Posted on 09/25/2011 7:38:46 AM PDT by upchuck
Currently there are some 14 million jobless Americans. And if you’re one of the thousands of North Texans looking for work, the competition is tough.
Now, a new hiring limitation by one employer could make the job search even harder.
The Baylor Health Care System has decided that if you use tobacco, in any form, you won’t get a job with them.
“I don’t like it,” said Cassie Grooms. “I don’t think it’s fair.”
Smokers like Grooms were quick to condemn Baylor’s new policy that basically conveys: if you use nicotine, there’s no need to apply.
“We all have the right to smoke a cigarette,” Grooms said in disagreement. “I can understand not [smoking] on their property, but to not hire somebody for smoking…”
Baylor officials claim smoking has a lot to do with the high cost of health care. The FDA estimates smoking costs American employers some $200 billion a year in lost productivity and increased medical costs.
“It’s about how we continue to deal with the rising health care costs,” said Baylor CEO Joel Allison. “It’s about how do we really focus on the new model of health care around prevention and well, and how do we keep people healthy. And I think that’s very, very important for us as a city, a state and a nation.”
Smoking was banned at all Baylor campuses four years ago. But, can they legally refuse to hire smokers?
“Absolutely they can,” said Dallas employment attorney Thomas Brandt. “People think well, that’s discriminatory, but really there are only certain factors that you cannot consider when making hiring decisions.”
Things like race, gender, ethnicity or national origin cannot be considered when hiring an employee.
If increased medical costs are a consideration for banning employee tobacco use, then ponder this: obesity is also a national health crisis. According to the CDC obesity costs employers some $147 billion a year.
The costs to WHO? Insurance is more expensive for smokers, to cover the cost. Smokers pay their insurance.
This whole 'cost to society' thing is a canard. 'Society' doesn't pay for anything, neither does government. The costs devolve to individual humans.
Besides, most smokers I know, also avoid doctors, right up until the big heart attack, die early, and actually SAVE money for the government by not living to be 90 years old on SS.
/johnny
So what is the official 'conservative' position on discriminating against smokers in employment? Since smoking is still legal shouldn't whether a person smokes not even come up in the interview?
But wait, the employer has to shoulder the medical costs of the employee, so shouldn't they be able to ask?
But wait, shouldn't medical care be the responsibility of the individual worker rather than the company, and wasn't it Nixon's socialistic wage and price controls that led to corporations shouldering more of their employee's health care costs?
But what about people who can do a good job but require significant costs to maintain their health or those of their loved ones, shouldn't the community as a whole shoulder those costs for the overall benefit of society in a way similar to maintaining roads and bridges?
Or maybe 'conservative' and 'liberal' are the labels provided by moneyed interests to useful idiots during election cycles.
There is no 'liberal' or 'conservative' position on this issue. There is only the Altria position vs. the Baylor position.
That argument doesn't hold water.
If the reduction of healthcare costs is the impetus behind the campaign against smokers where is the movement to reduce risky behavior leading to AIDS? The healthcare costs for an AIDs carrier are much higher than for a smoker.
Where are the employers, colleges and other organizations who refuse to accept practicing homosexuals because of their high risk behavior?
In the case of Baylor: Where is the campaign against the hiring of dope smokers and drug users? Those types of behavior not only lead to higher health costs, they are also illegal.
The idea of dictating behavior as a way to reduce health care costs is hypocritical if only one type of behavior is attacked. Let's face it - this is just another facet of political correctness running amok.
I am a non-smoker but I am opposed to singling out tobacco use or any other legal behavior for discriminatory treatment when there are many other patterns of behavior just as damaging, if not more so.
“Smart move Baylor.”
I’d love to see your response to post #3.
Are you suggesting that private businesses should be expected to abide by the same laws as government and state entities? I don’t think that you understand what is at issue here.
Front, left to right: Liz Rodriguez, patient services coordinator; and Mary Young, patient appointment associate. Back, left to right: Cristina Rivera, PAA; Cassie Grooms, PAA; Ida Vernon, PSC; and Shanjula Harris, PAA.
Cassie Grooms, who has been a patient appointment associate in the department for seven years
Anal sex between two males is a voluntary act. It's even dignified by marriage in some states. It is also the primary means by which the AIDS virus is spread. I think you'd agree the health care costs involved are considerable.
But I'll bet plenty of gay males are employed at Baylor and any measure to discriminate against them in hiring would be met by howls of indignation by the very people who want to discriminate against smokers. So how does the free market deal with that inequity?
