Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Nicotine testing????

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

rvsm410

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Posts
690
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
labbats said:
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
 
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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top