Cheek swab after interview
 

I am not a nicotine user by any means, but had significant 2nd hand exposure recently after caring for a terminally ill loved one in their home. With the 6-month-free requirement, have I doomed myself? I have an interview coming up soon and am not sure about what the cotinine cutoff levels are in the cheek swab test after the interview... zero tolerance? Would they be understanding considering my circumstances? I don't want to wait another 6 months to apply. Thanks to anyone who can share factual information.

A Google search tells me that second hand smoke is not likely to result in a positive test. Unless you’re trapped in a bathroom with your mouth open while said smoker rips through a pack or three of heaters just prior to your mouth swab, I think you’ll be just fine.

I've read the same, but it still results in a Cotinine level above 0. I was trying to hear what the stance was against any level detected, assuming anyone has that sort of knowledge.

They're testing for nicotine users...? Seriously?

Yes, it's a minimum requirement to join and has been for a very long time.

Makes want to start smoking.

Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk

Do cigars affect this test? Asking for a friend....

You know, I gave up on smoking after about a six week trial period in middle school, so it’s definitely no ox of mine being gored, but after a Supreme Court case involving UAL 22 years ago:




https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/97-1943

Congress rewrote sections of the Americans with disability act in 2008 to NEGATE the Sutton precedent.

https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/ada-amendments-act-2008


Now I get it, I don’t like second hand smoke and find chewing tobacco somewhat disgusting, but that’s my opinion. A pre employment test for the purposes of deciding if someone is potentially going to raise insurance costs though? Or get more bronchitis episodes over the course of their career? Where does that end.

The same cheek swab could provide DNA that might demonstrate a familial proclivity for some expensive disease - even if it’s just a proclivity, not the disease itself. What if your DNA shows an increased risk for heart disease or cancer further down the road. Not a certainty, and maybe nothing you can do anything about. Or that - even if the examiner is “normal”, their offspring might require expensive medical treatment. Or how about diseases that are discovered that are over represented in a race or sex specific?

There is no question that a woman who is BRCA positive is at increased risk for breast cancer compared to one who isn’t.

So, should Alaska be allowed to disqualify women from employment because they’ll (statistically) hurt the bottom line?

How about something like sickle trait? It is fairly benign in and of itself, but if the person with it produces a child with someone else sharing the condition, the cost of care for that child will be high, averaging about $1500 a month. Should Alaska be allowed to disqualify people with sickle trait because they MIGHT partner with another person with sickle trait?
About 8-10% of African-Americans have sickle trait.

Just my opinion (and you are entitled to yours) but I think we ought to push for no medical testing based restrictions on employment other than those required by federal law. Even Delta’s premium on insurance for those choosing not to get a COVID immunization now repealed (again, not my ox being gored, I had my two shots and a booster) probably was a bridge too far.

Maybe that’s an issue ALPA may need to take up before the CPAs of management start causing problems.

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 the screen if you really want to work there. If you *can't* quit for a couple months, maybe that's telling you something...

Telling you to go anywhere else