May 19, 2013

Define Discrimination….

The jobs of three EVAC employees with more than 30 years of combined experience are up in smoke after they were found in violation of the county’s nicotine policy, a county spokesman confirmed Saturday.

If you haven’t read the article, read it here: http://www.news-journalonline.com/news/local/west-volusia/2011/12/18/volusia-paramedics-fired-for-smoking.html

I’ll start off by saying that legally, the terminations are valid and will most likely not be overturned. Whether you agree with the policy or not, it’s still written policy with clear language for what happens if you violate said policy. So yes, I think it’s sad that these experienced paramedics lost their jobs, but you can’t knowingly violate the rules and not expect to suffer the consequences.

Now, having said that, I must say that I think the policy is 100% BS.

“I was terminated for something I do at home and is perfectly legal,” said Mike Stone, who had worked as a paramedic for EVAC for 5 1/2 years.

I completely agree. As of right now, smoking is still legal and it doesn’t impair your ability to think rationally or function in the workplace. If they don’t want their employees smoking while on duty, then that’s OK. They have that right. But to try and dictate what their employees do in their personal lives is plain wrong.

For many of us, a nicotine-free policy wouldn’t have any affect, but what’s important is that the employer has already demonstrated that they are willing to tell you what you can and can’t do in your own time. Sure, it might not affect me now, but what happens when they decide that they don’t want to hire anyone that consumes caffeine or alcohol on their days off?

Smokers may not be a “protected classification” but I still view policies like this as discriminatory. Regardless of how much they spin this as an attempt to improve the health and well-being of their employees, it still comes down to them determining employment eligibility based on lifestyle choices. Of course, they won’t put people with high cholesterol on the chopping block, because that would most likely eliminate all of management. Eliminating people because they have bad habits seems fine and well until it’s THEIR bad habit that makes the hit list.

Maybe I’m just old-school, but I would think they would be better off addressing things like work performance or attendance. Then again, I’m just a dumb-ass paramedic, what do I know?

About Sean Eddy

I'm a paramedic in North Texas. I have been working in EMS for over 10 years now. I enjoy the outdoors, music, shooting, computers and fitness. I currently run DroidMedic.com, and MedicMadness.com . You can e-mail me at sean@medicmadness.com.

  • Sandyhans

    I agree they hired on knowing the rules and broke them.  But, wow, what a place to work?  There are a lot of habits that effect your health as badly or worse than smoking.  For instance, maybe they should also not hire anyone that’s overweight and use random weigh-ins to keep everyone in check.  I’m sure there are dozens of other health issues a company could mandate upon. Why single smokers out?

    • http://www.medicmadness.com Sean Eddy

      Smokers are probably one of the few groups of people that you can still single out while being “politically correct”. It’s sad that an agency would waste that much time and effort over something that has no effect on work performance. 

    • j.solo

      United Paramedics of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Fire Department
      “Union is challenging the department’s strict weight-loss policy, which places fat employee’s in the department’s “Tub Club” and orders them to lose weight. Chief U.S. District Court judge Manual L. Real refused to issue temporary restraining order, saying that the Constitution provided no special protection for the rights of fat people. 1989″

  • Too Old To Work

    Since 1988 it has been a condition of employment for police officers and fire fighters in Massachusetts to refrain from smoking during the term of their employment. That is for new hires after the effective date. At least one police officer has been fired for smoking off duty.

    The rationale is that since police officers and fire fighters in MA who have cardiac or respiratory conditions that develop after they are hired have the presumption that their jobs caused the condition (got that?), the cities and towns that hire them have a financial stake in keeping them as healthy as possible and not incurring the costs associated with those types of disabilities because of the employees smoking.

    Yeah, that might be the longest sentence I’ve ever typed. Sorry about that.

    Anyway, that’s the rationale in MA, and it’s probably the same in Volusia County, although I don’t know the particulars of their pension rules.

    The law is known as the “Heart-Lung Law” and applies to police and fire fighters only, not EMS employees. Additionally, fire fighters are covered by the “Cancer Law” which presumes that any cancer contracted by a fire fighter is job related. Again, the same logic applies regarding not paying for behaviors that increase the risk.

    It’s a condition of employment not to smoke and every police officer or firefighter who has signed on since 1988 knows it when the take the job.

    Like it? Not at all, but it’s the law and it’s explained at the time of hire. Just like in Volusia County.

    • http://www.medicmadness.com Sean Eddy

      I agree with you, 100%. The medics in this case made an informed decision that ultimately cost them their jobs. Can’t argue that. I’m just not happy about them having to make that decision….

  • Pingback: Because No Medic Or Agency Is Perfect | The Social Medic

  • Whitesmar

    I’ve not smoked for quite a while, but I’ve got nicotine in my blood (I use a nasal spray).

    How would the authority regard this?  I’d test +ve, but I wouldn’t have been smoking!

    • http://www.medicmadness.com Sean Eddy

      One of the 2 medics in this case claimed that they used nicotine gum. My understanding is that the policy is against nicotine, not just smoking.

  • Pyladd

    Spot on again, Sean.