scribo Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 *My bad, I should have put an OT on this. The firm wants to save some dough on health care. http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html I have long thought that non-smokers were better employees -- yes, of course, with many exceptions. Think about this -- those who smoke need extra "smoke breaks," which obviously cuts down on the time they are actually working. If they don't get the breaks, they get “nic fits” and are short-fused with fellow employees and customers. Hey, I smoked for about five years. I am only speaking from first hand experience and observations. I am sure there are many of you out there who smoke and are great employees, but if I owned my own company, I would do what I could to keep smokers off my payroll. *My bad, I should have put an OT on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 If it's legal to let smokers go, I'm all for it. I think smokers are letting THEMSELVES go, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 "those who smoke need extra "smoke breaks,"" That's bull sh--! We would like smoke breaks, but at least here, we don't get them. EDIT: !@#$!! What a waste of a post for my 12,000th! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 *My bad, I should have put an OT on this. The firm wants to save some dough on health care. http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html I have long thought that non-smokers were better employees -- yes, of course, with many exceptions. Think about this -- those who smoke need extra "smoke breaks," which obviously cuts down on the time they are actually working. If they don't get the breaks, they get “nic fits” and are short-fused with fellow employees and customers. Hey, I smoked for about five years. I am only speaking from first hand experience and observations. I am sure there are many of you out there who smoke and are great employees, but if I owned my own company, I would do what I could to keep smokers off my payroll. *My bad, I should have put an OT on this. 218531[/snapback] This public service announcement was brought to you by Phillip Morris, who urges everyone to stop smoking, even though they know only a few of you have the willpower to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 "those who smoke need extra "smoke breaks,"" That's bull sh--! We would like smoke breaks, but at least here, we don't get them. 218536[/snapback] Yeah, and would you say you're not as focused or as patient when you don't get those breaks? I know that described me when I smoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 This public service announcement was brought to you by Phillip Morris, who urges everyone to stop smoking, even though they know only a few of you have the willpower to do it. 218537[/snapback] Actually, I live in Virginia. My taxes would go way up if everyone stopped smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrobot Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Your taxes might go up, but your company would make so much more profit that you'd have an increase in salary. Second, if you were a pack a day smoker, you'd have $60.80 more per month. Third, you wouldn't be spending $25-35/month on bronchial dilators. Not that any of these things have happened to me in the last 3 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 firing employees who smoke is absurd. the employers can govern whatever they want during business hours with regards to smoke breaks and smoking areas. but they have no right to fire anyone over what they choose to do when they're not on the clock and by their reasoning that its for high health care costs, they should fire anyone who eats fast food or drinks coffee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalomike Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 People who smoke are stupid. Your taxes might go up, but your company would make so much more profit that you'd have an increase in salary. Second, if you were a pack a day smoker, you'd have $60.80 more per month. Third, you wouldn't be spending $25-35/month on bronchial dilators. Not that any of these things have happened to me in the last 3 years. 218544[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 People who smoke are stupid. 218553[/snapback] Stupid cool .......I know I gotta quit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfladave Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 The real problem with this is the precedent it sets. Where will this line be drawn. The company said it did this to lower health coverage cost. What happens when insurance companies start saying we'll lower your policy if you don't hire anyone who drives a red car because statistics show people who drive red cars are more likely to get into accidents. Or perhaps anyone who drinks will be next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linksfiend Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Wow, this seems dangerous. I can't imagine the ACLU not challenging this. Nor the employees not suing for wrongful termination and invasion of privacy. What's next -- fire everyone who drinks alcohol, or drinks caffeinated drinks, or is considered obese by National Institute of Health standards, or uses birth control pills. This can't be upheld. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Any money the company saved on insurance premiums will be eaten up in lawsuits; and then they'll be paying the higher insurance premium anyway once the courts block the action. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Look into some past studies...in 1989, Price Waterhouse did a study. Results...smokers die before they cash in for Social Security....and that dough goes to others...maybe you. They finished up their study with "If you don't smoke, by all means offer a smoker a light". Also, Smokers pay a high tax rate. I pay about 800 bucks a year in OH. If it's illegal, I won't smoke but don't think for one minute the State doesn't want the cash and you won't make up that shortfall...my tax will drop to 350 bucks and you non-smokers will pony up your $350. Lastly - ask any bartender or waitress - smokers are right regular guys who tip a whole lot more than you who hate smoking while you stuff your face with all foods fat and loaded with cholesterol. Myself, I'd ban pizza and hamburger and chips first - you "users" cost society Sooo much as well as we will EVENTUALLY have to deal with your fat, soon-to-diabetic whelp..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 This thread should be on PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Wow, this seems dangerous. I can't imagine the ACLU not challenging this. Nor the employees not suing for wrongful termination and invasion of privacy. What's next -- fire everyone who drinks alcohol, or drinks caffeinated drinks, or is considered obese by National Institute of Health standards, or uses birth control pills. This can't be upheld. 218580[/snapback] It's not governmental action. It's private actors - perfectly legal. The Constitution only applies to governments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 It's not governmental action. It's private actors - perfectly legal. The Constitution only applies to governments. 218593[/snapback] When if these "private actors" decided that African-Americans are more prone to high blood pressure than whites, or Gays were more likely to contract AIDS than are hetros? How do you think that would fly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 When if these "private actors" decided that African-Americans are more prone to high blood pressure than whites, or Gays were more likely to contract AIDS than are hetros? How do you think that would fly? 218600[/snapback] Well, they would certainly have civil claims. As for Constitutional claims, those groups (which likely fall into "suspect classes") would have their arguments bolstered by federal laws specific to that situation. Smokers would not be able to take advantage of those laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Wow, this seems dangerous. I can't imagine the ACLU not challenging this. Nor the employees not suing for wrongful termination and invasion of privacy. What's next -- fire everyone who drinks alcohol, or drinks caffeinated drinks, or is considered obese by National Institute of Health standards, or uses birth control pills. This can't be upheld. 218580[/snapback] I agree, I mean when do you draw the line? I'm a very healthy smoker if their is such a thing. I eat a very regimented diet, work out all the time, and have under 7% body fat. At 22 am I more of a health risk then a 40 year old obese non smoker? I doubt it. So many people have a crutch.... food, boos, smoking etc.... How can you single out only one of those health hazards? Look I know how bad smoking is, and I'm making serious efforts to quit. But what bothers me is the second class treatment people receive because they smoke. Its like I have a choice whether to smoke or not yet the person who's 200 pounds over weight never had a choice when they let themselves get that way. I know this is a cut and dry example, and many people have weight issues that are very difficult to tackle. But it is so annoying to have a obviously unhealthy person preaching to me about my poor decision making. It's understandable that a non smoker would not want to breath my smoke, so I don't B word about restricted smoking areas. But this has nothing to do with that issue. Bottom line is this company went way to far with this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I agree, I mean when do you draw the line? 218603[/snapback] It doesn't end. When companies can control your employment based on your use of legal products, that's the end of our society. Bank on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts