Company demands workers give up smoking to keep jobs

[EbonNelumbo]

Grr.

 

[EbonNelumbo]

As far as companies mandating what is good for you... is it really a big mystery that smoking cigarettes is not? This whole thread has gotten me to think.... why should insurance companies pay for bad choices that we make? And do all of them?...are there insurance companies out there that won't add you if you smoke?

It is quite humorous IMO that we say others are intruding into our lives when it comes to smoking...but who is gonna have the first hand stuck out when they need their chemo and radiation covered...?

THE SMOKER.

Wow, spoken like a true cynic. How nice, blame the smokers for their health problems...smoking is NOT the only cause of cancer. And though it attributes to a lot of diseases, sorry to burst everybody's bubble hear, it doesn't always cause them. A factor in such, yes. Lung cancer is the number one killer of both men and women alike...that includes those who don't smoke and just breathe. Now, for the people who want to chalk up the air probs to smokers, there is a thing called "automobile pollutants" which tend to affect a whole lot of air issues.

The second leading cause of cancer: breast (women) prostate (men). Now, let's pretend you do not die of lung cancer, but instead one of the two second leading causes. They might just be one of the first to the door for chemo and radiation.

And then there are people who me who get health insurance through screwed up companies and then get fired and dropped because they get tired of paying for medication.

And then there are the people who began smoking at the dawn of time when the dangers were not known and fight enough daily battles by holding a job and dealing with family and friends and personal health and are too tired to begin trying to stop something that they have done literally most of their life and that they have failed at trying to stop before.

Stopping smoking won't help worker morale, that you can mark my words on. It's nobody's business who smokes and does what when they are off the job if it's not DIRECTLY affecting anyone...if people don't wanna be there and have sidestream smoke or such then they can walk their pompous behinds back inside the building and shut the doors.

And no. I don't smoke. Never have. Never will, but it would be my choice and my choice alone if I had wanted to.

 

[Glaz]

I doubt there'd be any positive response to this kind of policy if we replaced 'smokers' with 'people who eat fast food' or 'people who don't exercise regularly'.

 

[Christ Aficionado]

I really think the company should offer incentives for people to quit instead of firing them. Here are some common programs employers offer to help workers kick the habit:

• Free quit smoking kits.

• Discounts on smoking cessation programs.

• Cash incentives to participate in wellness programs.

• Online or telephone counseling for people trying to quit.

• Free laser treatments for smoking which can be done in-house.

As for fitness related issues, just build an in-house gym and offer incentives to join. Firing, hiring and training new people cost businesses big money. They could save a lot of money by just building an employee friendly workplace.

 

[MaryS]

I doubt there'd be any positive response to this kind of policy if we replaced 'smokers' with 'people who eat fast food' or 'people who don't exercise regularly'.

Or maybe a company could decide any number of activities that people engage in that may cause them to be at risk for more health problems. For example, if a company knew that someone was engaging in risky sexual activity, that could affect their need for more health care costs too. Heck, why not fire any woman who has an abortion?....after all, if the woman didn't report a rape, she certainly must be having unprotected sex that could expose her to STD's.

 

[AndreLinoge]

if you have a habit that is going to cause you a disease and raise premiums for everyone else then yes you arent doing it in your own time
your wasting a lot of other peoples money

You do realize that its only a matter of time before they penalize people for their diet, don't you?

You know that, right?

 

[Glaz]

Or maybe a company could decide any number of activities that people engage in that may cause them to be at risk for more health problems. For example, if a company knew that someone was engaging in risky sexual activity, that could affect their need for more health care costs too. Heck, why not fire any woman who has an abortion?....after all, if the woman didn't report a rape, she certainly must be having unprotected sex that could expose her to STD's.

Exactly. Health care-based discrimination coming to an America near you. Discriminate against anyone who does anything that could cause them to actually one day need the healthcare they paid for.

 

[mala]

You do realize that its only a matter of time before they penalize people for their diet, don't you?

You know that, right?

i hate the slippery slope arguement
it makes it seem like people are brainless primates... (more so than usual)

also since when has john joe jack wolfing down 15 bigmacs in the cubicle next to me harmed my stomach with his second hand z-grade meat?

 

[loriersea]

What about the right of privacy when not on the job? This is so horrible.

I agree. Telling them they cannot smoke when they are on the job is one thing. But, once they are at home, they should be able to do whatever they want.

