Smoking or Non-Smoking?
 

This is going a little too far IMO. Where do you stand on the smoking issue?

snip:

I think firing them is going wayyyyyyyyy to far. Smoking is legal.

However, the company is probaby heavily subsidising the health care insurance premiums which are higher with a bunch of smokers on the payroll. I don't have a problem (conceptually) making the smokers shoulder the increased benefit cost. But then, do you also charge obese people more? What about alcoholics?

Be patient...its coming.

Watch comedy on TV these days. The only group that it is acceptable to make fun of is the obese, and I see something making light of fat people pretty much every time I watch TV. The obese are the new Polaks, the new Blondes, the new *insert minority group derogatory appellation here*.

The public view of people who are obese is that they are undisciplined, sluggardly and otherwise morally or constitutionally inferior, and that it is a matter of personal choice. Therefore, they are an acceptable target of ridicule. This general societal leaning will eventually result in punative measures and sanctioned discrimination. It is the nature of human beings to be against something or someone. Since obesity is perceived as something that is voluntary and therefore controllable, unlike, for example, race, then discriminating against them is actually for their own good, right?

I believe that a company should have the right to hire anyone they want, regardless of any sort of criteria. That being said, I'm not against incentives under certain circumstance either.

I don't believe that they should be able to pass those judgements on to current employees though.

Ouch...

Whether or not anyone agrees with or disagrees with their actions, the fact is that their actions are illegal.
I am a smoker and I wish that they would make smoking illegal and stop selling cigarettes and then I would have to quit. Either that or have someone lock me in a padded room for a month...But right now, it's legal and they have no right to pull that :turd:

Their actions are not illegal. It's a privately managed company, giving them the power to do whatever it is they want. As previously discussed, companies are at liberty to hire/fire whoever they wish (though they may face EEOP backlash ... which still does not make it illegal, just *unfair*).

If a company includes some sort of stipulation in their contract, it's not necessarily unlawful - instead they have to worry about whether good candidates are willing to submit to those conditions.

I believe the company should be able to do as it pleases, but yes, there should be some sort of grandfather clause in the case of a new policy. Quasi-taxes on obesity, alcoholism ... it's all coming in the near future, if it hasn't already happened to you.

Our workplaces likely already limit what you do in your spare time, but we submit to the rules because we need work and more importantly $$$. Companies require you to come in at certain hours and sometimes limit how often and how much time off you can take. And my company, for example, does not allow me to freelance (in my free time) for a "competing publication" without approval by a top-level manager. It's all part of the game - if this place didn't have such a influential name, I wouldn't think twice to walk out if I ever got into a scuffle about doing freelance work.

How does the insurance company know which employees are smokers? With any job I've had I never had to fill our any sort of questionnaire about health, habits, etc. Do some companies do this?

Of couse this company can crack down on the smokers if they want to, but firing seems a bit extreme, and I'm sure they've lost some good employees. If they don't want to pay the higher premiums for the smokers then they should give the smokers the option of paying the difference. I never really thought about the insurance aspect of it, but I wonder what the productivity of non-smokers is vs. smokers. I've worked with some heavy smokers in the past who have to take so many breaks that I can't imagine they're producing as much as non-smokers. But then again, if somebody wants to screw off at work, they'll find a way whether they smoke or not.

You posted at 4:16. Are you at work? I am.

I believe I read in another article that they were urine testing or something to that effect for nicotine.

I think the whole idea is totally absurd. What someone does during their off time is no business of the company that employs them. If health risks are their contention, why then don't they go after people that skydive or race cars on weekends. How about homosexuals? They're at a risk of getting AIDS. Shouldn't anyone involved in risky past times have to pay higher insurance premiums? Give me a break already!

Somebody needs to relax. Go have a cigarette.

that nicotine they tested could've came from a nicotine patch or nicotine gum, used to help quit smoking.
Okay, I'm no lawyer, maybe it is legal, but it still sounds screwy to me.
By the way, I smoke and I get a hell of a lot more done than the people who are always crowded in the kitchen eating the mistake orders and the extra food leftover from buffets...
After I have a cigarette, I feel buzzed. I act and feel happier and more energetic. If they told me I can't smoke at work, and I decided to stay there, I would be moody and unproductive. Also, it only takes 1 minute to smoke. You don't need to let it sit there and burn...
It really is a terrible habit, but it's also extremely addictive and I think that every smoker truly would like to quit, the ones that are still smoking are just not ready. They'll quit when they're ready. Forcing them to quit probably leeds to resentment and hostile feelings toward the employer.

1) anyone, ANYONE, not just gay people are at risk for AIDS...
2) Yes, but how do you patrol this?? I do know that you pay higher life insurance (or can't get it at all) if you say you participate in certain hobbies/occupations deemed high risk by Mr. Underwriter.

