Auckland DHB could nix staff smoking

Print

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 12:02p.m.

In the future, smoking could prevent a candidate getting a job

In the future, smoking could prevent a candidate getting a job

By Emma Brannam

It is already banned in workplaces, but in the near future the act of smoking could also prevent someone from getting a job.

The Auckland District Health Board, which employs more than 10,000 people, is seriously considering refusing to employ smokers

Even though they are on the frontline of healthcare, one in three nurses smoke. 

It is hardly an image a District Health Board wants to be associated with. In Auckland they are considering changing their hiring policy.

Taima Campbell of the Auckland District Health Board says staff are asked to offer advice to help smokers quit.

“We need our staff to be good role models and not smoke themselves,” syas Ms Campbell.

DHBs already ban patients, visitors and staff from smoking at their sites.

While nursing representatives say they support the idealism of a non-smoking workforce, they also say that smoking does not affect a nurse's performance.

“We should all set examples of all kinds of things we do in life,” says Glenda Alexander of the Nurses’ Organisation. “But that should not be a reason to not employ someone”.

Refusing to hire smokers may not be considered "fair or reasonable”, but it is not unlawful. Employers would just need a pre-employment contract asking people if they smoked.

Employment law specialist Peter Cullen says such contracts could filter out smokers, as well cause their dismissal if they were found to be lying.

The DHB says that is unlikely, but it does admit the ban would be difficult to police.

While other DHBs 3 News has contacted like the idea of refusing to hire smokers, Auckland is the first to consider it seriously. 

And it doesn't stop there; Auckland Council is also considering a ban on smoking in central city streets.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Comments

20 Jul 2011 12:00a.m.

Kevin wrote:

What should be banned is the anti-autonomy finger wags and hate mongers, such as the entire "Public Health" executive staff. One shouldn't be forced to choose between fascism [industrial socialism]and unemployment. Regardless of the focus [they call it "preventative medicine"] that there is a lot more money to be had, by treating those many who are not sick, than the meager profits available by focusing on those who actually are sick. There is no safe level of anti autonomy. Self Sanctimony and bigotry is the true ignorance and health risk seen here. Second hand smoke is a risk apparent disease or health risk, but only of the mind. It is spread by emotionally designed gotcha headlines and by long term contact with the mainstream for profit media. As an effort of smoking patch advertisements, backed by financially conflicted interests such as the cancer society among others, who receive regular corporate funding directly for their public support. And you thought these people were all about compassion, medicine or research? How naive are you? These are just politicians having their way with you as usual.

14 Jul 2011 11:34p.m.

michael wrote:

What people dont relise is a large population of new zealand are amokers. the rest treat us like shit not sure why? i mean we are the same breed the same organism. Does it realy matter the effects of smoking if your suicidal?

14 Jul 2011 07:10p.m.

RdM wrote:

Nurses are probably intelligent and down-to-earth enough to see through the lies, false "statistics" and vicious propaganda around tobacco enjoyment and particularly the absolute nonsense of "harm" from second-hand smoke. No-one in NZ seems to consider that "denormalisation" is itself nothing more than stigmatisation, state-sanctioned bullying, well beyond nannying - and extremely unhealthy for both the recipient and ultimately the society that encourages it - turning tolerant merely non-smokers into rabid anti-smokers, all on the basis of well-funded propaganda (at one level it's a corporate war for the nicotine market, with Health Ministries worldwide acting as passive sales channels; - at a deeper level I believe this eugenics-based, materialist healthist social engineering has a much more sinister worldwide underlying political agenda) - ultimately built on lies. It's no more about "saving lives" than the Inquisition was about "saving souls". Please, read this commentary and part quote from non-smoking Dr Helen Evans, director of Nurses for Reform.in the UK, and click through two links to the whole text. A refreshing change from the usual rhetoric... http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/a-breath-of-fresh-air/ "Marginalised, persecuted and exploited smokers are the people many in society now feel comfortable in vilifying." "Simultaneously pitied, hated and left out in the cold smokers are the new minority that I believe all health workers should now be protective of." (the comments at the end of the blog post itself are (as often at Frank's place) also revealing & informative.) (and the blogroll on the right would be worth reading too!) RdM

14 Jul 2011 05:57p.m.

key wrote:

Whilst I hate cigarette smoking, I am sick of our over regulated Orwellian society.Maybe the law needs changing and it should be classed as discrimination along with gender, sexual bias, etc.Maybe no smoking during the working day.What's next, no nose picking, ice creams.

14 Jul 2011 05:10p.m.

Justice wrote:

No different then the stupid people that binge drink every weekend alien, are the DHB's going to say we will not hire anyone who consumes more than three drinks a week... what a load of rubbish, surely legally they can not do that, its like saying we will not employ people with tattoos or who are not a certain race!!!!

14 Jul 2011 04:35p.m.

katrina wrote:

If I was sick in hospital, the last thing I would want is someone working around me smelling of smoke, especially in a maternity ward.

14 Jul 2011 04:15p.m.

nick a wrote:

hahaha ban smoking on the streets.....I guess we dont want smokers getting in the way of the drunks staggering around, fighting, vomiting, urineating and verbally abusing other pepole would we.

14 Jul 2011 12:58p.m.

alien wrote:

personally i would think a nurses union would want to see their members kick the filthy habit. Thank goodness a DHB is refusing to hire people stupid enough to see the results of smoking but still doing it.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)