ANCHORAGE — Alaska’s biggest private employer has decided to stop hiring people who smoke tobacco.
As of Nov. 17, Providence Alaska Medical Center and its affiliates around the state will stop hiring tobacco users, the Anchorage Daily News reported Thursday.
At that time, Providence will begin testing prospective employees for nicotine along with illegal drugs. The hospital system doesn’t intend to police employees for tobacco use after they’ve been hired.
Providence is not the first big employer in Alaska to make the change. The Daily News said back in the mid-1980s, Alaska Airlines stopped hiring smokers in states where such bans are allowed, including Alaska.
Tammy Green, director of health management services for Providence Health & Services Alaska, said the move sends a clear message to the community.
“We believe that by doing this move, to where we are no longer going to hire tobacco users, that we are sending a very clear message into the community that we are not only the leaders in health care, but we’re really the leaders in health,” Green said.
Providence is latching onto a national trend among hospitals and health care facilities.
“If not us, then who?” said Green, a former state public health official who oversees Providence programs to improve employee health.
As a first step, Providence will weed out job candidates who smoke or otherwise use tobacco if they acknowledge that on their application. They can reapply once they’ve been tobacco-free for six months, Green said.
Current employees won’t have to quit. But Providence hopes the new practice might give some employees the incentive needed to stop smoking.
Providence looked at the experiences of organizations that already only hire people who are tobacco-free, including the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, which stopped hiring smokers in 2007.
Based on what it learned, Providence decided not to hire anyone who tests positive for nicotine, even if they say it’s from a nicotine patch or secondhand smoke. People on the patch may still be using tobacco, and the tests aren’t likely to be positive from someone only exposed to someone else’s smoke, Green said.
The Providence system employs about 4,300 people, mostly in Anchorage but also in other communities including Kodiak, Valdez and Seward.
Its campus is already tobacco-free, as are those of Alaska Regional Hospital and Alaska Native Medical Center. The campus ban on tobacco means employees can’t take a smoke break outside on the grounds or even in their own parked car.
“We know that tobacco use is the No. 1 leading cause of preventable death,” Green said.
Comments (54)
Add commentEXCELLENT!!!
If I am in a hospital on a respirator clinging to life, the last thing I need is a nurse standing over me who smells like an ashtray, then needs to go get a fix every hour.
This is an awesome move. If I ever have to be medevaced, I will specifically request this hospital for this reason alone!
Smokers, take heed. The 79% of us who don't smoke are fighting back, and we are winning. If you choose to include us everywhere with your addiction, then we will fight to exclude you from places like hospitals.
This wouldn't be an issue if smokers would smoke in places where the rest of us have to breathe it and smell like it. Do it in the privacy of your car or home, but not outside our restaurants, bars, business, work, and any other place we have to ingest your poisons.
Oh, and we 79% will always vote to raise cigarette taxes whenever it's on the ballot.
Taxpayers
Any public employer should do likewise. Why should taxpayers pay higher insurance rates due to tobacco users?
chantix
Chantix works ! Quit now !
DNA profiling
Soon, to get hired you will have to go through DNA profiling. This is no joke, some companies have already tried (unsuccessfully) to implement this. THose that have a propensity for obesity, heart attacks, high blood pressure or cholesterol, diabetes, cancer,depression etc. will not be hired.Only perfect human units will be considered.
Short,bald, red haired, overweight left handed people need not apply.
Conflicted
I agreed with Joe at first, thinking, "Hooray! Nurses shouldn't be smelling like smoke in a hospital. Good for them!"
But Orion's comment gave me pause... I didn't think about this as a stepping stone to a more invasive approach by businesses -- could it be the first step toward ending our freedoms as Americans?
I don't want to be paranoid, but it does bear consideration.
Will have to think about that...
This will be something...
...for all the smokers to [filtered word] about today while they huddle together shivering and puffing in the smoking area outside, slaves to their addiction.
Cleaner
The air will not only be cleaner, the grounds will be too. There won't be little white butts laying all over in the smoking areas.
They're not firing anyone...
They're just not hiring smokers. Smoking is 100% choice (or addiction, like heroin), so it's not discriminatory to not to hire based on that. And smoking has a clear and documented impact on work performance and insurance costs for the employer.
I'm a taxpayer. The public entities (city, state, & federal) that serve me, and that I pay for, are funded by tax dollars. They pay for insurance for their employees. Why should my taxes have to pay higher insurance premiums due to those employees?
I'd even go further. The military pays for 100% of the healthcare for their members, funded by my tax dollars. And then they (we) pay for their healthcare when they retire after 20 years. Why should I have to pay more taxes because of the poor health choice that they made? The military should prohibit all smoking by their members. They require weight and fitness standards, have to wear motorcycle helmets, can't do illegal drugs...they mandate all kinds of choices, why is smoking cigarettes any different?
