Missouri Fire/EMS District Bans Employee Smoking

[VentMedic]

Missouri Fire/EMS District Bans Employee Smoking

Sunday, July 12, 2009
http://www.emsresponder.com/article/article.jsp?id=9878&siteSection=1

In what's thought to be the most aggressive anti-smoking policy among fire departments in the state, firefighters and other employees of the West County EMS and Fire Protection District won't be allowed to smoke on the job or in uniform starting in January.

Also, all employees hired after Jan. 1 must agree not to smoke or chew tobacco while on- or off-duty.

While smoking already is banned in most workplaces, about 6,000 companies nationwide refuse to even hire smokers, according to the National Workrights Institute, a New Jersey nonprofit.

Discussion from 2 years ago:
http://www.emtlife.com/showthread.php?t=4953

 

[Ridryder911]

Good for them!

R/r 911

 

[TransportJockey]

I don't see a problem with this

 

[medic417]

:beerchug:

 

[DrankTheKoolaid]

re

I didnt read the articles but get the premise by the snippets posted. Even though i am a smoker i agree with what they are trying to do. The only thing tha peaks an interest is a violation of privacy as im assuming they will periodically be testing blood nicotine levels similiar the what healt insurance companies do when starting new policies. Whats to say they wont be checking for other things at the same time?

I certainly dont and wouldnt have anything to hide, but what some people do on their off time as long as it does not effect job performance should remain private.

Ill tell ya a former employer to remain un-named with about 265 employees decided to try and clean house so they did a complete hair analysis of all employees only to fnd so many were positive they had to discard them all. Otherwise they would have lost over half of the hospitals staff.

 

[Ridryder911]

I didnt read the articles but get the premise by the snippets posted. Even though i am a smoker i agree with what they are trying to do. The only thing tha peaks an interest is a violation of privacy as im assuming they will periodically be testing blood nicotine levels similiar the what healt insurance companies do when starting new policies. Whats to say they wont be checking for other things at the same time?

I certainly dont and wouldnt have anything to hide, but what some people do on their off time as long as it does not effect job performance should remain private.

Ill tell ya a former employer to remain un-named with about 265 employees decided to try and clean house so they did a complete hair analysis of all employees only to fnd so many were positive they had to discard them all. Otherwise they would have lost over half of the hospitals staff.

I have worked for companies that would not insure smokers and even had "non-drinkers" policies where it was based upon the honor system. In other words, if you had an accident and you were intoxicated; you were not covered. I am sure the same as r/t illnesses that they were to find out that you were a smoker.

It is not so much privacy as it the costs it places upon the company for the insurance costs. As one that is assisting in reviewing insurance bids for my company, I can assure it is not an easy task to save money and at the same time have a good beneficial plan for the employees.

R/r 911

 

[VentMedic]

I certainly dont and wouldnt have anything to hide, but what some people do on their off time as long as it does not effect job performance should remain private.

Wrong.

This issue had already been decided in the Florida FDs in 1986 with the Heart and Lung Law (112.18 FL statute) which pertained to workmen's comp benefits paid. They found that smoking was one of the factors that is preventable and claims can be denied due to illnesses associated with it even though smoke was also involved in the occupation.

FL 112.18
http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/in...String=&URL=Ch0112/Sec18.htm&StatuteYear=2004

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3342752

In 1986 the Professional Fire Fighters of Florida (PFFF), a labor organization of 11,000 members, passed an unprecedented resolution to create a "smoke-free fire service." The PFFF's commitment arose from its (i) concern for the health of fire fighters, (ii) need to address the issue of smoking to protect the fire fighters' "Heart and Lung Law," and (iii) attempt to avert criticism of its proposed presumptive "Cancer Bill." In 1987 the PFFF gained support for its resolution from a council representing chiefs, fire instructors and inspectors, and volunteer fire fighters. Prior to the "smoke-free" resolution, one fire department in Florida required that new fire fighters be non-smokers. Since the resolution passed, 14 departments added this requirement. In 1989 the PFFF succeeded in getting a landmark bill passed requiring that new fire fighters be non-users of tobacco for at least one year prior to application. Important implications of the PFFF's efforts to create a "smoke-free fire service" are also discussed.

Now since EMS employees are being included in the PSOB, smoking will also come under some scrutiny. Why should the government pay out benefits for something that the employee had a role in by not assuming responsibility for their own life.

 

[Sasha]

Some fds here require you to be smoke free for a year to even interview

 

[HotelCo]

Good for that department!

 

[46Young]

Good deal! My dept also has a tobacco ban. The Heart and Lung Bill has relevance here, as well. Cigna has an arrangement with my gym chain that gets me a deep discount on membership. My dept mandates PT every day while on duty. Every station has fitness equipment. Some look like a Gold's Gym! We also have a new program called "Stop Drop and Control High Blood Pressure", which has us check BP/pulse on the first day of each tour with required documentation.

 

[minneola24]

Seeing paramedics in their ambulance smoking would be a little ironic. And considering most kids look up to firefighters/emt's, this is great.

 

[ffemt8978]

Employers controlling what employees do when they are not at work? Where will it stop? What happens to employees that are exposed to second hand smoke because their family members use nicotine? Do the lose their job because of a non-employed family member?

Today it's smoking and drinking, maybe tomorrow they will dictate what type of car you can drive based upon safety statistics/insurance rates.

Sorry...this is a very slippery slope they are proceeding down. Just because tobacco is the current "big evil" target doesn't make it any more right.

 

[usafmedic45]

Relax....unless you are hanging around in a massive cloud of smoke (like sticking your head in a bag of cigarette smoke), there is normally a difference in the nicotine levels detected in urine or blood as are commonly used to track such employee abstinence programs. In fact, most labs purposefully set the cutoff for a positive reported result at below what you would get from being in a smoky bar (which is increasingly hard to find) all night. This is the same reason that most brief second hand exposures to marijuana will not cause you to test positive on an urine drug screen. There is a little more thought going into these things than most EMS personnel and the general public have awareness of.

I really hate when people pull out the "slippery slope" argument simply because they don't think public health issues are of major concern and worth taking away their "right" to self-destructive behavior. I would imagine someone argued the same thing when they invented the FDA and started pulling heroin out of over the counter products because of concern for public health. It's a strawman argument usually put forth by persons completely or significantly ignorant of the reasons for the ban. Sadly, the ignorance is what Martin Luther King, Jr once spoke of in his famous quote: "There is nothing in this world quite so dangerous as sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity".

Also, I think you if you want to be in a profession or employed by a particular provider you should not complain about the standards enforced. Would you complain if they told you not to drink off duty while wearing a department shirt (like so many fire and EMS personnel do almost constantly)? Would you complain if they told you had to wear a dress shirt rather than a t-shirt to increase professional appearance? Would you complain if they told you that there would be a mandated physical fitness program (beyond just annual testing?) What is the big deal about wishing to increase the health of providers and improve the public image of our professions by removing probably one of the most common hypocritical actions I see EMS and fire providers engaging in while in public?

maybe tomorrow they will dictate what type of car you can drive based upon safety statistics/insurance rates.

And that is a bad idea why? Maybe you shouldn't be able to hand your teenage daughter the keys to a Ford Mustang the day she gets her license. There is something to be said for keeping the stupidity of our fellow man from being allowed to kill those who are inexperienced, incompetent or simply reckless enough to not handle certain types of vehicles. Also, it would protect others from those people. Remember, there is a difference between a right and a privilege and you seem to be forgetting that employment and driving are both examples of privileges not rights. You have no right to a job in a given profession or a given employment than I have a right to be a moderator on this forum. It is only a "slippery slope" if you are removing a right and for no good reason. I think trying to reduce the rates of cancer and heart disease- two of the big killers in fire and EMS personnel- is worth the inconvenience and the headache of listening to people whine about lost "rights".

 

[ffemt8978]

Relax....unless you are hanging around in a massive cloud of smoke (like sticking your head in a bag of cigarette smoke), there is normally a difference in the nicotine levels detected in urine or blood as are commonly used to track such employee abstinence programs. In fact, most labs purposefully set the cutoff for a positive reported result at below what you would get from being in a smoky bar (which is increasingly hard to find) all night. This is the same reason that most brief second hand exposures to marijuana will not cause you to test positive on an urine drug screen. There is a little more thought going into these things than most EMS personnel and the general public have awareness of.

That's great...if they actually do that. No mention is made of this in the article though, so you're assuming that is the case. But I've got a question then...based upon your argument, that it would take massive amounts of second hand smoke to show up on these tests, then why was second hand smoke such a major cause for the ban smoking movement? Or was exposure to second hand smoke NOT responsible for cancer in people?

I really hate when people pull out the "slippery slope" argument simply because they don't think public health issues are of major concern and worth taking away their "right" to self-destructive behavior. I would imagine someone argued the same thing when they invented the FDA and started pulling heroin out of over the counter products because of concern for public health. It's a strawman argument usually put forth by persons completely or significantly ignorant of the reasons for the ban. Sadly, the ignorance is what Martin Luther King, Jr once spoke of in his famous quote: "There is nothing in this world quite so dangerous as sincere ignorance or conscientious stupidity".

And I hate it when people opposed to the slippery slope argument ignore historical evidence that it does occur and try to sidestep the question by not answering it. I'm not ignorant of the reasons for the ban...I'm just opposed to the ban - there's a difference.

Also, I think you if you want to be in a profession or employed by a particular provider you should not complain about the standards enforced. Would you complain if they told you not to drink off duty while wearing a department shirt (like so many fire and EMS personnel do almost constantly)? Would you complain if they told you had to wear a dress shirt rather than a t-shirt to increase professional appearance? Would you complain if they told you that there would be a mandated physical fitness program (beyond just annual testing?) What is the big deal about wishing to increase the health of providers and improve the public image of our professions by removing probably one of the most common hypocritical actions I see EMS and fire providers engaging in while in public?

I have no problems with any of these arguments, but they also go to prove the slippery slope argument that you despise. Each one of these standards was started with the best of intentions, but we all know the saying concerning paving and intentions. Taken individually, I agree, none of these is a major issue. When taken together, they paint a picture of a disturbing trend in our society today.

And that is a bad idea why? Maybe you shouldn't be able to hand your teenage daughter the keys to a Ford Mustang the day she gets her license. There is something to be said for keeping the stupidity of our fellow man from being allowed to kill those who are inexperienced, incompetent or simply reckless enough to not handle certain types of vehicles. Also, it would protect others from those people. Remember, there is a difference between a right and a privilege and you seem to be forgetting that employment and driving are both examples of privileges not rights. You have no right to a job in a given profession or a given employment than I have a right to be a moderator on this forum. It is only a "slippery slope" if you are removing a right and for no good reason. I think trying to reduce the rates of cancer and heart disease- two of the big killers in fire and EMS personnel- is worth the inconvenience and the headache of listening to people whine about lost "rights".

Who mentioned rights vs privileges? I never said it was a right for somebody to smoke or drive.

 

[medic417]

Update, No employees may drink soda, coffee, tea or ............ as they all have been found to be harmful.

While I agree once one freedom is lost it is easier to take more, but as to smoking even if done off duty that stink comes with you to work. So in this case smoking is detrimental to peoples health even if it is just the residue from that last smoke before work.

 

[minneola24]

Update, No employees may drink soda, coffee, tea or ............ as they all have been found to be harmful.

While I agree once one freedom is lost it is easier to take more, but as to smoking even if done off duty that stink comes with you to work. So in this case smoking is detrimental to peoples health even if it is just the residue from that last smoke before work.

Your'e right. Just had my haircut done two days ago by a hairdresser that smoked and the smell was hideous and hated being there.

 

[Aidey]

I'm ok with this. If people want to smoke at home/off duty fine, but I don't think smoking while on duty is ok. If there is a "clean lung" law like Vent was talking about they need to sign a disclaimer stating they acknowledge that smoking can nullify their ability to file a claim under that law.

I think it's horribly unprofessional for people to be standing around outside the ambulance smoking. Especially those that do system status, and the ambulances are parked in fairly visible parking lots and such.

A lot of hospitals also seem to be instituting no smoking on campus policies, and I know right now people at my company over-look that policy at one hospital. The hospital staff even overlooks it because our parking area is fairly private and people can't really be seen. However, I don't think this is ok, and that the policy should be enforced. I think it looks unprofessional when 2-3 ambulance crews are all at the hospital and 1/2 of them are smoking.

As a non-smoker, it also kind of sucks when your partner smells like cigarettes when you are spending 12 hours sitting with them in an ambulance.

 

[usafmedic45]

But I've got a question then...based upon your argument, that it would take massive amounts of second hand smoke to show up on these tests, then why was second hand smoke such a major cause for the ban smoking movement? Or was exposure to second hand smoke NOT responsible for cancer in people?

Because nicotine was not the emphasis for the second hand smoke concern or a major carcinogen. You're assuming the primary testable marker (the other being conitine (the inactive metabolite of nicotine) is correlated with the degree of exposure to toxic chemicals in smoke. It is like assuming that just because you have a low carboxyhemoglobin level then there is no risk from smoke exposure when we know quite well that cyanide exposure and methemoglobinemia can still kill a smoke-exposed person who has a negative or clinically insignificant COHgb level.

That's great...if they actually do that. No mention is made of this in the article though, so you're assuming that is the case.

I doubt you could fire someone- especially in a heavily unionized busines like the fire service- without hard evidence. Even if they chose to do so, they would open themselves up to a massive lawsuit so I would imagine that like every other occupational smoking ban I have heard of there would be a testing component either on suspicion of exposure or at random or designated intervals.

And I hate it when people opposed to the slippery slope argument ignore historical evidence that it does occur and try to sidestep the question by not answering it

I am not opposed to it. I am opposed to it being used as a strawman argument whenever someone disagrees with a particular intervention. That is simply the case here.

I'm not ignorant of the reasons for the ban...I'm just opposed to the ban - there's a difference.

Then try to respond with quantify your opposition more than the intellecutal equivalent of going "...and the next thing you know, they'll be loading anyone who is opposed onto trains bound for Poland". You're a bright fellow, you can do better than that and I was disappointed to you resort to tactics that are beneath you.

I have no problems with any of these arguments, but they also go to prove the slippery slope argument that you despise.

As I said, I do not despise it.

Who mentioned rights vs privileges? I never said it was a right for somebody to smoke or drive.

Then be careful how you paint your arguments. You gave the impression that people would be stripped of their rights to do these things and others through your use of the slippery slope argument. Also, if it is not a right, then it is not given any protected status under the law so therefore you and every smoker out there can complain until you're blue in the face about it (which doesn't take long if you've been smoking long enough ) and there is no legal standing for it.

Each one of these standards was started with the best of intentions, but we all know the saying concerning paving and intentions.

True and all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to stand idle. Your side of the argument is not the only one with pithy statements.

When taken together, they paint a picture of a disturbing trend in our society today.

I suggest you look at the issue of illusory correlation. Simply put, it's when you see problems, linkages, etc that are not there because of preconceived notions. In other words, it is the statistical basis for the old adage, "When you're a hammer, everything looks like nails." It is also when you see connections between events that are not connected, such as provide the basis for conspiracy theories, etc.

There has been no major ethical erosion associated with taking drunk drivers (including members of my own family who have multiple DUIs on their record) off the road or allowing those of us who choose not to smoke the opportunity to dine or go out in public without having to experience the inside of a house during salvage and overhaul without becoming firefighters and suffer the health detriments thereof. There have been cases where local jurisdicitions have applied the law in odd ways that are a little draconian (arresting people who are sleeping in the car in the parking lot of a bar for DUI, etc), but those do not negate the overall positive benefit of such regulations. Every law has unfortunate victims. Would you argue against sex offender registries if you learned that in many places urinating in public is considered cause to register? This is why there is recourse to amend the laws through contacting your political representatives or taking legal action. The law is not a rigid unflexible doctrine but a living breathing and adjustable set of codes that change as society changes. The problems arise when someone stands against the majority and it suddenly seems like the sky is falling for those people.

Then again, I personally don't care if people smoke and I actually used to smoke myself. I just don't believe that there is any good argument against it if an employer says "If you want to work here you are not going to smoke" any more than if they say "If you want to work here, this will be what you wear to work" or a valid argument for forcing people who don't smoke to basically take up the habit to avoid inconveniencing those who do.

 

[usafmedic45]

tea

Nice....

Surprisingly, and you'd never know it by looking at the teeth of your average English person, tea has been found to be one of the few common drinks associated with INCREASED dental health.

If there is a "clean lung" law like Vent was talking about they need to sign a disclaimer stating they acknowledge that smoking can nullify their ability to file a claim under that law.

I've always argued that if you chose to do something stupid or obviously hazardous in the eyes of the average person- drink, smoke, skydive, etc- you have no right to legal recourse for mundane issues that might arise.

 

[VentMedic]

Update, No employees may drink soda, coffee, tea or ............ as they all have been found to be harmful.

If you work for an SDA hospital, you probably won't be drinking those items on duty although I believe Florida Hospital has lightened that restriction a little.

The smoking cases have already been to court and tough luck for those who think smoking is a God given right.

If there is a "clean lung" law like Vent was talking about they need to sign a disclaimer stating they acknowledge that smoking can nullify their ability to file a claim under that law.

They do and that is in their employment contract. Every FF in the state of Florida knows that as well as many hospital employees.