I work for a hospital run by the Church of Latter Day Saints (well, that whole concept is debatable) and if they SMELL tobacco on you prior to your shift they SEND you home for being UNDER THE INFLUENCE! Also verboten: pepper (stimulant), real meat, (they are vegetarians) and salt (Nu-salt is on all the cafeteria tables.) Of course you are free to eat meat, salt and pepper at home, but it's not included on their menu's for the patients or in the cafeteria. All the patients eat soybased meats---and they complain incessantly about the food as you would imagine. Also, the only people to advance in this organization are-you guessed it!- Latter Day Saints. They don't promote anyone of any other religion. Don't ask me how they get away with it.

Oh, and before I was hired I was asked what religion I was. I balked and they said, "Oh, it's just so we can prove we don't only hire Latter Day Saints at our organization! We hire a diverse population!" BIG CORPORATE GRIN! I said I wasn't comfortable with that and they let it go but I am guessing had I put down "Pagan" they would have found some way to not hire me--nursing shortage be damned! :lol:

Bri - LDS = vegetarian? that is a new one for me.

everyone else - group insurance plans don't allow for different rates for different people. either you have insurance and pay the same as everyone else or you don't have insurance.

i don't smoke, i absolutely hate smoking, but even i think this is just ridiculous. i do, however, support their right to run their company how they want.

Yeah---they are vegetarians. Maybe they are some weird sect--but they are a wealthy, weird sect. WEALTHY.

omg--this is how out of it I am on these Christianfolk---they are Seventh Day Adventists!! Oh, how embarrassing :blush: but I don't pay much attention to who they are--they are just weird and strict which, to me, translates into any Christian group. So, Lookout, you're right. Not LDS-SDA. Tomato-Tomahto in my book. The only Christian religion I really know is Catholicism because I was raised one (Catholic shcools all thru) but, really, I didn't pay attention much to that, either. I just know my knees were sore from kneeling for 1/2 of the Mass and the holy water was always icy-cold. :blush: :blush: and here I was, maligning the poor LDS! Well, similar initials and besides, the JW were just at my door, confusing me.

they must be a sect, because i am in very close contact with a large number of mormons (practicing, devout, not just name-only) who will down a good steak.

as far as wealthy... that probably has nothing to do with the sect. as one of my mormon aquaintances put it - "we're the new jew".

it is imperative that the man become extremely successful in his chosen career and then bring younger mormons in and help them achieve the top tiers of success.

ok, SDA - yeah they are absolutely vegetarians. and those that i know are a bit out of the main stream on their "christian" theology. i don't remember all of the details, but something about being the descendents of the jewish nation and being the forerunners of the 144,000.

Lookout, how much do you know about the Mormon's? They have one freaky story to tell. Veeeeeeery interesting. Especially the golden thing-y's they found in New York. Fascinating stuff. Some cute Mormon girls came to my father's door last year, he acted interested (of course he did, the old perv!) and they NEVER let up on him! They kept coming back. My mother had to finally tell them not to return. Dad was heartbroken! Mind you, he's 75 and they were in their early twenty's....pretty good strategy.

ah, now the jw - they are fun. i don't one for a couple of months who was an absolute fiend in the bedroom. (and the kitchen, laundry room, living room, car, elevator, office floor, and restaurant now that i think about it :blush: ) but it was fun to mess with her, because they don't do birthdays, holidays, etc.

South Park had a good rundown of the basics of Mormon mythology. ;)
Either Matt or Trey is a former Mormon.

JW's have pre-marital sex?? Are you sure this one wasn't just trying to get out? I really thought JW's were really, really...bummers?

i'm originally from illinois (as are the LDS), i live in arizona (largely mormon), and my company has a VERY large mormon presence. i've self educated a bit over the years. i am an avid reader and whenever i have a mormon with me i find an excuse to go to the bookstore. if they see a book that maligns the LDS faith in any way they are required to buy it so it is no longer in circulation.

i like the wedding ceremony personally. she has to tell him her secret name, but he doesn't tell her his. and the super duper LDS undies rock, of course.

While there are contributing factors to obesity that aren't controllable the vast majority of overweight people are overweight because they eat too much of the wrong stuff and don't do enough bloody exercise. End of story. One can't help their race or their sex but in most cases, one can do something about one's weight.

On the smoking thing though, it all seems bloody orwellian to me. I mean what the hell? If my health insurer asked for a urine sample for *anything* I'd cancel the policy, let alone something perfectly legal. Let alone a workplace, christ, no matter the money, my time, my choice, get the fuck out of my private life. I do my job, they pay me, end of interaction.

HM - i saw that and laughed til i cried. i thought they did a great job playing up the illiterate reading the rocks part.

BRI - it wasn't premarital. she was married. they had an open relationship. she also had a girfriend. i miss her.

What is with the secret name? Is it like the Ruplestilskin thing where he then has power over her? What is a super duper LDS undie? Like, underwear? Are they secret bedroom animals? WTF? Or, did you mean "Fundies"? I am now reading my JW literature, so thoughtfully left by the two impeccably dressed young men who came to see me this morning. I always feel bad for them because they seem so sincere and are very polite.

i like the mormon missionaries better than the JW's. the jw's will not leave you alone. when you question and debate they can only regurgitate the script or get the deer in the headlights look. LDS, most of them anyway, want to share their faith, but they recognize it is theirs and don't try to force it on you. they also can debate intelligently without getting upset. and when you say you are done, they thank you for your time and go on their merry way. the jw's just keep coming back.

I've a book, given to me by a Southern Baptist, that lists cults and the Mormon's are right up there in Culthood. Even still, they too are impeccably dressed and polite. A veritable Donny and Marie of Goodness and Decency.

No longer true. Demographic, as opposed to community-based, rating systems swept the group insurance industry in 2003 and 2004. Independence Blue Cross in Philadelphia was among the last few health insurers to make the switch, which it did only because of the competitive pressure.

Rather than one group rate, premiums would now be calculated based on age and other factors. It makes sense for very, very small companies with only a handful of employees (it's intended for small- to mid-sized businesses), but as you near the cutoff (maybe 100 workers? more? i forget) it is more expensive than a community-based rate, and elder employees would see higher premiums. The concern of employee rights groups is that demographic rating would entice companies to higher younger workers since they would cost less to insure.

Yet another insurance-driven workplace policy.

Younger employees traditionally cost less in salary, too. A brand-new nursing grad makes 1/2 of what I do. And has NO experience. Just what you want when you're in the middle of a code situation--cheap, inexperienced help. :eek:

good to know, i've only looked at insurance in large companies so i was unaware of the new wave in small companies.

I work at a large company with different rates for smokers and non-smokers. They take your word for it, though. But if you say you're a non-smoker, and come down with a smoking-related illness, you may be in trouble.

Ever apply for an engineering position with the city of New Orleans? You get to do the piss test, with a twist: alcohol consumption in the previous forty-eight hours will disqualify you from getting the position.

Seems like in a city like NO it would be pretty hard not to have had a drink in the past forty-eight. Good news, though, if they are only doing a pee test--booze is out pretty darn fast...you'd almost have to be drunk right when they took the sample to fail it.

So only people from outside New Orleans can work there? :)

When somebody dies of liver cirrhosis in New Orleans, the death certificate lists it as 'natural causes'.

The smoking thing is not that surprising. As long as the ever exploding burden of health care costs are placed on the employer, these types of restrictions and intrusions will continue and deepen, screening for the lowest maintenance. Its just good business. Targeting the obese is given. Soon they'll clearly screen your genetic disposition for an array of diseases.

Not surprising there would be so much civil liberty backlash now, but maybe in the end Americans can make light of the situation.

Take NYC's smoking ban, for instance, now in the second month of its third year. Initially people were kicking and screaming about it, but the latest reports and surveys find people appreciate the ban and consider NYC venues healthier and more pleasant. Smoking among 18-30 year olds has declined dramatically, and dry cleaning bills have decreased proportionally.

A similar-ish situation, but the big point is that people learn to cope with such measures.

[quote from jaguar]While there are contributing factors to obesity that aren't controllable the vast majority of overweight people are overweight because they eat too much of the wrong stuff and don't do enough bloody exercise. End of story. One can't help their race or their sex but in most cases, one can do something about one's weight.[/quote]

So perfectly stated. It is very true that people in general don't want to do the work it takes to lose the weight. They want instant results. Want proof? Any of the fad diets. Atkins, South Beach. Sure, they may work for a little while, but at the same time, your killing your body. The human body needs a specefic balance of carbohydrates, proteins, and fats. People dont want to exercise. Too much effort, apparently.

On the topic of the smoking, the company was a health-care company. I don't blame them for A) not allowing their workers to smoke, simply because they know exactly what it does to them and B) health care is much more expensive for a smoker. Why should the company be penalized for the choices of the employee? The company has every right to fire the employees, they have every right to ask them for a piss test to see if they smoked. They broke a policy, or at least, indicated that they broke the policy, and for that, they were fired.

In the same post, Jag also stated: Being employed by a company does not mean they own you. You go there, do a job for them and they pay you for it, end of story. What you do away from the job site has nothing to do with that company, as long as it's legal and you're not putting the company in a bad light per se. If they want to charge you more for health insurance because you smoke so be it, but they better make it fair and charge everyone that participates in a health risk the same.