Latest Headlines
- Merry Christmas! The Story Of The Greatest Gift Of All
- First Responders Put On Christmas Light Show For Children’s Hospital Patients (With Gallery)
- House Ethics Releases Scathing Report On Matt Gaetz
- Photos: Christmas Activities At Jim Allen Elementary
- Here’s The Christmas Closure And Trash Schedule You Need To Know
- Letters To Santa From Byrneville Elementary Third Graders
- Cause Of ‘Major’ Fire At Ascend Remains Under Investigation
- Letters To Santa From Byrneville Elementary Second Graders
- Fire Destroys Mobile Home Being Used For Storage Near McDavid
- Photos: Gingerbread House Day At Lipscomb Elementary
Escambia Schools To Consider No Smoking Policy For New Hires
May 14, 2011
The Escambia County School Board may adopt a new policy to not hire anyone who smokes.
The board will vote to the proposal at their regular meeting on Tuesday and then consider the policy in June. The new policy would allow only smoke-free news hires, but it would not apply to current employees.
The new play would not only mean healthier employees, but it is also designed to lower costs associated with health insurance costs and lost days at work.
Similar policies have been adopted by other large local employers, including Escambia County, ECUA, Sacred Heart Hospital and Baptist Health Care.
Comments
30 Responses to “Escambia Schools To Consider No Smoking Policy For New Hires”
How will they know if someone’s a smoker? Will they spend money to test them? This is so silly. People should mind their own business.
Let’s see the sign in front of the school should say if you have any vice or overweight do not apply. I do not smoke and do not hold it against anyone who does. It is a personal issue and I would almost bet anyone who smokes knows what could happen to them. It is a hard habit to quit for sure I watched my dad and it was tuff. But he did it. I can see making people if they choose to continue this habit or stay over weight to pay the difference in the rating on the cost of the insurance because it after all is their choice.
I just think we have to be very careful how we treat people who are trying to make a living by working. I know that at this point there thankfully are more non smokers than smokers. The key has been education and peer pressure not mandating.
Just saying be careful what you ask for.
@ Jerry: If you read my whole comment you would know that that isn’t all I got from this new proposal.
Like I said..since this is healthcare issue…ban new hires from eating fast food and drinking alcohol as well. Those two are just as bad as smoking.
Driven
WORRIED RESIDENT said…”@eab, you’ve quit smoking, now you’ve become intolerant of those who do?”
I said…RIGHT!!! (in caps). If I can quit,so can they. I certainly don’t want to pay for their medical care if they don’t. But, come to think of it, you have an excellent point. Make ‘em all quit or give their jobs to someone who wants them.
First, let me say I’m not a smoker, and never have been. With that being said, I still think this policy would be WRONG!! If they want to do this, I think they should also require the current workers to quit smoking in a resonable amount of time. Whether or not they (School Board) pay to help with it (Nicotine patches, etc) would be another discussion. My thoughts are if it is so cost effective for the new hires to be nicotine free, wouldn’t it be even more cost effective for all employees to be nicotine free?!
If this is about insurance cost. Require the smokers (ALL of them) to pay the difference in premiums for non smokers.
@eab, you’ve quit smoking, now you’ve become intolerant of those who do?
Worried Resident said (and in capital letters,no less)…”.I understand having a “smoke free” workplace, but to have it only for the “new hires” is WRONG!!!”
I said…So why is it WRONG!!!?
The folks already working there presumably did not know that smoking would be banned when they started to work. Any new hires would,I’m guessing, be fully aware of the policy. If a candidate doesn’t like it, let ‘em go work somewhere else.
My2cents said…”What you do on your time is your business not your employers.be that smoking,drinking or anything else allowed by law.”
I said…Not if I’m paying for it. You want the job? Quit smoking.
Your right you can’t change the color of your skin.Maybe I used the wrong example trying to make my point.My intended point being that it is discrmination.
What you do on your time is your business not your employers.be that smoking,drinking or anything else allowed by law.
@My2cents,
Smoking is a choice! The color of your skin is not! I don’t understand why you can’t see that! That is not the same thing!
I understand having a “smoke free” workplace, but to have it only for the “new hires” is WRONG!!! I guess the “new hires” (the ones who smoke), will have to smell the smoke on the old employees when they come in contact, and it’s suppose to be ok!!! Again, I say this is WRONG!!!
