If you use tobacco, do not apply for employment.

[Gregory Matthews]

Centura Health has announced that effective January 1, it will not employ anyone who uses a tobacco product, unless that product is under a medically supervised prescription plan.  However, current employees who use such, will not be terminated.

 

NOTE:  Centura Health is the organization that operates the Roman Catholic and Seventh-day Adventist hospitals in Colorado and some in Kansas.  In addition, it manages some secular hospitals.

 

Under Colorado law,  employees cannot be terminated for the use of legal tobacco products.  However, that law does not protect their use of tobacco products in the hiring process.  IOW, Colorado law allows the use of a legal tobacco product to be used by an employer in the hiring process.

 

 

 

 

[CoAspen]

should be an interesting court case, perhaps.....

[Aliensanctuary]

When interviewed, a smoker could deny he was a user, then resume the habit after being hired. A smoke-free campus may make it more difficult to indulge during working hours.

 

As a toxic, harmful substance with no beneficial qualities, tobacco should be banned from sale except when prescribed by a doctor...ha ha...and purchased only at a pharmacy and nowhere else. Too bad for all of that lost tax revenue and jobs.

[Gregory Matthews]

As part of the interview process the candidate is required to submit to a laboratory test of drug usage.  Beginning January 1, that testing will include testing for tobacco products.  Yes, the candidate can deny.  However, if the laboratory testing demonstrates tobacco usage the person will not be hired.

 

Yes, tobacco products are prescribed by physicians, typically as part of a medically controlled program to give up on smoking.  So, there is no need to laugh at the idea.

 

NOTE: Beer and wine are sometimes prescribed by physicians and hospital pharmacies typically will stock such.

[Guest billyjobob]

Seems a very exclusionary policy which, from my experience, is par for SDA religion. I've never met a smoker that would not love to quit, but for addiction are incapable of doing so.

 

Are there any free programs offered by the relevant institutions/"hospitals" to the "tobacco addicts" that are applying to help them get free from the bacco? Or are they just left hung out to dry? pun intended.

 

Are the 27 fundamental beliefs very far behind in this process of elimination?

[LifeHiscost]

Seems a very exclusionary policy which, from my experience, is par for SDA religion. I've never met a smoker that would not love to quit, but for addiction are incapable of doing so.

 

Are there any free programs offered by the relevant institutions/"hospitals" to the "tobacco addicts" that are applying to help them get free from the bacco? Or are they just left hung out to dry? pun intended.

 

Are the 27 fundamental beliefs very far behind in this process of elimination?

This URL might be of interest to you as well as provide some links , including the ST Helena hospital north of San Francisco, a 7th Day Adventist hospital. You don't give information that seems to typify the normal 5-day stop smoking program I'm familiar with. Here's part of paragraph more typical of the Adventist position of today.

 

http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2014-07-11/adventist-church-launches-breathe-free-2-a-new-stop-smoking-program/

 

The program has roots in Breathe-Free, developed by the Adventist Church more than two decades ago, and the earlier Five-Day Plan to Quit Smoking, first introduced in 1959.

But it uses a completely new approach because attitudes toward smoking have changed drastically in recent years, said Handysides, assistant professor of health at Loma Loinda University. Unlike in past decades, today’s smokers don’t need to be convinced that tobacco is bad for them and cannot be scared or lectured into quitting, he said. 

 

 

God is Love! Jesus saves! 

[Guest billyjobob]

This URL might be of interest to you as well as provide some links , including the ST Helena hospital north of San Francisco, a 7th Day Adventist hospital. You don't give information that seems to typify the normal 5-day stop smoking program I'm familiar with. Here's part of paragraph more typical of the Adventist position of today.

 

http://news.adventist.org/all-news/news/go/2014-07-11/adventist-church-launches-breathe-free-2-a-new-stop-smoking-program/

 

 

 

 

 

God is Love! Jesus saves! 

Thanks, I will check it out.  This statement seems out of context, "You don't give information that seems to typify the normal 5-day stop smoking program I'm familiar with." I'm not a smoker and do not know of the program to which you refer. I was just making a comment on the exclusionary policy, that's all. I'm not even in health care so would never apply to the relevant Colorado Adventist Health System. I do findit curious they are working with the Catholic Church on this though. I always thought the Catholic Church as an institution, not the people, were off limits for SDA organizations. So it goes.  .   .

[Guest billyjobob]

Also, my point was, if someone interviewing, a tobacco smoker, and their qualifications are stellar other than being a smoker, are they offered free treatment for the bacco?

[LifeHiscost]

Also, my point was, if someone interviewing, a tobacco smoker, and their qualifications are stellar other than being a smoker, are they offered free treatment for the bacco?

While I'm not familiar with Loma Linda or St Helena hospital in particular, I am aware of stop smoking clinics being given by SDA churches and many years ago there was never any question, beyond the desire by the participant to give his personal effort to follow the program whole heartedly, at no monetary cost to anyone whatever their background or present conditions.

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Guest billyjobob]

I fully realize there are SDA run stop smoking (5-day plan and such) programs available to most anyone. That's not at issue here.

 

Maybe someone who actually understands my question can chime in. With respect, specifically, to an employment interview, if someone is a smoker but is otherwise deemed fully qualified to hold the position, are there any attempts to get them the help they need, or are they just automatically disqualified? Are they given the opportunity to go through the program in order to conform or is it just, next candidate please. This is the crux of my question. Don't know how to state it more clearly.

 

Bluntly: Does the interviewing hospital/organization give a [censored] about the individual or do they just want to fill the post with a non smoker? I do not think you can do this legally. Only if tobacco is outlawed. I'm not trying to defend bacco use. I personally detest it. But testing  bacco use as a grounds to not hire is discriminatory and will not fly. They seem to be trying to get ahead of the curve because Mary Jane is coming next.

[Gregory Matthews]

The Federal civil rights, anti-discrimination, statutes are quite clear in defining the protected class.  Under those laws, a tobacco user is not a protected class and  therefore can be discriminated against.

 

The laws of the various States differ.  In some States, it is probable that an employer would not be allowed to discriminate against tobacco users.  Centura Health is mainly in the State of  Colorado.  As I said, Colorado law does not prohibit the use of tobacco from being an employment factor.  IOW, under Colorado law, Centura  Health is able to do as they have said that they will do beginning on January 1.

 

The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has commented on this decision of Centura.  In their comment they state that they do not like it and are giving study to it.  You will note it is a long way from stating that the ACLU is giving study to it an saying that Cantura Heath can not legally do it.

[CoAspen]

The .org that I work for used to compensate non smokers with a reduction in their insurance premium. They had to stop due to it being deemed a possible discrimination issue. As a note, we are owned by a none Colorado based entity. It will be interesting if this decision winds up in court. On the face of it, it sounds like a discrimination based on health issues. It should make one wonder if there are other health issues that will be descriminated against.

[Gregory Matthews]

AS it reads on the face of the statutes, Centura is legal and one cannot imagine that they would do this without consultation with their corporate lawyers.

 

But, the ACLU may attempt to break new legal ground.  I think that Centura is prepared.

[LifeHiscost]

AS it reads on the face of the statutes, Centura is legal and one cannot imagine that they would do this without consultation with their corporate lawyers.

 

But, the ACLU may attempt to break new legal ground.  I think that Centura is prepared.

As I recall from somewhere in the past, second hand smoke is just as detrimental to the health of the nonsmoking bystander as the person smoking. This was why it became legal for public services such as restaurants to put no-smoking signs up.

To allow smoking in the public forum on the basis of being discriminatory against the smoker, would be akin to allowing the deviant the freedom to touch women as they passed by on the street because the deviant felt bad about being deprived of the freedom to touch for personal pleasure.

 

God is Love! Jesus saves!