HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

OT: but concerning Constitutional Rights

Support Forums
>
Ulcerative Colitis
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 4/25/2011 1:41 AM (GMT 0)
So this is not about UC, but I am have UC and am interested in peoples opinion on this issue: Here is the issue> In Lansing michigan Sparrow Hospital is applying a new policy effective May 1st that states> New Hires will be screened for nicotine and Hiring will be contingent upon the results. Now, I am not expecting non-smokers to encourage people to smoke, BUT isn't this illegal to screen people for substances that are LEGAL. IMO smokers are societies "scape goat" and it has to stop!!! Or maybe we should screen people who go outside the parameters of the food pyramid, have high cholesterol, high BP, don't drink enough water, drink cows milk when they are lactose intolerant, and on and on and on....I am interested in how WE THE PEOPLE feel about this issue. dB
Posted 4/25/2011 2:57 AM (GMT 0)
It is legal to discriminate for any number of things. There are certain areas that are protected from discrimination, you know: religion, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Smoking just isn't protected.

How do I feel about it? I'm a "Live and let live" person and think that if you smoke tobacco at home that's your business and shouldn't be a reason for screening. But my opinion doesn't count, the employer is king and gets to make the rules. Yes, next they'll be screening for cholesterol, BP and maybe UC. Slippery slope.
Posted 4/25/2011 6:31 AM (GMT 0)
I'm sort of swaying to the position of making illegal substances legal. It would help reduce crime and increase tax revenue. However, there are people who feel that just because a substance is legal, it's now okay and a whole new set of rules apply.

I think it's important for employees at a hospital to set an example for patients. It is a healthcare facility. Certain ailments/diseases are inherited. Others are chosen.

Post Edited (subdued) : 4/25/2011 12:38:14 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 4/25/2011 11:43 AM (GMT 0)
I heard something about this on the news a little while ago. Something about how people were taking it to Congress(?) to have that put in the no discrimination ruling. I can't remember the whole story. I personally find it unfair...it isn't illegal (yet), therefore what you do on your own time is no ones concern but your own.
Posted 4/25/2011 12:38 PM (GMT 0)
As a federal worker I am no stranger to this, welcome to the club. When the government allows preferences for hiring and college admissions for women and each of the minorities, everyone but white males, then they are in indirectly discriminating against white males. Perfectly legal, after all we must go after white privilege.

But the Kennedy family will always find ways to get into Harvard and the Bushes will always get into Yale, so much for white privilege. It is the poor working class white males who are going to get screwed. I was hoping Obama would at least change the laws to set up preferences by economic status. Most of the benefits would go to minorities anyway. But fat chance
Posted 4/25/2011 1:21 PM (GMT 0)
I don't find it discriminatory; it's the standard they set for their employees. You also don't see long haired men covered in tattoos working for IBM. I think this is smart and a healthcare setting should be able to employ people who take care of their health. You will probably see more of this as the price of healthcare rises. In one European country personal healthcare costs are determined by the efforts put into the individual to take care of themselves. Also a a smart move.

Sue
Posted 4/25/2011 11:27 PM (GMT 0)

BabeintheWoods said...
As a federal worker I am no stranger to this, welcome to the club. When the government allows preferences for hiring and college admissions for women and each of the minorities, everyone but white males, then they are in indirectly discriminating against white males.

I agree. The laws are outdated. A company/department can be all Chinese FOBs (fresh-off-the-boat), all Philippine FOBs, all Indian FOBs, all whatever FOBs. Everyone seems to be protected except for the all, mostly white, American 3rd, 4th, etc generations. I'm not sure where the non-white 3rd, 4th, 5th generation Americans fit in all of this except to say that something is wrong when a country will protect foreigners and not its own countrymen and women. I think Americans might not be speaking out enough due to past discrimination against non-whites and foreigners, especially given that their ancestors at one time emigrated to the US. But we do need to speak out about reverse discrimination because discrimination is discrimination. It doesn't matter if it is discrimination against a non-white, foreign female or a white, American male.
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply