Main Line Health Will No Longer Hire Smokers, Starting in May

[onehandle]

Almost exactly one year after the University of Pennsylvania Health System announced a move to weed out tobacco users from its payroll, Main Line Health just released details about a new tobacco-use employment policy, effective May 1, 2014, which will bar nicotine and tobacco users from employment at the health system’s four hospitals and other area facilities. Current employees will be required to disclose whether or not they use tobacco or nicotine products, and those who do will pay a surcharge for their health care benefits beginning in 2015.

To help current employees kick the habit, Main Line Health will offer a six-class smoking-cessation program that will include access to aids like Chantix or nicotine-replacement products. Employees who complete the course will get a $100 bonus.

The new policy comes five years after Main Line Health instated a smoke-free policy its campuses' grounds; it has barred smoking inside its facilities for more than two decades. Hospitals in the Main Line Health network include Lankenau Medical Center, Bryn Mawr Hospital, Paoli Hospital and Riddle Hospital.

http://www.phillymag.com/be-well-philly/2014/02/24/main-line-health-will-longer-hire-smokers-starting-may

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. I bet this makes your day. nt

[Bandit]

4. A hopeful sign that not all of America is headed toward idiocracy.

A huge and may there be many more to follow.

[MO_Moderate]

2. Gotta love legalized discrimination

Damn right-wing hospital!!!

[Arkansas Granny]

3. So, what is the next legal activity that can be used to discriminate against employees?

If an employer wants to restrict their employees from smoking and/or using tobacco products on company property, they are certainly within their rights to do so. However, to say that a person who uses tobacco on their own time and away from company property will not be hired seems like discrimination to me. What are they going to do about those employees who abuse prescription drugs or alcohol? How much control do they feel they should have over the personal life and habits of their employees?

[ChazII]

7. But this discrimination is good

for the business and good for the employees, too. How can anyone possible object?

Is this a time when tolerance is a bad thing? As in the employee smoking at home.

I agree with what you said.

[Major Nikon]

8. I can think of all sorts of things

Skydiving, motorcycling, mountain climbing, come to mind. Basically anything that increases your risk over staying at home with a helmet on.

[sabrina 1]

9. It's the beginning of new 'war' on, whatever. The old failed 'drug war' which produced so much

money but had little impact on drug use, maybe winding down. That slush money will be missed as more drugs are legalized.

But they know how to get to people on an emotional level. Those private prisons need 'bodies' eg, all that war equipment can't go to waste. And sadly, LIBERALS will be supporting yet another assault on people's rights I'm sure.

[Gormy Cuss]

10. I absolutely hate cigarette smoke

but I hate employers trying to legislate legal off-hours behavior even more.

Oh sure, they do it in the name of lowering their health insurance costs. I get that. They used to deny maternity benefits for the same reason.

[BlueStreak]

11. What is an employee abused alcohol and was frequently sick because of it?

Would you consider the employer within its rights to not hire drunks?

Or if an obese 60-year insisted on wearing hot pants to work every day, would e employer have a right to say they don't want that in their work force?

Those are both perfectly legal activities.

[joeglow3]

14. Your two example could impede your ability to conduct business

Smoking at home doesn't.

[BlueStreak]

21. True story here. I met with an orchestra director this week

We were working out details for allowing my orchestra to rehearse in his room in the evenings, which he had generously offered. Along the way he mentioned a prior, unsatisfactory experience with community band using his room. I had some familiarity with that situation and questioned if her concern was that they didn't return the chairs and stands as they found them. (I thought that was his complaint.) On the contrary, his main complaint was that his percussion equipment always smelled like an ash tray the morning after the band rehearsed there. There was one girl in particular who smokes a lot. She never smoked in the school, of course, but she just carried that odor with her. And it was so strong that it was still irritating to the director 10 hours later when he arrived at school.

Some people are very sensitive to smoke. I am not as sensitive as this guy, but there have been many times that just being around smokers for a couple of hours is enough to cause my nasal passages to swell completely closed. I have to go home and treat them with Nasonex.

So I wouldn't be too quick to condemn employers for wanting to have a healthier workplace.

[joeglow3]

22. Problem is, that is not their position

They are NOT saying "we won't hire people because of the smell." They are doing it because it is for health reasons. This begs the question as to why aren't they refusing to hire fat people since obesity costs MUCH more in healthcare costs.

[BlueStreak]

23. Health care is swallowing our economy

I take your point about the differentiation between smoking and obesity. And there are certainly examples of obese people being singled out for higher charges under group policies. I'm not defending that, but I simply point out that is the natural consequence of our out-of-control health care system. Medical costs are nearing 20% of our GDP and that just isn't sustainable. So you see these skirmishes develop at the margins.

This isn't really much different from the jockeying that is going on trying to shift people off group plans into the exchanges. It is a huge cost and many companies are trying to find ways to cut those costs by a percent here and half a percent there. I can't really blame them for that, although we must insist on basic fairness in the process.

The real issue is that US health care costs twice what it does anywhere else. And while we have seen a big reduction in the growth spiral since ACA passed, HC costs are STILL rising faster than inflation and faster than the growth in GDP. Therefore, we are STILL on a path of HC taking up a larger and larger percentage of our economy.

We must insist on changes that will take us to parity with other countries. We have to take the profiteering out of the system, or at least expose the largest parts of the system to honest free-market competition. Examples: allow us to purchase drugs across international borders, and allow Medicare to negotiate for "most favored nations" drug prices. Force provides to publish their prices in a way that allows consumers to make legitimate choices. If we are going to allow for-profit insurance companies, drive them down to the 4% profit margin range that is reasonable for such a predictable, stable business.

If we thought the ACA fight was a tough one, we have only taken the first step of a process that has another 5 or 10 steps just as big. The battle will continue whether we like it or not because our current system is not economically sustainable.

[Arkansas Granny]

15. Setting a company dress code and absentee policy is a lot different than dictating

what your employees can do on their own time.

[Lost_Count]

13. I expect it to be food related...

Maybe GMOs, maybe "fast food" or something like that...

[sabrina 1]

5. Will they be weeding out drug addicts and drinkers also.

That should narrow the field of employees quite a bit, unless they don't mind drinkers and drug addicts of course which will broaden their field of potential employees.

[former9thward]

6. Next they will not hire anyone 10 lbs over the 'ideal' weight.

I'll bet you will be jumping for joy at that too.

[joeglow3]

12. If the really wanted to save money, they would go after obesity

However, we, as a society, have not embraced that discrimination yet.

[bunnies]

16. Next will be the "over-eaters".

Yay!

[wocaonimabi]

17. Yup followed by those who consume caffeine and those with things like diabetes

Soon if you are not 100% healthy and live your live according to your employers wishes you will be unemployable.



Sadly lots of 'people' will think this is a great idea.

[bunnies]

18. Exactly.

But its cool to discriminate against smokers now so its easy to start with them. And after all... who doesn't want a corporation controlling their personal life? Amirite??

Hey. We can all live in China-style encampments! That way Corps can monitor for ALL risky behavior!!

[wocaonimabi]

19. For most people freedom ends at the tip of their nose.

[bunnies]

20. You nailed it.

And a belated Welcome to DU.