practice what you preach I say. I wouldn't trust an English teacher to train me if they had broken English, yes they would have to be qualified to get the job, but it's not a good exhibit of what I'd like to learn. I wouldn't trust a cop who breaks the law, I wouldn't listen to a preacher if they are drug attic's while they are preaching to me. this is all the same reason why I would not trust a physician who has vulgar tattoos and smoke on there breath, telling me not to smoke. as humans it's how we operate.
jamilia cunninghamof VA10:44PM January 05, 2013
I haven't seen research on this particular disadvantage of having employees who smoke, but I can say from personal experience and many years of observation that smokers are less productive on the job than non-smokers. If you add up all the smoke-breaks, the coming and going to smoke, the illness caused by smoking, you clearly have a less productive employee!
A former non-productive employee
MESHof VA12:17PM June 18, 2012
This is wrong on so many levels!! Smoking is bad for you but show me a study that the patch is bad. There are however studies showing the patch can increase mental awarness even decrease a persons chances of memory loss. And what about the overweight applicants? That is also an addiction that studies have shown to have far more adverse health problems then smoking. Obesity increases heart disease, diabeties, fibromyalgia ect. If nicotine use outside of smoking keeps people from working then it will open the flood gates and I for one will seriously consider moving to Canada!!!!
CKOlson RNof SD3:35AM January 16, 2012
Well, when I'm interviewing to hire someone, I'm looking for smarts and productivity.
If someone is a smoker they have more than adequately proven to me that their judgement is suspect, so why would I want to hire them compared with any other applicant? As for productivity, excessive breaks from the workplace can only mean that the smoker will be less productive than an equally competent non-smoker, so again, why would I want to hire a smoker compared with a non-smoker?
These are direct job related, cost-related issues. Never mind that a smelly smoker will likely drive away more clients and employees that I would rather keep, in comparison with an identical non-smoker.
So yeah, if I am trying to run a profitable business, I will prefer non-addicts every time, assuming other scores are equal.
JJ Vrielandof TX3:48PM January 14, 2012
"ONLY" 29 states? Uh, that's more than half. Add the District of Columbia and we're talking 29 1/2.
Audrey Silkof NY2:35AM January 14, 2012
Defending abuse of others rights to earn an honest living, by stating that smoking is harmful for individuals, does not entitle license to dictate the actions of others. They call that in kinder and gentler terms "Paternalist" thinking, a mode of governance that is one of the most unrelenting and cruel we have ever seen. Purely the decisions are being made in this institution in line with self sanctimony and moralizing, by people with no morals and no professionalism leaning to coercive process, as a management style, no different in any way, than an employer demanding sexual favors in exchange for continued employment. Which marks them indefensibly as an employer few will respect, or endure for long. Multiple lawsuits and heavy liability exposures are hanging in the breeze, waiting for the opportunistic to grab hold at any time and walk away with millions.
Setting an example in bigotry and hatred, is an interesting notion, let us know how that one works out for you. If your institution survives.
Kevin11:17PM January 13, 2012
Noel Barith, public information officer, said the 435,000 figure
probably came from its computers. S&H generates lots of statistics concerning
"smoking-related" stuff, he said. It's all done using a formula programmed
into the computers. Really? Since I had already determined that no lifestyle
data on individual patients and their medical histories is ever collected,
how can the computer possibly decide deaths are smoking related? Barith
didn't know. Maybe the person who devised this computer program knows. Barith
promised to have a computer expert to return my call.
The next day, SAMMEC Operations Manager, Richard Lawton, phoned. SAMMEC, I
learned, is the name of the computer program. Its initials stand for Smoking
Attributed Morbidity, Mortality, and Economic Cost. The computer is fed raw
data and SAMMEC employs various complex mathematical formulas to determine
how many people in various age groups, locations, and heaven knows what other
categories are likely to get sick or die from what diseases and how many of
these can be assumed to be smoking related.
Assumed? This is all guess work? Sort of. Lawton confirmed that no real
people, living or dead, are studied, no doctors consulted, no environmental
At least it's a business decision and not a government mandate, but still cross a line here of intrusion into private behavior when it comes to use of legal tobacco products. Maybe electronic cigarettes are an option to avoid tobacco and reduce nicotine, so see www.ecigwerks.blogspot.com for more.
Reader Comments
Back to article
jamilia cunningham of VA 10:44PM January 05, 2013
MESH of VA 12:17PM June 18, 2012
CKOlson RN of SD 3:35AM January 16, 2012
JJ Vrieland of TX 3:48PM January 14, 2012
Audrey Silk of NY 2:35AM January 14, 2012
Kevin 11:17PM January 13, 2012
enemy guest 6:42PM January 13, 2012
Mike Morgan of WI 2:54PM January 13, 2012