I smoked for 25 years but quit about 12 years ago after probably 20 attempts.I do see the wisdom of trying to keep it off any public property where young people might be influenced to start. I also don’t see why anyone should think they have the “right” to smoke on public property just because tobacco is legal. There are lots of things that are legal that aren’t typically allowed in schools.
To equate smoking with skin color is so absolutely absurd as to be laughable.
The issue of whether to allow smokers into an insurance pool is, perhaps, thornier. Since the policy would only affect potential employees, I think that makes it more palatable. Want a job in the school system? Quit smoking. I loved cigarettes. But the facts are they are nasty, unhealthy to smokers and people around them, and incredibly addictive. But if I could quit, a potential job candidate should be able to as well.
It could be argued that anything that drives up insurance costs for public employees is every taxpayer’s business. I don’t know how much in insurance costs the employees are responsible for. If the answer is all of it, then let ‘em smoke.
I have paid taxes all my working life for other people’s children to go to school when I never had kids of my own. I don’t resent this because I think an educated society has many advantages over an uneducated one. I will support this non smoking policy because it may (and I emphasize “may”) help control insurance costs in the public sector. As a taxpayer, that’s my business unless public employees want to bear the entire cost of their insurance themselves.
Now, with all that said, what do we do about overweight folks or people who refuse to exercise? (laughs)
Let’s not forget single parents. I had a single parent working for me that would on average not come in at least once every pay period due to sick children. That cost would end up as overtime.
Let’s also go after the alcoholics, seven day adventists who can’t work on saturdays. There’s the muslims who carry in their rugs to work and take 5 prayer breaks a day. Severely obese employee’s have as many health issues as smokers.
And the sign said:
Large, smoking, obese, religious, and alcoholic people need not apply.
I myself do not smoke. All you her people gripe about is people that smoke what about all the people that have a drinking problem or a drug problem. They work in the public they might even work with you, you don’t know what everybody else does it is just that people that smoke do it in front of other people. They have drug test at most places but people that do drugs know what to do to pass the test and they do not check people to see if they been drinking.
Well, you can quit smoking but you can’t quit your skin color. It’s not really the same.
REGARDING:
“not only mean healthier employees, but it is also designed to lower costs associated with health insurance costs and lost days at work”
While smokers cost more in missed days and more sickness, surely that’s offset by reduced retirement expenses due to them dying quicker. Long living retirees are expensive.
Don’t just look at one part of the equation. Look at the whole picture. It might even save money to encourage smoking.
That said, I remember playing foosball where many smokers had gone before me. After a while I tasted their tobacco products in my mouth and realized it was coming from the handles–where they had sweated it out–through my palms and into my bloodstream. I imagine it was a low dosage, but wonder if it would show up on a test. Not that it would affect me since I’m already hired, don‘t play anymore and have never smoked.
Also, snuff isn’t smoked, does give the same result, still causes cancers but usually different–and more treatable–ones. It would be interesting if it were allowed, ‘twould make testing interesting.
David considering stinky drugs, Big Brother
and snuff spitters
for My2cents:
Yes, this is still America…where you have the right to smoke if you wish and I have the right to NOT hire you if I wish.
This policy is not about taking away a person’s right to smoke, it is saying if you smoke you can’t work here. Why? The health insurance cost is too high. Smoking affects everyone. Le’t stick to the issue, smoking and insurance, nothing else. It is not about smoking at school or at events, which according to law is not allowed.
Good job, school district.
No one likes to be told what to do but with health cost rising everyday something has to be done. I don’t think smokers would want to sign a no insurance clause. Smoking has nothing to do with molestation.
Smoking is not simple it is a direct cause of cancer to both the smoker and the non-smoker. I have had a lot of family members die from cancer, caused by smoking. It was there choice; however I do not wish anyone to have to pay for insurance that they can not afford due to higher health care cost from smoking.
I smoke but i don’t have a real problem with going outside to do it.How ever i think when it comes to telling someone they can’t work here because they smoke is no different than telling them they can’t work here because of the color of there skin.As far as smelling smoke at the ball park etc. Bet you drove your car to get there.Any idea what comes out of your cars exhaust.
That being said I am not trying to defend smoking because starting was the worse decision i ever made for myself.But i still feel like its my right to make the choice even if it was a bad one.
