Is that like the "right" to a driver's license or the "right" to a job or the "right" to Food Stamps or the "right" to...
Wow.....I wonder what they’re going to do with all those Respiratory Therapists? (Notorious smokers)
How about other factors, like gay sex, illegal drug use, risky hobbies ... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smart move Baylor.
And she has the "right" to not apply at Baylor.
Don’t you understand, upchuck? It’s not fair! Cassie doesn’t think it’s fair! If a person doesn’t think something is fair, well, that’s it. We must achieve perceived fairness for all.
A few generations ago who would have thought that in the Land Of The Free smoking a cigarette would be less socially acceptable than:
How about alchohol drinkers, who are a risk?
Or, "women of child-bearing age" should be excluded, too, as they place "burden on medical costs"????
Where does political correctness end? What about those who own guns? What about those who smoke pot/use illegal drugs?
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.
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
I’ll bet the same people reward smoking pole with benefits for significant others.
~15 years ago, Lockheed in Georgia, stopped hiring smokers.
No great big publicity, but their reasoning was different. Most of the buildings they had were very large — bigger than the average aircraft hanger. Indoor smoking had just been banned and smokers had to trek several hundred feet to an exit in order to light up. It quickly became apparent that smokers were spending more time walking to an exit, smoking outside, and then walking back to work, than actually working. And they did it at least once per hour.
Seemed justified to me...
My present employer offers options in our insurance coverage choices for smokers vs. non smokers. If you smoke, you pay more for coverage. I’m presently trying to lay ‘em down (two weeks and so far, so good) but I think that my company’s approach is reasonable given the risks of prolonged smoking. In my case the smoker’s cough and loss of lung capacity just became too much to bear but then I puffed a pack and a half daily.
And they still have that right, just not the right to work wherever they want.
And companies should have the right to hire whomever they wish.
Baylor is a Baptist Christian University....so this would be what I’d expect to happen. Nothing here move on.....
It’s a well known fact that people from the island of Ruba-Dorka in the South Pacific are almost all heavy smokers.
This policy is discriminatory and a lawsuit will be filed in the morning.
Everyone has an opinion on everything. This is mine. This issue could be about an employer having the right to choose whom they hire. If they are a private employer and take no government money I think they should as long as their policies are published and they are consistent. But Baylor is not a true private employer-way too much of their income is from federal and state government funds. They state they are basing their position on the fact that insurance costs more if you are a smoker. If that is really the reason, then they should not hire anyone who has any kind of a condition that could potentially increase their insurance costs. One option would, however, appear to be for all employees to pay any additional costs in coverage if they have any condition that drives up the cost. The best option is to get totally away from employers providing insurance and everyone have their own policy. Baylor is injecting selective nannyism by using a currently hot button issue. Makes me concerned about what the next disqualifier will be. At a minimum, Baylor at least needs to exhibit some honesty.
Here’s a test question for you guys that support Baylor. Ask yourself what would happen if they said “smokers AND homosexuals need not apply”, due to their healthcare costs.
That is the problem.
One of the unintended consequences of globalization is the increased pressure on all employers caused by reduced profit margins. Here in Rochester, the local Excellus-Blue Cross office announced 2012 premium increases of 8-12%. No employer can continue to absorb these types of increases. The employer can't just pass these costs on to the customer. Neither can employees cover these cost increases, when a 2-3% raise is considered generous. We are just happy to have jobs. The sad truth is that each of us must assume responsibility for our own medical coverage. There are no rich uncles, flush with cash, to pay for our poor choices.