* UA Policy and Regulations are up for review – the policy about staff governance is being heavily reviewed.
* There is movement in the unionizing effort. View the website (click here)
* Working to ensure the grievance procedures are more transparent
* Rural Affairs Committee has submitted a motion relating to geographic differential at UAF. It passed unanimously and will be forwarded to Staff Alliance.
Staff Alliance is currently working on the Tobacco Free Hiring proposal and the Tuition Benefit Change. There will be major details coming in March. The general consensus is that UA is moving towards a tobacco free campus.
The University of Alaska regents believe that “the opportunity for faculty, staff and students to participate in the governance of the university is important to its effective operation.” UAF Staff Council is your “opportunity” to participate in governance and contribute to the future of our university.
8 comments:
Curious to ask about the smoking issue on campus. "smoke free hire" means the university will not hire staff/faculty if they smoke? But students can smoke?
That is a great question that should be addressed to Chancellor Rogers.
Health Plan- I just don't know how you can do the no hire for smokers, legally that is. I don't smoke, but it makes me wonder, if I am overweight, or drink too much, am I next? Or..I only go to the doctor for my yearly checkups..do I get a discount on my premiums since I'm healthy? And what about "Your not going to tell me what I can and can't do after 5:00 pm, that's my personal life" and last...prove it.
What happens if you start using tobacco after you are hired? Are you fired? Big changes…
I'm unequivocally opposed to smoking, but I'm also unequivocally opposed to discriminating against smokers as a hiring practice. Every personal matter has the potential to affect work productivity and costs. One step past banning smokers takes you into the realm of the ridiculous: Ban based on BMI? Ban if you have a special-needs child, depression, or a house with a bad boiler? And how in the world to enforce it -- will there literally be a sniff test?
I haven't read much about this issue, but "smoke-free campus" does not equate to not hiring smokers. I agree with previous comments, such as "unequivocally opposed to discriminating against smokers as a hiring practice," for exactly the same reasons. Once we head down such a slope, we shall invariably find it more slippery than expected.
I wholeheartedly support a smoke-free campus, however, and I am curious how that would be reasonably enforced.
I'm with Jason on this. Fine, ban smoking on campus (it affects the health of nonsmokers), massively step up the no-smoking campaigns and provide benefits and perks up the wazoo for those who quit, but discriminate against people who smoke? Bad idea. Next it's discriminate against people who use white sugar (epidemic diabetes) or who drink alcohol, or who use margarine or butter. We're an institution of higher learning. We should be using the tools of education and persuasion.
Comparing people who eat too much sugar or margarine etc. to people who smoke is not an accurate comparison because those habits don't adversely affect other people's health like secondhand smoke does. Studies have shown that even the lingering fumes and nicotine on clothing has a "thirdhand effect" on people working or living in close proximity to smokers.
Post a Comment