The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
Free Association or Corporate Tyranny https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5104 |
Page 1 of 5 |
Author: | Rorinthas [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 8:39 am ] |
Post subject: | Free Association or Corporate Tyranny |
http://www.limaohio.com/news/hospital-5 ... a-new.html Quote: LIMA — Being tobacco-free will now be a condition of hiring at the city’s two hospitals. Beginning Jan. 1, human resources directors of Lima Memorial Health System and St. Rita’s Medical Center jointly announced Wednesday the hospitals will hire only employees who do not use tobacco. The policy does not apply to current employees, but those employees will be offered smoking cessation supports. The policies differ slightly. At LMHS, applicants will test for tobacco use as part of pre-employment drug screening. St. Rita’s will not routinely test, but failing to report correct information on an application could be grounds for firing. Hospitals are leading the way with this policy, said Jennifer Vantilburgh, St. Rita’s HR director. In Ohio, the Cleveland Clinic, with other hospitals in the Toledo, Lorain and Youngstown area, have already implemented such policies. Vantilburgh and LMHS HR Director Tillie Schiffler said as healthcare providers, employees understand the benefits to themselves, patients and the community. Legally, employers have the right to set terms of employment, they said. “It’s the right thing to do. Being healthcare providers, we believe it was our responsibility to set the standard,” Vantilburgh said. “Smoking is not illegal, but we have the right to make this decision. We don’t think it will negatively impact candidates. It’s clear up front. If smokers have a strong desire to work for one of these organizations, they’ll have the opportunity to through cessation and be hired.” The policy is a logical next step for both hospitals after each set campus-wide no-smoking policies, Vantilburgh and Schiffler said. St. Rita’s and Lima Memorial keep in touch with regular meetings and they realized they were both considering the option. “Approaching this as a team, we wanted to show the community we support this initiative and be leaders in the community on the issue,” Schiffler said. “Healthy lifestyle is important. We know the negative impacts of tobacco. We believe it’s important to take this positive stand. This is part of overall wellness programs.” I get this, but where does it end? BMI screenings? Number of Children? Hazardous Leisure activities(race car driving, bull riding, skydiving)? Also notice that the two hospitals colluded to pass this together essentially giving smokers nowhere to run. |
Author: | Stathol [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:58 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Are these public or private hospitals? |
Author: | Rorinthas [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:23 am ] |
Post subject: | Free Association or Corporate Tyranny |
To the best of my knowledge: Both are privately held board operated entities. One may have NPO status but neither are organs of state government. |
Author: | Micheal [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:34 am ] |
Post subject: | |
Some of both Rori, Dude, we don't want to hang around smokers, and since we own the company, we aren't going to. Besides, it sends a message about how we are health conscious and we don't have to worry about all the accidents and health problems you smokers have. You don't like it? Sue, precedence is in our favor. |
Author: | Rorinthas [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 10:46 am ] |
Post subject: | Free Association or Corporate Tyranny |
Between the two of them they have a localized monopoly on emergency care and aside from them there are nearly no middle level health care jobs to be had here. Disclaimer: Don't smoke. However I'm a believer in the "first they came for the smokers..." and have been for years. Even back when everyone thought I was crazy that dietary habits would be next... By the way scuttlebutt is soda machines will be the next to go. So where does it end? How much control should an employer get to leverage over your life? |
Author: | Micheal [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 11:58 am ] |
Post subject: | |
First the tobacco lobby went after California with their anywhere but California strategy. Never been a smoker myself, hate the smell, and see nothing wrong with removing that poison from our lives. Something most smokers really can't understand is how offensive their habit is to those of us who cannot handle the smoke. My diet soda habit, I would welcome removing the soda machines from the building so I wouldn't drink so damn much of it. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Still, I understand your basic argument. Vigilance is called for, but being a smoker is voluntary, being Jewish was not. |
Author: | Lenas [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I think it's completely acceptable for a health institution to ban smoking from its employees. |
Author: | Rynar [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 2:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Free Association or Corporate Tyranny |
Free association. |
Author: | Hannibal [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 3:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Free association. However, what happens when the hospital needs certain positions filled and only someone who smokes is able to fill it? Will the hospital pay more to court nonsmokers into that position? Will the hospital grant exemptions for hard to fill positions? Will Timmy ever get out of the well? These are the Days of our Lives. |
Author: | darksiege [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:23 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
mixed feelings here. It is free association; HOWEVER, I would rather have a doctor, orderly, nurse, whatever smelling like an ashtray than that strange deathy smell that a lot of hospitals seem to have. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
Wow, this is stupid. I'd rather have a good doctor who smokes than a bad doctor. |
Author: | Rynar [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:45 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: |
Lex Luthor wrote: Wow, this is stupid. I'd rather have a good doctor who smokes than a bad doctor. Then don't use thoe hospitals. Employers making not smoking a requirement for employment isn't a new thing people. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Rynar wrote: Lex Luthor wrote: Wow, this is stupid. I'd rather have a good doctor who smokes than a bad doctor. Then don't use thoe hospitals. Employers making not smoking a requirement for employment isn't a new thing people. A lot of good candidates will be excluded when you have extraneous criteria. If you stop hiring black doctors because people don't like to look at them, you'd have the same result. |
