The Central District Health Department recently became the first health district in Idaho to adopt “nicotine-free” hiring practices, announcing it will no longer hire anyone who uses products that contain nicotine, including all forms of tobacco, nicotine patches, gums and electronic cigarettes.
But it’s not the only local government enacting tough new smoking restrictions.
The city of Boise began the new year by expanding the state’s ban on smoking in restaurants and many other public places to bars, sidewalks and parks.
Ada County is looking at expanding its hire-no-smokers policy from the sheriff’s office to the rest of its departments.
But none are as far-reaching as that of Central District Health.
“The goal here is to do our best on the front end to hire a healthy workforce that is demonstrating the behavior they promote,” said Director Russell Duke. “Our goal is to walk our talk.”
SAVING MONEY IN ADA COUNTY
Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable illness and death in the United States. Recognized as a cause of cancer, heart disease, strokes and other health problems, tobacco use is responsible for 443,000 deaths per year — 1,403 in Idaho.
In Ada County, the commissioners are focusing on other possible benefits of a policy that screens out smokers — such as lower insurance costs and higher productivity.
The Centers for Disease Control a decade ago estimated the added annual cost of a worker who smokes at $3,391 — $1,760 in lost productivity and $1,623 in excess medical expenditures.
“New hires from here on out, my preference would be that they not be tobacco users,” said Commissioner Sharon Ullman. “If they want to work for the county, in my opinion, it’s a habit they need to give up. It’s not healthy. Our taxpayers are paying the price.”
Commissioners discussed the issue with legal counsel last week. There’s been some internal resistance.
“We’ve had a little bit of push-back from our HR folks, who are worried we won’t get as many applicants for open positions,” Ullman said. “Given the economy, I’m just not really concerned we’re going to miss out on the perfect candidate.”
Commission Chairman Rick Yzaguirre is generally supportive of a smoker-free policy for new hires. He smoked for about 15 years, finally giving it up a couple of years after his father, a smoker, died of lung cancer.
“From a commissioner’s perspective, there’s the health care cost, the time lost from smokers on the job — how much working time are we losing with smokers, a half hour to an hour a day,” Yzaguirre said.
A change in hiring policies wouldn’t affect current employees who smoke.
REGULATING OFF-DUTY ACTIVITIES
Some of the first companies to adopt these policies two decades ago were Turner Broadcasting, Alaska Airlines and Union Pacific Railroad. It’s a trend in the health care industry today, including many hospitals. For instance, Baylor Health Care System, which serves the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, implemented a new nicotine-free hiring policy Jan. 1.
But neither of the Treasure Valley’s largest hospital systems plans to do the same, although they discourage tobacco use.
About five years ago, St. Luke’s Boise Medical Center banned smoking on its property and started charging employees who smoke more for insurance.
St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center also prohibits smoking on its property and helps workers kick the habit. It doesn’t charge employees who smoke more for health insurance.
QUESTIONING THE ‘HEALTH POLICE’
Some consider tobacco-free hiring policies to be an intrusion into the personal lives of workers, who aren’t breaking any laws by smoking or chewing tobacco when they are not at work. The American Civil Liberties Union calls workplace policies that target workers’ off-duty habits “lifestyle discrimination,” allowing employers to act as the “health police.”
More than half of all states have laws that protect workers’ rights to engage in legal, off-duty activities, including using tobacco, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Some of the statutes also explicitly prohibit discrimination against prospective employees who use tobacco.
Idaho has no such protections for workers or job applicants.
It’s a stretch, but not inconceivable, that smokers could seek protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, said Pamela Parks, administrator for the Idaho Human Rights Commission. Some smokers could argue that they have an addiction to nicotine, a legal drug.
“We’ve never considered smoking as a disability, but if someone came forward with the right set of facts,” perhaps a case could be made, Parks said.
SHERIFF PIONEERED SMOKING POLICY
The Ada County Sheriff’s Office stopped hiring smokers in the early 1990s, and the agency includes a question about smoking on the polygraph test it give prospective hires.
About 1,600 people work for Ada County, including about 630 in the sheriff’s office.
The sheriff’s policy, which doesn’t prohibit chewing tobacco, was implemented under then-Sheriff Vaughn Killeen.
Killeen was compelled, in part, by the scientific and medical evidence of smoking-related health problems, he said.
“There was a risk of lawsuits, but we were willing to take that risk. We did get some suits, but they went nowhere,” Killeen said. “I hear people say it (smoking) is a right, but it’s not a constitutional right.”
Killeen’s successor, Sheriff Gary Raney, could have eliminated the policy. But he said he sees many benefits — even if they aren’t easily measured.
He is convinced that nonsmokers, who don’t take frequent breaks to puff outside, are more productive. But that’s not his main concern.
“It’s about the health of the employees,” he said.
Raney said the office doesn’t want to be “Big Brother.” There are no compliance checks after a person is hired, and no disciplinary action if an employee is seen smoking or uses tobacco when off-duty, Raney said. The same is true at Central District Health Department.
Central District Health doesn’t allow anyone, including employees, to smoke inside or outside its offices.
WHY GO NICOTINE-FREE?
Central District Health intentionally decided not to go simply “smoker-free.”
The department needed to go “nicotine-free” so that the policy is enforceable. Otherwise, a person who tested positive for nicotine in his/her urine could say it came from nicotine gum, Duke said.
“Nicotine in itself might not cause lung cancer, but it’s not healthy to use long term,” Director Duke said.
What about the slippery slope of employers trying to protect workers from themselves and their other vices?
The health department, for instance, also aims to reduce obesity rates in the community. Could banning obese employees come next?
“That’s not something we’re even considering — to extend this beyond tobacco,” Duke said. “Tobacco is a lifestyle choice. People don’t need tobacco to live.”
Katy Moeller: 377-6413
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.