
>high-risk-health behavior that has little or nothing to do
>with their job could be construded as discrimination. What
>about someone who sky dives? The list is endless.


Sexual Orinetation is Protected by both Fair Employment Laws and Equal Opportunity Laws. So that is apples and oranges. Again, a private sector company is free to hire whomever they think is right for the job...as long as it doesn't violate the above mentioned laws. Therefore, they can choose to NOT hire someone for any other reason. They can say we don't want a brown haired person and while it may not be a great PR move to say that in a press release it is NOT illegal. We live in a capitalist society and this is how the free market works. Private sector companies can hire/fire people for whatever reason they want as long as they don't violate the rights protected by the above mentioned laws.

ETA: I know that to some this doesn't seem 'fair' but put yourself in the position of the business owner. If you owned a business wouldn't you want to be able to hire who YOU wanted to do the job? You would want the person who could best do the job and represent your business in the way the YOU think it should be represented. It would probably infuriate you if you were paying people's salaries and someone else had the right to tell YOU who you had to hire.
 
This isn't totally new - it's been done in Michigan, as well. Basically, they're dealing with nicotine like what it is - a drug. And like other drugs, they can ban them. Just like if you discovered an employee was an alcoholic. The issue becomes the health care costs associated with it that the companies have to bear. And some jobs have policed weight for a long time - airlines, fire departments. Police departments need to - I've seen some seriously obese cops in this city. What the heck are they going to do to protect me - clearly they can't run. They are not "fit" to perform the tasks of the job, and that should be regulated.
As an aside, being gay is not high-risk. Engaging in certain activities, whether straight or gay, may be high-risk, but orientation is not. I think outright bans on smoking in the workplace are wise, from both health and safety perspectives - and I'd bet the families of the 9 firefighters recently killed because of careless smoking at work would agree!
 
I totally agree that this is absurd, but I do see the one poster's point about it also being big brother'ish to tell a private company who they can and can't hire. It would be a little like a private religious school (let's just say an Amish school) being told they had to hire a homosexual teacher. This would go completely against that particular school's beliefs and wouldn't be fair to them. There has already been a law suit for something similar, but I think it might have been at a Catholic school.
 
Robin,

Sadly enough there are VERY few states that actually have gender identity and sexuality non-discrimination policies. The federal government has adopted such policies, but many states are "right to work" states. In the county school system that I work for, the board voted NOT to adopt a sexual and gender identity non-discrimination clause. People have been fired for being gay. It goes on all the time and is perfectly legal (in most states). They can not fire ou for being black, Jewish, etc. but can look you right in the eye and tell you you are fired for being gay (these states are also allowed to deny housing for the same reason). Also, gay students are not protected in the schools from harassment. They do not fall under the same protection laws as racial discrimination. Most cases of sexual discrimination that have been filed for students who have been harassed have failed. I do recall one in which a boy won because the school was denying him a free and appropriate education, but many more lose.

It is repulsive and disgusting that we all are not seen as equal under the law. Who someone sleeps with and chooses to love does not affect me one bit. I could care less. Denying people rights (like all the rights marriage affords people) just because they are gay is so incredibly wrong and backwards.

What are we teaching our children when we deny rights to fellow human beings on the basis of who they choose to love?!?!

Questioning children and adolescents have one of the highest suicide rates. I wonder why...maybe it's all the messages we send.

Okay, I am stepping off my soapbox now. It just makes me so angry to see people treated unfairly. Makes me not want to get married until everyone can. Why should I have MORE rights because I am a woman engaged to a man?

As for the smoking thing, I think if htey are a private company they can do whatever they want. Disney does not allow their employees to have facial hair or to smoke (except for the Imagineers who can look and dress however they want).
 
Only 17 states have made it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. That leaves 33 in which it is perfectly legal for a company to choose not to hire someone based on sexual orientation (or even perception of sexual orientation). A person's right to work regardless of their sexual orientation is not protected everywhere.
 
Well said, Lorie!!
And actually lots of things are "banned" - the NY Yankees are not allowed facial hair or long hair. MANY places of business have dress codes.
 
>Only 17 states have made it illegal to discriminate based on
>sexual orientation. That leaves 33 in which it is perfectly
>legal for a company to choose not to hire someone based on
>sexual orientation (or even perception of sexual orientation).
> A person's right to work regardless of their sexual
>orientation is not protected everywhere.


Your right...my mistake. However, being harassed because you are a homosexual IS protected under federal sexual harrasment laws. While I realize that many people don't feel protected nor do they win suits brought under these laws, the same holds true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals(women/men suing over sexual harrassment by the opposite sex in the workplace.) Also, I stand by my edit before. I think it is important to look at this from the side of the business owner too. If you are paying someone's salary don't you think it is only right that YOU should get to decide who you employ? In this case, smokers are not being hostiley discriminated against. They are free to seek employment somewhere else. It is NOT illegal to smoke AND it is NOT illegal to not want to hire smokers to work in the business that you own.
 
Rolling my eyes!!!

Maybe employers should check for high blood sugar, high blood pressure, body fat %...

Hell why don't they just take an entire blood work up on all potential employees.

Stepping down off my box...
 
>Rolling my eyes!!!
>
>Maybe employers should check for high blood sugar, high blood
>pressure, body fat %...
>
>Hell why don't they just take an entire blood work up on all
>potential employees.
>
>Stepping down off my box..

They do blood work these days....it is called a drug test, and very common for getting a job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top