 

[ClaireZ]

i hate the slippery slope arguement
it makes it seem like people are brainless primates... (more so than usual)

also since when has john joe jack wolfing down 15 bigmacs in the cubicle next to me harmed my stomach with his second hand z-grade meat?

Most companies no longer allow people to smoke inside companies buildings.

Instead they provide a smoking room or a spot outside in which employees can smoke.

The idea behind this new policy is NOT second-hand smoke but rather the increased health costs the companies must bear for employees that smoke. So an overweight employee could indeed be the next target.

 

[NothingButTheBlood]

If this company is going to fire those who smoke because it is effecting the cost of health care then there are several other factors they can decide to fire people over. What people do at home is their own business. If smokers cost you more charge them more. Most companies do.

 

[AndreLinoge]

i hate the slippery slope arguement
it makes it seem like people are brainless primates... (more so than usual)

also since when has john joe jack wolfing down 15 bigmacs in the cubicle next to me harmed my stomach with his second hand z-grade meat?

Poor analogy.

How is someone smoking outside, or in their own home harming you?

 

[Ginny]

The fact remains is why should a company PAY someone's medical expenses for choosing to harm themselves....smoking is a choice and it happens to be deadly....I am able to be unbias and look at all sides. People that smoke are so dang touchy about their nicotine. I used to smoke for a few years during college so I am not a smoker hater by any means....Let's just be realistic... if someone chooses to give themselves lung cancer, emphysema, or anything else I don't necessarily know if anyone else should have to pay for the bad habit that they chose to partake in.

What one does outside of their place of employment should be up to them, however if the choices they make effects their life which ultimately effects their work, then another choice of employment needs to be made.

Why this particular company chose smoking, I am not sure...but let's stick to the real topic which is why should a company pay for poor choices made by their employees.

What is the difference between an insurance company not adding you b/c of a pre existing condition? Isn't that discrimination as well?

 

[Heiroglyph]

HA! This is just another example of Activist Judges legislating from the bench! Its rediculous there's no Constitutional right to smoke! The Founding Father's never intended the 4th Amendment to protect this sort of aberrant, abominable lifestyle choice, *insert other generic rot-gut rhetoric here*

No it's a law passed by the legislature. In fact the only anti discrimination law my state has. Other things like racial discrimination are prohibited federally and that applies here, but as far as my state is concerned you can discriminate against anything except tobacco use. Wghich is fine we do not need redunadant laws. If something is barred federally there is no need for the state to also bar it.

 

[Heiroglyph]

The fact remains is why should a company PAY someone's medical expenses for choosing to harm themselves....smoking is a choice and it happens to be deadly....I am able to be unbias and look at all sides. People that smoke are so dang touchy about their nicotine. I used to smoke for a few years during college so I am not a smoker hater by any means....Let's just be realistic... if someone chooses to give themselves lung cancer, emphysema, or anything else I don't necessarily know if anyone else should have to pay for the bad habit that they chose to partake in.

What one does outside of their place of employment should be up to them, however if the choices they make effects their life which ultimately effects their work, then another choice of employment needs to be made.

Why this particular company chose smoking, I am not sure...but let's stick to the real topic which is why should a company pay for poor choices made by their employees.

What is the difference between an insurance company not adding you b/c of a pre existing condition? Isn't that discrimination as well?

What this comes down to is rich people who own insurance companies finding another way to screw poor and working class people out of more money and you swallowing every bit of it.

 

[Ginny]

"you" as in me?

 

[MoonlessNight]

We are all doomed when they start genetic profiling.

 

[Ioinc]

Its illegal to discriminate on the basis of tobacco use in my state. I wish more states would enact similar civil rights protections. I won't buy products from companies who discriminate based on tobacco use.

I could not disagree more.
smoking is bad, and I don't want to be exposed to it, or the costs that are associated with it.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I could not disagree more.
smoking is bad, and I don't want to be exposed to it, or the costs that are associated with it.

Let's fire people for alcohol use and promiscuous sex while we're at it.

 

[Ioinc]

Most companies no longer allow people to smoke inside companies buildings.

Instead they provide a smoking room or a spot outside in which employees can smoke.

The idea behind this new policy is NOT second-hand smoke but rather the increased health costs the companies must bear for employees that smoke. So an overweight employee could indeed be the next target.

I think there is at least one fundamental difference between smoking and being overweight.

Nobody needs to smoke to stay alive it is purly for recreation.
Everybody needs to eat to stay alive.