I am always amazed at the outcry when it pertains to smoking, but not alcohol. Let’s do away with the smokers, but lets leave the drunks alone. Television advertising is such and example. I guess there is too much money tied up in alcohol. Plus many of our lawmakers who would condemn smoking, likes to take a drink or two or more. Yes smoking is unhealthy for all, not just to those who smoke; but so is alcohol and especially the abuse of it.
Let me see, we are not going to hire smokers. However, when a principal gets stopped for DUI with a blood-alcohol content of 0.178 percent, we will just slap her on the wrist with 12 months probation and suspended driver license. Yet she has been chosen to Principal a new school this upcoming year. Even after this incident, the Superintendent said, “She is the right person for that school. ,”My confidence in her as a principal has not been shaken. I have confidence she will continue to be the leader she has been, learn from this and be a stronger leader.”
And we have no tolerance policies in place that has caused several students to be expelled for a 1st offense. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for having compassion and giving second & third chances. I’m also for using common sense in disciplining people and not just cut and dried across the board punishment. But like everybody else, we are tired of the hypocrisy.
By the way that new school she is selected to lead cost 17 million dollars — and we couldn’t keep Century Elementary & Century-Carver Middle open. That just one of few new schools that have been built or redone in the last few years, while others are closing.
Teachers barely get bathroom breaks and a lunch … when do they have time to smoke?
My mother smoked and died of lung cancer. I would be happy to see smoke-free planet. I miss my mom.
@Driven. If all you have got is”It doesnt affect the students or their ability to teach. ” Then I must say that you have missed the whole point of this proposal.
@ So:
If this really is a health care issue…then they might as well tell us we cant eat fast food either because I’m pretty sure obesity is America’s number 1 problem today. Also might as well get rid of alcohol too..that stuff is bad I’ve been told.
As to what i want to say…to not hire someone because they smoke a cigerette/cigar at home or in their car is absurd. It doesnt affect the students or their ability to teach.
I disapprove of this proposal.
Driven
All Escambia county campuses are smoke free. The only people I have ever seen smoking at schools are parents, or students standing just off campus or even at bus stops! Maybe, just maybe, the people down at the central office, have time for smoke breaks, but the employees at the schools do not. Now, what about eliminating alcoholics/drunk drivers from the school system?
@meetoo it already is a smoke free environment. There is already a policy in place that prevents people from smoking in government buildings and on government property.
@laura, You cannot even equate smoking to child molestation. They certainly can stop people from smoking. It is called random drug testing. They can test for nicotine as well as illegal drugs. So if would not be too difficult to enforce.
Folks need to get over all the whining and bellyaching about not hiring non smokers. If the school board has a no smoking policy for new hires, simple solution DO NOT APPLY. Like Governor Chris Christie says, you don’t have to work here.
gonna be kinda hard to tell the old crew they can smoke in front of the new hires that can’t…should be a smoke free workplace
Smoking is not “simple”. Yes, this is America and we all have rights, including being free from nasty, smelly, health-harming second hand smoke. The fact is that smoking does NOT just affect the smoker…it affects many people in many different ways. Employers have to pay much higher health and life insurance costs due to huge increased risk of health problems and death for smokers. I work in health care….I see the effects every single day. Why should employers pay more for those who choose to harm themselves smoking?
It even goes all the way down to medicare, medicaid and SSI. When these people choose to smoke and damage themselves (and those who are exposed to their second hand smoke) thier whole lives, we ALL have to PAY to provide health care and financial support when they get sick with emphysema and other COPD components, cancer etc..I would think that, knowing how harmful, expensive and plain nasty cigarettes are, that people would view this in a positive light….maybe getting a good job would become more important than thier next cancer stick.
I thought the school board had passes a law no smoking on school campus I see parents next to the bathrooms smoking at the Saturday football games. When you go to the baseball parks have to walk in the gate and smell smoke from parents standing outside gate in parking lot smoking. I hope one day it is not allowed on public property at all.Maybe one day a law will be past a law that it it is some type of abuse when parents smoke in homes with children from 0 to 18 years. Many children are being killed from second hand smoke. It may help parents stop smoking to get a job. I hope that this policy is adopted.
I thought this was still America.
What other legal products will be forbidden?
How you going to stop someone from smoking when you can’t even stop the child molestation’s from entering your school’s. Don’t you think we need to look @ something more important to the kids instead of something so simple as smoking! The teachers are in the school for the kids and I haven’t never seen a teacher smoke a cigerette in front of a student @ school! Is it just the man power that the commitee is trying to have over someone!