As much as this makes sense,
As much as this makes sense, it's important to remember that we inhale far more carcinogens and particulate matter commuting to work (from vehicular exhaust) than we do from second-hand smokers enjoying a cigarette outside.
I wish people would keep things in perspective instead of succumbing to hyperbole.
Nice one
"smokers enjoying a cigarette outside"
translation: "pathetic addicts freezing their ___es off in the cold while shirking their jobs"
No hyperbole there. And no, second hand smoke from occasionally walking by the huddled addicts does not really worry me.
I agree with the smoke-free
I agree with the smoke-free campus, but not with the pre-employment testing. If an employee is smoking at work, follow up with corrective action or termination. If they want to white-knuckle it all day then smoke on their way home, so be it.
its curious
why alcohol, also a legal drug that costs the State and City's alot of money and kills alot of people as well, always seems to be off-limits to the same condemnation that tobacco is. I have a family member that both smoked and was an alcoholic. He died from alcohol addiction, not a penny to his name and was in Salvation Army housing. Could he not work due to smoking? No, he couldnt work because he was a drunk. Someone mentioned above if they were on life-support, they wouldnt want to have to smell a nurse who smells like an ashtray. Actually if you were on life-support, what someone smells like would be the least of your worries. I personally would prefer to have a nurse taking care me of that was a smoker over a nurse caring for me that was hung-over from a binge. So, just wondering, will hospitals start testing and eliminating employees that drink as well? Pretty soon, no one will qualify to work there period.
smokers
The only thing I dislike about smokers are the amount of breaks they take and how long the breaks are. I used to work at a bank and watch as smokers took multiple 15-20 minute smoke breaks before lunch even started. Then the employers got [filtered word] off at me for not constantly being productive... Thought about becoming a smoker so that I could catch a break....
Grateful
I never really thought much about our restaurants and public places in regards to smoking until a recent trip to Florida.
We went to dinner, sat outside to enjoy the warmth but because people were able to smoke at this restaurant at the outside tables. My daughter began coughing and moved to stand away from it but still it triggered an asthma attack. So we had to go inside to finish our meal.
So I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that passes these laws. As well as a thank you to all the smokers that respect those of us who don't and walk away from other people, don't smoke around kids and that smoke outside your homes & cars.
everyone has their thing
I guess. The smokers where I worked took smoke breaks but also took a shortened lunch hour to make up time. Did others who stood around chatting make up that time? No. Did those who ran errands on break and take longer than the break time make up their time? No. Also, did those who would eat snacks at times other than lunch hour make up any time? No. So I guess if things were really examined, my guess is it wouldnt be just some smokers who were taking extra time.
Ak Mom
agree, I do think its nice to not have to deal with the smoke in restaurants. Now if some men and women would stop applying mega-doses of perfume and aftershave, it would help as well.
Ha!
Having worked in the restaurant and food service business for many years, I hear you, bradjohnson21! It is utterly annoying to see co-workers shirk their duties to take multiple breaks whenever the opportunity arrives.
I don't agree that employers should be testing for nicotine, though. That's just ridiculous especially since tobacco use is legal and you can't get arrested for being intoxicated by it. If a smoker can work their shift without taking more than the legally allotted breaks then I think that's their prerogative.
I agree that I would much rather be cared for by a smoker than a drunk if I were in the hospital.
@Latitude58
You may be a tax payer, but you certainly don't support the entire US Government/Military/State (no income tax there)/City/Federal workers with your tax dollars. I really get tired of people bandying about "I'm a tax payer and I demand (fill in the blank) because I'm paying their salaries. I'm paying their health care costs" when their annual tax dollars isn't enough to pay one state, city or federal employee's annual salary.
I particularly object to the notion that the military should require that soldiers be prohibited from smoking. I, for one, am not going to tell some soldier just out of a fire fight in Afghanistan that he or she can't have a smoke afterwards. And who is going to want to enlist with non-smoking requirements anyway?
I agree with Kiki--where's the outrage and umbrage over heavy drinkers? You know, the ones who come to work hung over, can't work and smell of stale alcohol, or call in sick and you have to pick up their workload--the ones who may need a liver transplant some day.
I would never hire a smoker
For several reasons:
1. They smell really, really bad, and they don't even know it.
2. Their day is patterned around when they can smoke next.
3. They can't make it through a two hour staff meeting without going nuts. Towards the end, you can see their withdrawal. Their minds aren't on their meeting, their minds are on their fix. Then after the meeting, they RUN to get their fix.
4. 4-5 smoke breaks per day @ a minimum of 10 minutes/break means an hour less work they get done compared to non-smokers. That's 4-5 hours/week.
5. They almost always take another smoker with them on their fix breaks.
6. They are drug addicts whose addiction interferes with their work.
7. The lesser-paid addicts are always bumming money because they will buy cigarettes before food.
8. Instead of going behind the building, they will shoot for the first exit they can find, making people walk through their cloud of stench, or they leave the doors open and let their cloud get sucked into the building stinking it up for everyone else.
