Originally Posted by
rickair7777
Do they really still test for it?
It's not medical testing, it's testing for use of an unhealthy addictive substance.
They're not testing for anything genetic. Could they? Not legally. Could they do it illegally? Hypothetically. But they could also collect DNA from coffee cups in new-hire ground school, and then flunk anybody in sim if they have genetic predisposition to health issues. Adjust your tinfoil, it's on a little crooked.
I don't quite think tobacco should be illegal, but only because it's a so well-established in human society. If somebody created or discovered it today and tried to mass market it by leveraging it's addictive qualities the FDA would probably shoot it down in a heart-beat. It doesn't hold up very well to 21st century light.
I also think it's reasonable that an employer would prefer to hire folks who don't use it. But it's not really binding... they can't fire you after the fact, and you can always just quit smoking for a couple months to pass if your really want to work there. If you *can't* quit for a couple months, maybe that's telling you something...
As I said, non smoker here - your sanctimonious anti smoking diatribe is totally wasted on me.
And I know that this is legal in Washington State, but it would not be legal in almost half the other states, including California.
https://www.calpublicagencylaborempl...ea-or-illegal/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5726320/
But it’s not tinfoil beanie stuff to wonder where companies are going with this. As the Sutton case demonstrated, UAL was ready to fight all the way to the Supreme Court (and back then win) for their desire to impose a stricter physical standard on their candidates than the FAA believed was justified. Delta temporarily imposed an insurance surtax on people not getting immunized against COVID. So what happens if they do decide they want to do a swab on incoming candidates to check for non clinical conditions that may be costly in the future? Do you think that is a good idea? Clearly, finding out that someone was BRCA positive represents a huge potential insurance liability. Certainly more so than someone this age group simply refusing to get COVID immunization.
And should ALPA be preemptively getting involved with Congress to avoid the possibility of this happening? Why aren’t the FAA medical standards sufficient?