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...
linksfiend 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] It's perfectly legal to profile workers based on health care considerations? Can I refuse to hire women because they have higher rates of breast cancer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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. 218606[/snapback] You mean like baseball players not being allowed to ride motorcylces in the offseason? Football players not being allowed to play pickup basketball during the offseason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 It's perfectly legal to profile workers based on health care considerations?Can I refuse to hire women because they have higher rates of breast cancer? 218608[/snapback] Women and minorities fall into "suspect classes" that receive higher scrutiny in these types of situations. Smokers don't. Folks, I don't write the laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 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. 218606[/snapback] Sadly AD, I agree. Isn't it great that we are going around the world making sure that peolpe are "free?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 You mean like baseball players not being allowed to ride motorcylces in the offseason? Football players not being allowed to play pickup basketball during the offseason? 218609[/snapback] Yep. That's the first chink in the armor. It begins the slippery slope that leads far from the freedom our politicians like to talk about but apparently don't actually understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Yep. That's the first chink in the armor. It begins the slippery slope that leads far from the freedom our politicians like to talk about but apparently don't actually understand. 218612[/snapback] It's called a contract - it's something you agree to. You're not forced. Don't like it, work somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 It's called a contract - it's something you agree to. You're not forced. Don't like it, work somewhere else. 218614[/snapback] I suppose if you want to look at the small picture, it is that simple. The big picture is much more complex and the current path our country is on is closer and closer to the government our Forefather's fought so hard to escape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom 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 know...let's fire disabled people who are functionally incapable of doing their jobs... Oh no, wait...that's illegal under the ADA... (And keep in mind that I'm saying that as someone who has a condition covered by the ADA, and couldn't be fired for it even if it hindered my job performance. But it's legal to fire people for smoking? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 It's called a contract - it's something you agree to. You're not forced. Don't like it, work somewhere else. 218614[/snapback] Your right, and I'm sure in the contracts of these employees smoking was cited as an activity that could cost you your job. No way in hell this holds up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 The government has tighten the grip on smokers. Might as well lump tobacco and narcotic users together, and ban both from the work place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I suppose if you want to look at the small picture, it is that simple. The big picture is much more complex and the current path our country is on is closer and closer to the government our Forefather's fought so hard to escape. 218616[/snapback] I'm actually surprised you'd take this position. IMO, our "Forefathers" wanted freedom of contract more than anything, with the government not being able to swoop in and make laws that interfere with the free choices of individuals. The two examples I mentioned (football and baseball players) are perfect examples of situations where the employer has every rational reason for wanting that insurance built into its employment agreement. Are you suggesting that the government should step in and allow employees to do all sorts of self-destructive things that their employers will ultimately be on the hook for? That doesn't sound like a position you'd advocate. Don't forget - health insurance isn't an entitlement. My girlfriend doesn't get it from her employer. I suspect what happened here is that this particular employer is forced either to provide health insurance coverage, or, perhaps it is forced to provide it for all employees if it provides it for some. So the government already in this situation is forcing the employer's hands (again, not what our "Forefathers" wanted), and forcing the employer to choose between subsidizing a destructive behavior or firing some employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 The government has tighten the grip on smokers. Might as well lump tobacco and narcotic users together, and ban both from the work place. 218619[/snapback] Which will be very successful - just like the cost effective "War on Drugs". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Which will be very successful - just like the cost effective "War on Drugs". 218623[/snapback] Again, you need to recognize that in this situation it's not the government who's acting. I couldn't agree more with you about the ridiculousness of the War on Drugs, but at the same time, I can't say that the government has a right to restrict private employers who want to fire employees for taking drugs, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I'm actually surprised you'd take this position. IMO, our "Forefathers" wanted freedom of contract more than anything, with the government not being able to swoop in and make laws that interfere with the free choices of individuals. The two examples I mentioned (football and baseball players) are perfect examples of situations where the employer has every rational reason for wanting that insurance built into its employment agreement. Are you suggesting that the government should step in and allow employees to do all sorts of self-destructive things that their employers will ultimately be on the hook for? That doesn't sound like a position you'd advocate. Don't forget - health insurance isn't an entitlement. My girlfriend doesn't get it from her employer. I suspect what happened here is that this particular employer is forced either to provide health insurance coverage, or, perhaps it is forced to provide it for all employees if it provides it for some. So the government already in this situation is forcing the employer's hands (again, not what our "Forefathers" wanted), and forcing the employer to choose between subsidizing a destructive behavior or firing some employees. 218621[/snapback] You've more or less made my point in a round about way. Too much government involvement in one arena has led to loss of individual liberty in another. The consequences are Orwellian in the end. We've learned nothing from history. Smoking is just another boogieman conquered for the good of the "collective". Next it'll be your diet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Again, you need to recognize that in this situation it's not the government who's acting. I couldn't agree more with you about the ridiculousness of the War on Drugs, but at the same time, I can't say that the government has a right to restrict private employers who want to fire employees for taking drugs, for example. 218624[/snapback] The difference is drugs are illegal. Smoking isn't. Nor is eating bad food or not working out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Smoking is just another boogieman conquered for the good of the "collective". Next it'll be your diet. 218625[/snapback] Does that mean they'll have to fire people who work at McDonalds... Meaning there won't be anybody working at McDonalds... Meaning there will be no fast food? CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 You've more or less made my point in a round about way. Too much government involvement in one arena has led to loss of individual liberty in another. 218625[/snapback] Except the solution isn't, and never will be, "more laws." I think we'd agree on that. Yes the government created this problem (and creates the problem of my girlfriend having to pay at least $280 in premiums per month for private health insurance, because she's forced by the government to subsidize old people), but the solution is not that the government pass more laws in response. It should just get out of the way altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 The difference is drugs are illegal. Smoking isn't. Nor is eating bad food or not working out. 218628[/snapback] Even if drugs were legal, I would respect the choice of private companies not to allow their busdrivers, for example, to smoke crack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Except the solution isn't, and never will be, "more laws." I think we'd agree on that. Yes the government created this problem (and creates the problem of my girlfriend having to pay at least $280 in premiums per month for private health insurance, because she's forced by the government to subsidize old people), but the solution is not that the government pass more laws in response. It should just get out of the way altogether. 218631[/snapback] I more or less agree. Government does have duties - the Constitution would be a nice place to start but they're way too busy stealing from the citizenry to pay attention to that. I wasn't advocating more laws and there likely won't be any after this thing gets whacked in some court somewhere. Just a precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Even if drugs were legal, I would respect the choice of private companies not to allow their busdrivers, for example, to smoke crack. 218635[/snapback] I don't see it being any different than alcohol. Bus drivers ain't allowed to toss a couple back, either. But, you can't fire someone if they drink away from work - unless it impacts their job performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts