Do you agree with employers performing random tobacco testing for employees and applicants?
I work in the health care industry and a new rule for employment, along with the no drugs policy is zero tolerance for tobacco users. This applies to new applicants and random testing for existing employees. My personal feeling is that it is a good rule. It is easy for me to say because I do not use tobacco. It is disheartening to see nurses and other employees lining the streets outside the hospital for their smoke breaks. After all, we are an establishment that promotes health care. Is this not a conflict of interest? What say you?
No I disagree with this. Tobacco is a legal substance, and its use in no way effects someones ability to perform their job. Allowing a company to test for tobacco use opens the door for way too much other intrusion into employees lives. Are they going to check and see if you exercise and maintain a healthy diet next? Are insurance companies going to tell their employees what type of car they are allowed to drive because they like safer models?
No, I do not agree and I think it a little commical. People smoke to relax and attempt to drop off stress. Of course the health care system who only adores drugs for helping people would force their workers to stop relying on a mental aid. Stress causes many mental and physical issues. Instead of smoking a pathetic death stick, the health care system wants them on drugs or to struggle to find another anti-stresser at work. What are they going to do instead? Have one of those plushy stress balls? Another reason why I greatly dislike hospitals.
Though if someone does smoke and they work for a hospital who says no tobacco, then they should get one of those water vapor fake ones from the mall or commercials.
I agree with michiganman567. (I'm also in health care.) Tobacco is a legal substance as is alcohol, but you don't see hospitals testing employees for alcohol use. What's the difference? They both can cause health problems for the individual. Why is it ok to test for tobacco? And what if the employee doesn't smoke, they use an electronic cigarette, or chew gum? Electronic cigarettes and gum don't hurt anyone else. As for a conflict of interest, does that apply to doctors who abuse medications such as adderall, oxycodone and talwin?
Random drug testing is one thing, and I don't even agree with that for the privacy issues, but tobacco testing is taking things too far. It's becoming about conformity, not about what affects the health care of the patient.
Companies intrude in our lives too much as it is. If they want to discriminate against smokers (who are not doing anything illegal even if it isn't healthy) then they should also discriminate against people making other bad choices, like over-eating, drinking, bungi-jumping. The latest dogma from the business world is that your outside life should be second to their demands; 45-50 hour weeks are the new 40-hour weeks; you must be available 24X7 via your own personal cell phone. This is a supposedly free country unless you want to work that is.
I don't agree with any testing for anything. If you can't perform, you should get fired. If you do perform, then it's none of their business what else you do with your life.
Well, may be people need to practice what they preach! How would it appear if believers lined up outside their churches to beat up people, sodomize and abuse the community? I feel, it is OKAY, though it may sound really unjust to deny people jobs just because of bad habits. It disheartens me to see doctors smoking though because that could be an encouragement to some people. It is a lot like a Police Officer breaking and entering in view of everyone...
I disagree totally with this policy. What an employee does with their own time and with their own body short of suicide is nobody's business but that person regardless of whether you are a health care employee or not. It's your body your health and your break-time or lunch time.
Eeek! I totally agree with Daughter of Maat and michiganman567. I know more fat doctors than skinny ones, more that smoke and eat sausages... The more of our civil rights that we give up, the less freedom we have. If it's legal, there's absolutely no reason for a company to test for it. Frankly, I don't believe it should be required that a person not in a position of endangering others (such as bus drivers, pilots, etc.) as part of their routine job should be tested for illegal substances, either. If a computer programmer uses cocaine or oxycodone on his/her off-hours and it isn't affecting their work performance why should the employer play the role of the morality police? This is the USA. We have a solid constitution and solid ammendments to it to protect the rights of the individual against bullies--including companies. Lets all go back and re-read those and figure out where it says that it's okay to invade the privacy of a person in any job. (I have asthma; I can't believe I'm on the side of the smokers on this issue... :-) )
by Timothy Brakhage6 years ago
Why are cigarettes so expensive now days? With the cost of gas prices going up to $3.75 per gallon and the shipping cost for postages on the rise, this explains a part in prices going up. However Marlboro is one of the...
by Holle Abee8 years ago
I just read this article and looked at this poll on CBS - not exactly a right-wing organization. I was actually a little surprised that the number of people opposed to the new law has increased instead of decreased. I...
by My Esoteric3 years ago
This situation is this. A warehouse workers spends the day doing their job. When their done, they can spend up to 25 unpaid minutes, it seems, waiting to go through security to make sure they didn't steal...
by scoop4 years ago
What exactly is "Obamacare" and when does the law go into effect?
by Sooner284 years ago
http://jezebel.com/creepy-quantified-se … map=%5B%5DWe all know that "voluntary" means do it or there is no promotion. That's the first problem.Second, what right does a corporation have to know...
by Peeples5 years ago
Curious as to what people who are against everyone having healthcare think should be done for those who really can't afford healthcare. What are the other options? Continue down the same road we are on now?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.