9. Then they drop their butts wherever they are because they think it's sexy like in the movies, or, they like their litter.
10. If you're in a three hour staff meeting, they go nuts after two hours, start bouncing their feet, tweaking, eating their hair, then they get irritable, can't form thoughts, because all they can think about is their cigarette. And if the staff meeting gets stressful, they tweak and all they can think of is, "God, I need a cigarette."
Smokers are so much less productive than non-smokers, but it's something we all just kind of cringe and bear it because they are addicted and that ain't gonna change.
I pity them.
@ fisherwoman
Criminals should not work in law enforcement.
People with domestic violence records should not work with children in day care.
Violent felons should not have guns.
Smokers and drug addicts should not work in health care.
Blind people should not work as pilots.
There are exceptions for hiring certain people in certain positions. Smokers should not work in health care.
And to dude above, I disagree. If I am on a respirator, and a stinking smoker nurse is standing over me, he or she sure ain't helping my breathing because they needed a drug fix to get through their shift.
@ persnickity
I seriously doubt your statement above is true.
The Viking - a perfect example
I used to enjoy going to the Viking, but I rarely do now for two smoking related reasons.
First, there is one bartender upstairs. Whenever I go to get a drink, she's rarely there. I have to wait 10-15 minutes to get a refill. Then her buds at the bar give her excuse for her, "She's on a smoke break." When you're at a bar spending $6 on a drink, you don't want to wait 15 minutes.
Secondly, their bouncers don't dissuade people from smoking right in front of their door! Then, whenever the door is opened, the stench is sucked into the entire first floor! Sometimes, those doors stick open, and the junkies are puffing away.
So now I go to the Imperial or the Alaskan.
amazing
Jo, funny how you trash others for their vices but yet your vice, drinking, it supposed to be totally acceptable to everyone else. Most of the things you cite can also be applied to the drug of your choice, alcohol. I think the person I pity is you, to carry such disdain and hatred for others, that you dont even know, is pretty sad. My neighbor smokes and is the kindest, most helpful person Ive ever met. He would do anything to help others. But apparently someone like you would shove that help right back in his face because god forbid, he smokes. I have friends that both smoke and/or drink and they are good people, regardless of what their vices are. Your generalization of people who smoke are false. I think we all get that smokers are not your cup of tea but at the same time, Im not so sure that you are such a joy to be around yourself.
Pray, Ich, do tell. I'm
Pray, Ich, do tell. I'm interested in a new profession.
@kiki
you are wrong on all counts.
First, I hate no one, but 'hatred' is such an easy word to throw around, isn't it?
Secondly, I rarely drink, but when I do, it doesn't make me stink, I don't pour my drink on others' clothes, and I don't have to leave a staff meeting to have a drink, just to get through the day. So, your comparison lacked any logic at all. You write like a teenager.
I have many friends who smoke, and I love them and I support their right to ingest whatever they want into their bodies. I DON'T support the remnants from their addiction to enter my body or clothes. We have that understanding and that mutual respect. They don't smoke around me, and I won't [filtered word] at them for stinking up my clothes.
And I won't step one foot inside any home or car where people smoke. It's absolutely disgusting.
And I agree with Ich Rauche. I also support people's right to smoke weed in the privacy of their home and to get as baked as they wish. I don't support their right to smoke around me. BIG difference. I don't see weed smokers smoking right outside the doors to businesses, nor do I see weed smokers dropping their roaches on the ground as litter. And, like him, the smell of burning tobacco is incredibly offensive to many.
Bottom line: This would not be an issue if all smokers didn't smoke at work, didn't smoke outside of businesses, didn't litter the remnants of their addiction. If they'd smoke in the privacy of their homes or cars, NONE of this would be an issue.
But they don't. They have to involve everyone around them whenever they smoke. Their addiction is all that matters. And that's why people like me would really like to spit on them when I pass through one of their clouds of stench.
NoDoubt
I see...so as a tax payer I don't have any say in how my government operates because I don't pay enough? Interesting. Well, you're obviously right, because I don't give politicians large sums of money, and that's the only money that talks these days. So don't worry, Phillip Morris will make sure the politicians won't do anything so draconian to our good service members.
Now if I had just finished a firefight, the last thing I'd want is some smoker stinking up the armored humvee that I was trapped in. And I don't think I'd want him in my company anyway since he'd constantly be jonesing for a fix instead of being focused on the action.
Who would the military get to enlist? Easy. Nonsmokers. And they could afford to pay them more because they would be spending less on healthcare.
Jo, the fact that you would
Jo, the fact that you would entertain spitting on anyone shows you've got some issues.
habits
Nothing so needs reforming more than other peoples habits......Mark Twain
yeah great idea, untill they come for you
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me
all you peeps that think this is great, listen to reason.... Soon U may be the 1% lololol
u peeps deserve what is coming for u
job application questions?
I've never seen a job application that asks if you smoke.
Has anyone else? Is this legal to ask?