Nicotine testing????

[rvsm410]

Was called by Alaska Airlines yesterday for a dispatch position, the first question out of their mouth "was I nicotine free for 6 months" well I told her I had quit smoking 4 months ago, she said that was not negociable and I would have to reapply after another 2 months..that was that ...good-bye...

Other than the fact that this is a pretty harsh rule, missing the 6month requirement by 2 months sucks...

I asked how they tested, they said they did it during the drug test......so how long does nicotine stay in the body? and can they realy tell if your nicotine free after 30 days of so....?

Geez what next will they be asking for next??when was the last time you had unprotected sex? even if it was with your wife! I'm getting sick of this crap.

 

[labbats]

I wouldn't want to work for a place that has that rule. Consider it a favor. It's obviously the tip of the iceberg.

 

[TX_Pilot]

What are they looking for? Is it to keep somkers out, or all tobacco? I know quite a few pilots that enjoy the occasional smokeless tobacco treat. Is that becoming a no-no too?

 

[Resume Writer]

The only thing that I can think of is that they are using this to decrease their health insurance costs. It does not violate any EEOC laws that I know of, because "lifestyle" is not one of the areas covered. I want to do some investigation into this. Might make for a good article. I will contact some of my attorney friends that specialize in employment law. I will also contact my HR friends and see what they have to say.

As far as testing goes, I have heard that it is a hair test. Not knowing much about this type of science, I wonder what would happen if someone shaved their head. Would the nicotine still show up?

Things that make you go, hmmmmmm...

Kathy

 

[flx757]

As an Alaska employee, I can say it is NOT a hair test. It is a urine test. It is done separately from the DOT test, since this is not a required item to be tested for by the DOT. You "agree" to this test by signing your application to Alaska.

Good, bad, right, wrong or otherwise, that is how it is. It don't think it's "illegal" since you agree to it as a condition of employment BEFORE you accept employment. So you can talk to an employment attorney if you want...but I think the simple fact that you agree to this condition of emplyment makes it legal. If this "stipulation" is unacceptable, then prospective employees do not have to apply or accept employment. I am NOT a lawyer, but this is my opnion. I understand it carries zero weight whatsoever, but I think this would be correct. What I AM certain of is that this has been a policy and condition of employment at Alaska for many, many years...and if it were illegal, then society being what it is, SOMEONE would have challenged this and won. This, or evidently the winning part, has not been done yet.

The law does not include "tobacco user" under the anti-discrimination laws. I believe you cannot discrimintate based upon race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. "Tobacco user" does not fit any of those criteria.

This has been a policy at Alaska for as long as I can remember, and I think Kathy is right in that it has to do with keeping health insurance costs low. I pay CONSIDERABLY less for the virtual identical health coverage with Aetna at Alaska than I did at AirTran. For family coverage, at Alaska my cost is around $90/mo. At AirTran is was around $400/mo. Now, I'm sure that at Alaska, due to my position and overall compensation package as compared to AirTran, the company is paying a larger percentage of the overall cost of insurance, but still, I think the total cost per employee is less at Alaska than at AirTran, and I believe that not having to insure tobacco users helps keep this cost down.

Again, I'm not debating how PC this is, or the right or wrongness of this policy, or any individual's right to use tobacco, or slamming anyone for choosing to do so. I'm simply stating what is Alaska's policy, that is has BEEN a policy for a long, long time, and that the process they use is a urine test. These are all facts, not my opinion or personal point of view. What IS my opinion, is the reason, and I think is has to do with health care costs. I could be wrong about that, and if so, I apologize, and do not mean to offend tobacco users.

One guy asked is this policy was for smokers only, or includes other forms of tobacco use. I believe the way Alaska states it is "any form of tobacco use within the previous 6 months". I think that would include dippers, as well. As far as how long tobacco can be detected in a urine test, this is beyond my area of limited expertise, so I couldn't say. If you believe it is something less than 180 days, you could always take a chance by answering the question "no" and hoping it doesn's show up on the drug test. I certainly don't advocate this approach any more than I would lying or trying to cover up any other thing during an interview. But, I can't unequivocally state that urine testing detects tobacco in the system that is 4-6 months old.

Finally, this subject was discussed rather heatedly in the recent past here on flightinfo. There is a high possibility that it wil degenerate into a smoker's rights vs. non-smoker's rights "debate" again. I want to repeat that I take no side in this argument, and am NOT defending Alaska's policy as right or wrong. I am just trying to anwer some questions that were brought up in the previous posts.

PS..to the guy who wouldn't want to work for a company that has this policy, that is certainly within your rights. As far as it being the "tip of the iceberg", you are DEAD WRONG. I have worked at many, MANY airlines. The list goes on forever, as a quick look at my profile would indicate. Alaska is BY FAR the best, most professional and progessive, employee oriented company I have ever worked for. Having had the great pleasure of working here, I would never consider another airline company. If, for some reason, this were not to work out long term, then I am done with this industry. I would not settle for a lesser company. Again, my opinion only, but it's an opinion gained from over 25 years and 11 airline companies.

 

[labbats]

I meant no disrespect, and I'm glad you enjoy your tenure there.

If this policy is solely in effect to lower your insurance premiums, then why not give a prospective employee the ability to have nicotine and disallow coverage?

 

[flx757]

labbats,

Thanks for saying so. I really don't know why, and couldn't answer that question...and am not absolutely sure that is the reason. But if it is, then you could have a valid point. Again, I don't want to get into the merits or flaws of this policy, I was just trying to answer some questions and provide a few of the facts...without stating too many of my own opnions or getting into a smokers vs. non-smokers debate.

 

[SCT]

Flx755,

Is the nicotine screening just for pre-hires? What do they do with current employees that start smoking after being hired? Could they fire this employee? I'm not a smoker.....but this is PC to the Nth degree.

 

[Resume Writer]

I meant no disrespect, and I'm glad you enjoy your tenure there.

If this policy is solely in effect to lower your insurance premiums, then why not give a prospective employee the ability to have nicotine and disallow coverage?

Ok, I am going to take a stab at this. I am certain that it not only affects health coverage, but also the Short Term Disability (if they have it) and Long Term Disability premiums. The health risks related to smoking have been proven and they are probably trying to lessen their liability in the long-term. As I said, this is only a guess.

I would still be interested in doing an article on this. I think it is very interesting. I would like to know the percentages of insurance claims in a non-smoking versus smoking policy environment.

Also, are there random tests that occur after you are employed?

Kathy

 

[flx757]

Kathy and SCT,

This is only a pre-hire test, as far as I know. Only "safety sensitive" employees are subject to random testing as per DOT regulations, and only for those substances covered by those regulations.

 

[rvsm410]

Just to make it Clear...

The Lady from HR that called me said "any Nicotine" she did not say tobacco....she also said they would test in the future for its use and someone that signed an agreement to be nicotine free at employment would be subject to disipline up to termination, because we signed an agreement saying we are and would "remain" nicotine free...

As to Kathy's remarks, all of what she said is true....most large companies are "self-insured" and anything they can do to lower their risks is what many they are doing....As to the legaility of this, I'm sure it is legal....you have a choice to agree to this or not...

I'm not knocking the policy at all....in fact I think its a smart policy...even as a 25 year smoker....In my case, I was 7 weeks short of meeting their "hard" 6-month requirement....I think there could have been some consideration made in this case....say an additional test at my 6 month mark??? something, but now I'm listed as a smoker in their minds and records...so do I really have a chance of them calling me again say in 3 months when I have meet the requirement? It only took them 3 years to call me when they did not know if I used Nicotine or not.... just another airline, persona-non-grata.....


Geez this make me want a cig real bad...and maybe a drink as well....thats still ok isn't it???

 

[Resume Writer]

I'm not knocking the policy at all....in fact I think its a smart policy...even as a 25 year smoker....In my case, I was 7 weeks short of meeting their "hard" 6-month requirement....I think there could have been some consideration made in this case....say an additional test at my 6 month mark??? something, but now I'm listed as a smoker in their minds and records...so do I really have a chance of them calling me again say in 3 months when I have meet the requirement? It only took them 3 years to call me when they did not know if I used Nicotine or not.... just another airline, persona-non-grata.....

Geez this make me want a cig real bad...and maybe a drink as well....thats still ok isn't it???

I would say it would be up to you to contact them again when you meet that 6 month mark. I would not say you are listed as a smoker with them; they probably just wrote down notes that you were not within the 6 month time frame having quit 4 months ago.

That is just my opinion. We will not know what is written down.

Kathy

 

[squall line]

I worked in the HR department for a few months and I did a lot of screening applicants over the phone. You do have to be niccotine free for 6 months. Those who did not meet the 6 months weren't put on a "black list" or anything. Just like a pilot who isn't current....the airline wants X number of hours within the past 6 months etc. Once you meet the minimums or in this case, have been niccotine free for 6 months, you can let the recruiter know or re-apply.

It isn't that big of a deal! They are very serious about this though. A pilot applicant came in and was given the job as long as all of the paperwork checked out with the NDR, background checks and drug testing. Needless to say, the drug test came back positive for niccotine and this individual was turned away. Be certain you have been niccotine free when you go there or you may screw up your chances to work at one of the best airlines out there.

Tailwinds

SL

 

[flx757]

Once again, I'm only relating my personal experience, and this in no way should be interpreted as gospel...just my own experience...but once I was tested for nicotine in the pre-employment test, I have not been tested for it again. Like I mentioned earlier...it is a separate test from the DOT required testing, and is done with a separate sample and separate paperwork with separate authorization. So, one would know that they are being tested for nicotine in addition to the required DOT substances. That's not to say that when I show up for work next time, they wouldn't test me for it...I'm just saying that at this point, I have yet to be tested for nicotine again after the pre-employment screening.