Author: | Xequecal [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 5:57 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Rynar wrote: Lex Luthor wrote: Wow, this is stupid. I'd rather have a good doctor who smokes than a bad doctor. Then don't use thoe hospitals. Employers making not smoking a requirement for employment isn't a new thing people. You don't typically have a choice on whether or not to use a hospital. You'd have to choose a different area to live in if you wanted to avoid this. |
Author: | Rynar [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 6:31 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Lex Luthor wrote: Rynar wrote: Lex Luthor wrote: Wow, this is stupid. I'd rather have a good doctor who smokes than a bad doctor. Then don't use thoe hospitals. Employers making not smoking a requirement for employment isn't a new thing people. A lot of good candidates will be excluded when you have extraneous criteria. If you stop hiring black doctors because people don't like to look at them, you'd have the same result. Sure is, but it's up to the employer to make these decisions. Not to mention the fact that you can't quit being black. |
Author: | Rynar [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 6:33 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Xequecal wrote: Rynar wrote: Lex Luthor wrote: Wow, this is stupid. I'd rather have a good doctor who smokes than a bad doctor. Then don't use thoe hospitals. Employers making not smoking a requirement for employment isn't a new thing people. You don't typically have a choice on whether or not to use a hospital. You'd have to choose a different area to live in if you wanted to avoid this. In some cases yes, in some cases no. Still, either way you have a choice, as do the doctors who want a job there. They could always quit smoking. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 6:36 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Rynar wrote: Sure is, but it's up to the employer to make these decisions. Not to mention the fact that you can't quit being black. I think we are arguing different things. I agree with you that employers should be able to decide (even in the race case). I am just saying I think this particular decision is a bad idea. |
Author: | Rynar [ Fri Dec 31, 2010 6:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Lex Luthor wrote: Rynar wrote: Sure is, but it's up to the employer to make these decisions. Not to mention the fact that you can't quit being black. I think we are arguing different things. I agree with you that employers should be able to decide. I am just saying I think this particular decision is a bad idea. With rising insurance costs, and thses hospitals likely footing the bill for their doctors coverage, I disagree. |
Author: | darksiege [ Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:05 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Rynar wrote: Not to mention the fact that you can't quit being black. Michael Jackson set precedence proving this wrong didn't he? Even if he didn't I think Bryant Gumble did succeed in that. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:40 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: |
Rynar wrote: Lex Luthor wrote: Rynar wrote: Sure is, but it's up to the employer to make these decisions. Not to mention the fact that you can't quit being black. I think we are arguing different things. I agree with you that employers should be able to decide. I am just saying I think this particular decision is a bad idea. With rising insurance costs, and thses hospitals likely footing the bill for their doctors coverage, I disagree. So then I assume you would not hire overweight nurses and doctors? |
Author: | Timmit [ Sat Jan 01, 2011 9:04 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Re: Re: |
It's their hospital and they can do what they want, I guess. Hopefully they won't have staffing problems because of this idiotic policy. |
Author: | Lydiaa [ Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Free Association or Corporate Tyranny |
I have no problems with hospitals who say you can not smoke on their grounds, or even during working hours. However the fact that they will not hire based on what you do when you’re at home, I believe that’s discrimination. It’s no different than excluding a certain religion, or sexual preference. As long as it doesn’t happen at the place you work, why should your employer care? I’m surprised at you people who say it’s their hospital and they can do what they want. They are not just mandating the working conditions but also your way of life, is that really a precedence you guys want to set? |
Author: | Corolinth [ Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:33 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Free Association or Corporate Tyranny |
Lydiaa wrote: They are not just mandating the working conditions but also your way of life, is that really a precedence you guys want to set? Quite frankly, yes it is the precedent people want set. The American people are not the freedom-loving independent citizens that we are advertised as.
|
Author: | Rynar [ Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:39 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Free Association or Corporate Tyranny |
Corolinth wrote: Lydiaa wrote: They are not just mandating the working conditions but also your way of life, is that really a precedence you guys want to set? Quite frankly, yes it is the precedent people want set. The American people are not the freedom-loving independent citizens that we are advertised as.There is no restriction of freedom because individuals still retain the ability to choose. This is not some omni-pervasive law that removes the element of choice, and forces someone not to smoke. This is the operators of the hospital using their absolute right to freedom of association. It is your privilege to have a job with the hospital. It is their right to deny you that privilege. |
Author: | Lex Luthor [ Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:48 pm ] |
Post subject: | |
I think that good hospital service is much more important than rights and privileges. For example if I were making a website advertising my hospital, I would talk about my high quality doctors and nurses... not the Constitution. |
Page 1 of 5 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |