Cleveland Clinic bans hiring of smokers, will add tobacco to drug testing

[The Straight Story]

Cleveland Clinic bans hiring of smokers


CLEVELAND (AP) -- The Cleveland Clinic, which has targeted fatty foods at its lunch counters and scooted smokers away from its buildings and sidewalks, now will ban the hiring of anyone who smokes.

The move is part of a healthy work force initiative that included the appointment Thursday of Dr. Michael Roizen, author of a series of best-selling books on making healthy lifestyles, as the first chief wellness officer of the research hospital.

Beginning Sept. 1, Ohio's second-biggest employer with 36,300 employees will no longer hire smokers. The policy will not affect current employees, who can get free stop-smoking help from the clinic. Prospective employees will be tested for tobacco use along with drugs.

The ban is "essentially a challenge to every other major health-care organization that we want them to focus on wellness as well as illness too," Roizen said Wednesday.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OH_CLINIC_SMOKING_OHOL-?SITE=WBNSTV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[robinlynne]

1. oh no!

[derby378]

2. Hey, is tobacco legal or not?

And how many of those docs enjoy a good belt of fine scotch or bourbon every night?

To Hell with their hypocrisy.

[MindPilot]

13. Wander around outside any medical facility

It's always surprising how many medical professionals will be out enjoying a smoke.

How many of those docs are making themselves feel good with the offerings of big pharma?

[Warpy]

31. People get addicted to tobacco when they're teenagers

and some of them, even when they have full knowledge of what they're doing to their bodies and how many fewer years they will live, still can't manage to quit. It's a miserable, rotten drug that takes a lot and gives little back, only a few short years of thinking one looks cool when one is too young to know the difference.

I can't see denying anyone employment because of it.

Just don't do it around me, K? Smoke those things outside and we'll get along just fine.

[Horse with no Name]

14. More than you can fathom. n/t

[OzarkDem]

3. Also started charging $100 co-pays to low income patients

for every office visit and every test, scan, etc. Its really hurting uninsured and Medicaid cancer patients who have lots of visits and tests.

[William769]

4. They had a Hospital in S.W. Florida.

Had is the key word.

[OzarkDem]

6. They wasted Cuyahoga Co and Ohio taxpayers money

trying to expand down there. Big rip off for everyone here.

[William769]

10. Sorry to hear that about that up there.

When my partner had to go there, copays there alone just about bankrupted us.

[karlrschneider]

5. Do they allow Soma? Or maybe give it out for free?

I've been to Cleveland. I wouldn't go back if they guaranteed me eternal life.
:puke:

[MindPilot]

20. I've been to Cleveland as well...

Eternal life would be the worst imaginable incentive to return.

[tanotis]

33. This is story. . .

about the Cleveland Clinic and Toby Cosgrove -- not about Cleveland.

[Berry Cool]

45. Yeah, can everybody knock it off with the Cleveland insults?

I live there and I like it. If you don't like it, you don't have to live there. But Cleveland jokes are old and lame.

[tanotis]

32. This is a story. . .

about the Cleveland Clinic and Toby Cosgrove -- not about Cleveland.

[MindPilot]

7. Here we go again...

OK. Smoking is bad for your health and everybody knows it increases your risks of several nasty diseases. BUT! Pot has no such effect, but I bet they still won't hire somebody with THC metabolites in their piss.
Will they also deny jobs to people who own sports cars, hold a pilot's license, mountain climb, sky dive or maybe live in a high-crime neighborhood? All those people engage in high risk activities.

[trashcanistanista]

16. Also the grossly obese!

They are endangering themselves as well.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. And don't forget the motorcycle riders

especially the ones who don't wear helmets!

[Canuckistanian]

8. This should be good...

:popcorn:

[The Straight Story]

9. Pass me some, and a smoke

:rofl:

[Solo_in_MD]

11. They are not the only company doing that, some municipalities as well

28-30 states or so have passed "right to smoke away from work" laws, some include other legal activities as well.

[trashcanistanista]

12. Yeah, but they don't test you

for nicotine. Just illegal drugs of abuse. Smoking tobacco is not illegal and it shouldn't be used to discriminate against hiring a qualified employee. They will have problems hiring the foriegn HB1 visas, most of them smoke as well.

[MindPilot]

18. "problems hiring the foriegn HB1 visas"

Hang on...maybe this is not such a bad idea after all.:evilgrin:

[Solo_in_MD]

19. Actually the companies I am describing do test for nicotine

Weyco and Scotts come to mind as to some municipal fire departments.

[varkam]

15. Can we still eat red meat?

Do we have to eat 3 - 5 servings of fruits a day? Will they not hire someone who only exercises thirty minutes a week? Cripes, sorry but that's just a bit overboard.

[RamboLiberal]

17. I'll be the first to admit I'm staunchly anti-smoking - but

and while they have a right to make the workplace anti-smoking and not serving unhealthy food in their facility IMHO they have no right to ban an employee from doing something legal off the job.

What's next, alcohol, cholesterol, BMI, etc?

[Liberal In Texas]

21. And next: No overweights.

No alcohol use.
No hiring of people with a predisposition to heart disease, liver disease, etc.
No skydivers or private pilots.
No recreational mountain climbers, white-water rafters, motorcycle riders, etc.
And nobody that doesn't use a seatbelt (they'll have a camera or monitor chip installed in your car.)
Nobody with large credit card debt (I think some employers already do this, actually).
Then, no divorces or people with illegitimate children. (Moral problems that could lead to illness.)

There is no end to this bullshit.

Until people stop submitting to this nonsense to get jobs (gee, I don't use drugs, so I'll pee in a cup and give you hair samples...) it will only get worse.

This isn't a smoking issue. It's an issue of our personal freedom and how much we are going to cow-tow to the corporate Big Brother mentality.

[Solo_in_MD]

24. The obese and smokers are being denied treatment in some circumstances by the UK NHS

[enid602]

29. no tests

They don't need to administer tests for obesity. They just won't hire them.

[MindPilot]

22. "if you are some squeaky-clean goody-two-shoes, health-nut moralist...

don't bother to apply."

That's the job ad I wanna see.

[razors edge]

23. As a Toledo resident I say

FUCK EM!

nuff said.

[The Straight Story]

35. Damn, you live in Toledo? I'm sorry :) but then again, I am in Bakersfield...

What the hell was I thinking???

[mitchum]

25. I'm assuming they will also be going to the homes of employees and checking...

their refrigerators and kitchen cabinets for fatty foods? It's only fair.

[Toasterlad]

26. I Hope They Get Sued Back to the Stone Age. n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

40. Some states do not allow this, but about 20 do

in which case, there is no case

[Hippo_Tron]

28. I'm against this, but I'm against pretty much all drug testing

[DemGa]

30. Score another for the drug testing industry lobby!

[Maraya1969]

57. I was just thinking that. Is there a patent on the nicotine in your blood test?

Even if there is no patent people are going to make money off of this new rule. If there were no money to be made I doubt they would have fought for it.

[yasmina27]

34. Whoa - here we go

:popcorn:

[Matariki]

36. Do they also check their teeth before they buy them?

This is disgusting. We really need to stop giving away our privacy rights.

Not that it has much to do with it, but I am an non-smoker.

[johnnie]

37. I'm in Cleveland

And I think next time I need some work done on me, I will go to the Cleveland clinic and before a doctor sees me I will ask to see a drug screen and alcohol screen. I have that right...no?

[RB TexLa]

38. What's their max. body fat ratio for hiring?

[napi21]

39. Our local hosp. system enacted that about 2 years ago.

They will not consider any employment candidate who smokes, and they gave their existing employees 1 year to quit. They paid for any assistance they asked for, but if they hadn't quit at the end of that year, they were terminated.

There's also a regulation that there's NO SMOKING anywhere on their property!!! If you are a patient, you would somehow have to be able to get from your hospital room, across the BIG parking area and down a long driveway past all the other medical buildings and out to the main street to light up! Fortunately, I was only a patient for 1 day.

Let me also tell you, I HATE the idea of using "Isn't smoking legal?" as an argument! All that does is give some State of Federal officials the idea that they should just ban smoking!!!!

[TahitiNut]

41. Well, golly. Now, if we could get all the illegal aliens to smoke, we'd be home free!!

Funny how corporations can base their hiring decisions on acess to body fuids but not be able to ascertain who's legally permitted to be employed!!!

[gulfcoastliberal]

42. That's perfect,since drug testing is de facto regulation of your life outside work

If they can keep you from ingesting substances of your choice in your private home, what's next?

[BlooInBloo]

43. lol! Next up: Organic vegetarians only need apply.

[nonconformist]

44. Absolutely ridiculous. Smoking is LEGAL.

I don't understand how this type of discrimination can be legal.

[PA Democrat]

46. I wouldn't count on the current Supreme Court to limit

corporations' ability to do this. If it's good for the profit margins of big business, you can bet that the filthy five on Supreme Court will allow it.


I'm a nonsmoker, but this is just plain wrong. For years, the US government had allowed the tobacco industry to anything they could to get people addicted to nicotine. It's always about profits, isn't it?

[nonconformist]

50. Always.

I'm sure this is what our founding fathers intended. :sarcasm:

[WinkyDink]

47. Next: No sick people allowed inside.

[trof]

48. The myth of second hand smoke causing cancer:

National Cancer Institute - “In epidemiologic research, relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.” – National Cancer Institute, “Abortion and possible risk for breast cancer: analysis and inconsistencies,” October 26, 1994.

Sir Richard Doll - " ... when relative risk lies between 1 and 2 ... problems of interpretation may become acute, and it may be extremely difficult to disentangle the various contributions of biased information, confounding of two or more factors, and cause and effect."
“The Causes of Cancer," by Richard Doll, F.R.S. and Richard Peto. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 1981, p. 1219.
WHO/IARC - “Relative risks of less than 2.0 may readily reflect some unperceived bias or confounding factor, those over 5.0 are unlikely to do so.” - Breslow and Day, 1980, Statistical methods in cancer research, Vol. 1, The analysis of case control studies. Published by the World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Sci. Pub. No. 32, Lyon, p. 36

FDA - “Relative risks of 2 have a history of unreliability” - Robert Temple, M.D. Food and Drug Administration Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Letters, September 8, 1999

FDA - "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

Average cancer risk elevation for exposure to passive smoke: about 20% (relative risk=1.2)
Average cardiovascular disease risk elevation for exposure to passive smoke: about 30% (relative risk=1.3)
Quality of methodology and data gathering on passive smoke in all studies: trash
http://www.forces.org/evidence/long-list.htm

[tandot]

52. Just one night in smoky bar can be toxic

Study finds carcinogen in nonsmoking workers after brief exposure

CHICAGO - Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants can result in measurable levels of a toxin in workers’ bodies that is known to cause lung cancer, U.S. researchers said on Thursday.

They found nonsmoking workers in Oregon who worked a single shift in a bar or restaurant that allowed smoking were more likely to have a detectable level of NNK — a carcinogen linked with lung cancer — in their bodies than those who worked in nonsmoking establishments.

“NNK is only found in the body as a result of either smoking or breathing other people’s smoke,” said Michael Stark of the Multnomah County Health Department in Portland, Ore., whose study appears in the American Journal of Public Health.

<snip>

Other studies have shown that nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke have about a 20 percent higher risk of lung cancer. They are also at a higher risk of asthma and perinatal complications such as sudden infant death syndrome.

Link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19502040/

------------------------------------------------

Nevertheless, I think not hiring someone because of smoking, which is legal, is shitty.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

49. Wow! This will really help The Cleveland Clinic hire new nurses

and other healthcare professionals/techs during this nursing crisis.:sarcasm:

How about having weigh-ins with BMI scores for new hires too? No motorcycle riders, of course.

If one can't see future implications of hiring "tests" from this, you aren't paying attention.

[Beelzebud]

51. Yes, throw more people out on the street. Fuck em.

Meanwhile the corporations pollute the entire fucking planet, but lets toss some middle class people out on their asses.

[rudy23]

53. Here's some of that free market freedom the libertarians are always talking about

See, once corporations rule the planet, we'll all be FREE!

[Mythsaje]

54. Figured this was coming...

Drug testing is the DEVIL.

;)

[Dragonbreathp9d]

55. what bullshit

if they can do the job let them do the fucking job

[Maraya1969]

56. With all this "banning of smoking" crap you would think the US would

be in better health than France where they smoke like chimneys.

Our bad health as a society comes from our diet IMO. Our foods have become as poorly made as WalMart clothes that rip after a few washings. People did not get so God awful sick from second hand smoke years ago because their bodies were not worn down already from fighting all the toxins that they do today.

[halobeam]

58. all the other real outrage aside resulting from this "yet another invasion"

is the testing for nicotine? what if you are on the patch? or will this include anyone "just in the process of trying to quit" as not reliable ... new qualifications, smoke free, how long? 6 mos? 1 year? once addicted always addicted, so actually NEVER qualified? Does this clinic push the "most popular" medications from the drug-pushing pharma companies and demand THEM to be smoke free?

Bet those they make money with, don't have to meet these qualifications.