In my case, it's a non-issue, since I have never used any nicotine product...but I wanted to relate my experience as it applied to the recent questions about continiued testing.

 

[rvsm410]

Alaska

Thanks 757 for the comments, obviously you are in the best position to know..

 

[TonyC]

This is not a new requirement. I recall a squadron mate (notice I didn't say "friend") of mine 20 years ago applying to a Major (don't recall which one) that hired only non-smokers. (It might have been nicotine-free, might have been cigarettes, I don't know - - probably didn't know in that amount of detail then, and I certainly would have forgotten it since.) He was a smoker, thought he could stop for a few days, use plenty of breath mints, etc. He got nailed. It may have been on the physical - - blood pressure, heart rate, I don't know - - or it may have been a blood test. In any event, he did not get the job, and he was convinved (remember, they don't tell you why) that it was because they found out he smoked.


In addition to health care costs, I would imagine the liability to the airline would be significantly increased for a smoker. The risks for injury or catastrophe on the job are increased, and nobody wants their pilot (or dispatcher) to be having a heart attack on the job.

Nicotine... when you consider that it can cost you a job, the phrase "expensive habit" takes on whole new proportions.

 

[CatYaaak]

In addition to health care costs, I would imagine the liability to the airline would be significantly increased for a smoker. The risks for injury or catastrophe on the job are increased, and nobody wants their pilot (or dispatcher) to be having a heart attack on the job.QUOTE]

Well that's a nice, not-supported-by-any-evidence throw away supposition("The risks for injury or catastrophe on the job ARE INCREASED...etc...). Did it slip your mind that we maintain medical certificates requiring yearly EKGs beginning at 35 yo, and yearly after age 40 to early-detect this sort of thing? (heart disease)? We're talking about OUR job after all..complete with systematic medical monitoring, not the general workforce. Insurance companies are the world's greatest keeper of statistical history...you know, those things we call "facts"?.....that's how they measure "risk" and justify higher rates for various activities and who's participating..they don't rely on "imagining". Now, where are your facts AS RELATED TO PROFESSIONIAL PILOTS DYING ON THE JOB, let alone whether smoking was a factor?

If your liability supposition held any water, then they'd testing for traces of Big Macs and fettucini alfredo too.

 

[Simon Says]

File a lawsuit against the Phillip Morris for loss of imputed income. Tell them you were addicted to their product and now you lost a chance at a job because of it. An added bonus to this scenerio is that they got large pockets.

On a more intelligent side. How long does nicotine stay in your system?

 

[Swede]

I would be absolutely amazed that any urine test would show positive for a drug after 2 months, let alone 5 or 6. Look up the NIDA 5... only MJ is detectable past just a few days, due to its affinity for fat cells.

Hair is another matter, your hair is like a tree with growth rings, and can reveal substance use for a LONG time. I suspect if you shaved your head, they might go so far as to ask for a pube.

I use smokeless, and I think the health risks for smokeless are significantly less than smoking. In fact, the true oral cancer rates for smokeless is no worse than a guy who has a beer or wine 3-5 times/week. Alcohol contributes far more to oral and throat cancers than smokeless tobacco.

Nicotine itself is addictive but is not carcinogenic. What makes ciggies so lethal is the combustion byproducts.

 

[flx757]

Did it slip your mind that we maintain medical certificates requiring yearly EKGs beginning at 35 yo, and yearly after age 40 to early-detect this sort of thing? (heart disease)? QUOTE]

Again, not taking sides on this or any argument, but the routine 20 sec. resting EKGs that are done as part of your yearly physical are totally worthless for "detecting heart disease". A resting EKG will detect a heart attack if you are having one at the exact moment you are hooked up to the EKG. It will not predict if you are at risk for one. A stress EKG and other tests are required for that.

For example, I had a resting EKG with the rest of my "FAA physical" in late April, 2003. On June 28, 2003 I had a heart attack. That EKG sure did an excellent job in detecting MY heart disease, now didn't it? However, when the EMTs showed up and connected me to the EKG, they could then tell I was probably having a heart attack.

It never slips my mind that most pilots will go to the quickest, easiest and most hassle free AME to get their medical. All they care about is the simplest, easiest way to get the piece of paper. The LAST thing they want is an actual physical exam which may turn up something disqualifying. So, I wouldn't be using the fact that we go for yearly physicals with EKGs for the basis of any health argument.

Again, I'm not taking sides on the merits or flaws in Alaska's policy. Just stating what it is, and how they implement it. And also, that it has BEEN policy for many years. And this post to relate my point of view on the FAA physical?EKG subject. I wish everyone good health. long careers with great companies and low health costs...

PS...CatYaaak,

I DO agree with your statement about Big Macs and Fettuccine Alfredo...