I’ll bet the same people reward smoking pole with benefits for significant others.
Anal sex between two males is a voluntary act. It's even dignified by marriage in some states. It is also the primary means by which the AIDS virus is spread. I think you'd agree the health care costs involved are considerable.
But I'll bet plenty of gay males are employed at Baylor and any measure to discriminate against them in hiring would be met by howls of indignation by the very people who want to discriminate against smokers. So how does the free market deal with that inequity?
The free market allows businesses to make their own decisions about whom to hire. If they make poor decisions, they will and should fail.
Driving a car is a voluntary high risk activity.
It’s also a productivity thing. Looking back to my pack-a-day ways, I think out of a waking hour, only about 20 minutes was in a state of equilibrium where there was enough nicotine in the system to not cause discomfort and allow work to progress efficiently. The thing that bothered me the most was having to pay 2,000 bucks a years to maintain the prison, caught in a yo-yo syndrome of comfort/discomfort and always needing to take a break from whatever task I was doing to feed the nicotine monkey. The average annual cost for lost productivity for nonsmokers is 2,623 dollars/year compared with 4,430 dollars/year for current smokers, with more than half the costs were due to unproductive time at work. Over six million dollars of red ink EVERY year if you’re employing, say 1,500 smokers.
I think the reason there is controversy about this here on Free Republic is because someone is singling out smokers, and because a bureaucracy is setting a new standard in judging people.
Others here have mentioned such cases as diabetes as being a condition in which one will have higher costs. Or cases such as paricipants in extreme sports, or homosexual sex, or drinking alcohol. There is a long list of situations in which one will have higher healthcare costs, but Baylor is not talking about any of those situations. They are just talking about smokers.
On the other hand, I think some here are concerned about taking this first step, and about where the lines will be drawn in the future on this sort of thing. I think there is concern about someone supervising every aspect of our lives to screen out some activity which is not healthy. I think there is concern that government bureaucrats at some point will be passing judgement on all of us as regards our personal activities.
Just about anything can be said to affect our healthcare costs under some insurance plan. It seems to be a slippery slope to have a mindset that they will screen out people who don’t adhere to someone’s idealized version of good health.
And what of all those tobacco taxes?
I thought those taxes were to offset the increased medical costs of smokers?
Oh that’s right, that was a flat out lie
BTW virtually all of the cost of a pack of smokes is TAX
I think the reason there is controversy about this here on Free Republic is because someone is singling out smokers, and because a bureaucracy is setting a new standard in judging people.
Others here have mentioned such cases as diabetes as being a condition in which one will have higher costs. Or cases such as participants in extreme sports, or homosexual sex, or drinking alcohol. There is a long list of situations in which one will have higher healthcare costs, but Baylor is not talking about any of those situations. They are just talking about smokers.
On the other hand, I think some here are concerned about taking this first step, and about where the lines will be drawn in the future on this sort of thing. I think there is concern about someone supervising every aspect of our lives to screen out some activity which is not healthy. I think there is concern that government bureaucrats at some point will be passing judgement on all of us as regards our personal activities.
Just about anything can be said to affect our healthcare costs under some insurance plan. It seems to be a slippery slope to have a mindset that they will screen out people who don’t adhere to someone’s idealized version of good health.
It's the same principle as Hooter's being able to employ women that they believe will attract business. Do you believe that is Hooter's right?
I wonder why smokers get so wound up. And before someone says, “Nobody else faces the same restrictions,” that’s not true.
I’m a drinker. Alcohol is highly taxed and its distribution restricted, often much more (depending on state/municipality) than the distribution of tobacco. Most retail establishments don’t sell alcohol, and few will allow a person to bring in his own and consume it on the premises. Many public areas, such as parks, do not permit the consumption of alcohol, and I can be cited in many places for walking down the sidewalk with a glass of wine. Maybe even in my own yard - I haven’t checked the town regulations.
If an employer wishes to avoid hiring consumers of alcohol, I think it would be within his purview to do so, even if it is simply because he personally disapproves. Certainly most (if not all) companies have policies prohibiting alcohol consumption at work, and many discourage alcohol consumption, even outside work areas/hours, for health or work-productivity reasons (fully justified or not).
So why are smokers in a tizzy, while I’m not?
That is a crock and you know it.
It may be a legally defensible position but it is a crock.
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.