Starting May 1, St. Luke's Hospital & Health Network will no longer hire workers who smoke, joining at least a handful of hospitals nationwide taking a tough stance against a major cause of lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and stroke. The controversial decision pits proponents of good health against advocates of civil liberties. Reporter Veronica Torrejon explores the issue.
St. Luke's smoking policy is proper
Joy Blankley Meyer is executive director of Pennsylvania Alliance to Control Tobacco.
Q: Is St. Luke's new policy to screen prospective employees for nicotine use a good thing for the community and hospital employees?
A: The St. Luke's Hospital & Health Network's decision to screen employees for nicotine is a positive step in helping employees become healthier citizens. … By screening for nicotine, St. Luke's is making employee health a priority.
Q: Do smokers cost more to insure. Are they less productive?
A: According to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking directly costs Pennsylvania's economy an estimated $9.4 billion annually. This includes workplace productivity losses of $4.7 billion and direct medical costs of $4.7 billion.
Q: Do these policies really encourage people to quit smoking?
A: Historically, smoke-free policies have had a direct correlation in quit attempts by tobacco users. Most tobacco users indicate that they would like to quit. Tobacco-free policies in the workplace and communities can help tobacco users make the decision to stop using tobacco.
Q: What about the argument that employees should be hired for their qualifications and not their lifestyle choices?
A: As a health care provider, St. Luke's is placing the health of their employees and patients above all else. By implementing this new tobacco-free policy, the hospital is ensuring that the health of their employees and patients is well protected from the dangers of tobacco use.
Q: What about the argument that these policies are an invasion of privacy, that what prospective employees do on their own time is their own business?
A: Workplace tobacco control policies are essential for protecting the health of all employees. As a health care provider, St. Luke's must put the health of patients and employees above the choice of tobacco use.
Q: Hospitals are supposed to promote good health and healthy living. Should health care workers be held to higher standards when it comes to engaging in unhealthy behavior?
A: Health care workers interact daily with patients. The protection of patients' overall health while at St. Luke's must be the priority of the health care provider.
Q: Is there a slippery slope argument that if you start to regulate unhealthy behavior such as smoking that it could lead to policies that discriminate against people who eat too much, exercise too little?
A: Tobacco-related disease and death are preventable. Every year, 20,000 Pennsylvanians die from tobacco-related diseases. Every year, more than 16,000 Pennsylvania youth under 18 become new daily smokers. These statistics are alarming but completely preventable. By workplaces and communities adopting tobacco-free policies, we can save lives and money. Congratulations to St. Luke's for putting the health of their employees and patients first.
Health Top Tips Nutrition Love Lifestyle Happiness Weight Loss
Civil liberties under attack
Mary Catherine Roper is a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania's Philadelphia office.
Q: What is the ACLU's position on company policies that screen and bar smokers from being hired?
A: The ACLU opposes all employer policies that try to control employees' lives outside the workplace and supports legislation to prohibit lifestyle discrimination in the workplace.
Both the U.S. Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitutions contain strong protections against governmental invasions of our private lives. Those laws do not apply to invasion of our privacy by non-government entities such as employers, credit card companies, landlords and others with whom we do business.
In Pennsylvania, most people are employed ''at will'' -- that is, without an employment contract. That means that the employer can impose any conditions on that employment that it wants to impose, so long as it doesn't violate fair labor and non-discrimination laws. That gives employers a lot of legal leeway and, especially in a bad economy, a lot of economic leverage to demand that employees give up control of their lives, off the job as well as on it. That's not ''unconstitutional,'' but it's also not a good idea.
Q: What are your concerns with these policies?
A: Refusing to hire people for reasons unrelated to job performance is unfair and often prevents the company from hiring the best qualified person. And a completely independent concern is how these policies are enforced: Are we going to put up with employers monitoring their employees' behavior through electronic means? Tailing them with private detectives? This also leaves employees susceptible to ''outing'' by fellow employees who seek some advantage for themselves or just want to get back at someone for personal reasons. That's not a productive way to choose a workforce. In a challenging economy, you may not have the option of choosing to work somewhere else.
Q: How are these policies different from generally accepted policies that ban smoking on company grounds? Why is one policy more acceptable than the other?