Nicotine testing????

[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...