[Slugman]

Let's try a little stretch here. Someone goes to Amsterdam on vacation, where smoking dope is legal. They get stoned. When they get back, they get tested by their company, which has a no drug use policy.

This person therefore did something that was legal, on their own time. Do you think the company will let this person keep his/her job?

Not a stretch to me. He participated in an activity that his company defined as a violation based on the laws of his country of origin. His company’s rules probably have some wording that say the use of drugs classified as illegal by the USA. So no matter where you go, if you have agreed to those terms of employment - you can not indulge. He should be fired.

Saying that made me realize one of the other reasons this annoys me - they changed the rules. These criteria did not exist when they accepted the job; it was sprung on them later.

If you really want complete "freedom" in this society, you'd better be the one calling the shots. If you don't like the employer's rules, quit. You're still free to do that.........

I did.


I tried to find the employment regulations as far as what an employer has to provide in that area, but I couldn't find anything useful.

I would have preferred this guy just drop benefits for those who refused the test. It's a much more reasonable approach (IMO). At that point those who continued to smoke would have to face the burden of their choices on their own… and even though it would be a larger financial burden to them, I think its fair.

A friend of mine works for a company that requires employees to pay more into their med insurance if they support certain lifestyles.

The company I used to work for was a little smarter about how they presented it… but did basically the same thing. If you used the gym (inside the facility) on a regular basis, you got a ‘health’ bonus in your paycheck (like 90% of the deducted health care cost). If you ate healthy at work, you would receive free meals…

Now that is a smart way – reward those who take the steps to stay healthy!

 

[Ciaran]

Known fact: You can't have a functioning brain and be a smoker.

This employer just doesn't want brainless people working for him. Simple.

This statement is ridiculous. I know plenty of smokers who are highly intelligent people who also work very hard at their jobs. I also know plenty of brain dead slackers who don't smoke or do drugs.

 

[narlus]

A friend of mine works for a company that requires employees to pay more into their med insurance if they support certain lifestyles. If you drink, smoke are overweight etc you have to pay more. You fill out a form saying whether you smoke or not and you are randomly tested. If you say you don't smoke and test positive for it your canned, I think they even have to declare if they are around second hand smoke a lot. The insurance payments by the employees can vary by thousands of dollars a year depending on lifestyle. I would get hit because I like beer but I would have no problem taking part in such a system.

that's a slippery slope, though.

ok, you are a DH'er. you broke yr arm in '01 and yr finger in '03. pay an increase in yr health insurance.

you like to drive fast? two tickets in the past year? that's a dangerous lifestyle, and your insurance is going up. double-ditto if you ride a motorcycle.

where does it end?

 

[JRB]

I think smoking is stupid, but it is not a firing offense. He has the option to not offer health care and if they don't like that, they leave. As it stands, he is discriminating against something that is legal (as stupid as it is that it is legal). The answer would be to let them get their own health care and have a clause for termination due to excessive absences due to related illnesses. Have them sign off on it. If they signed something, they were stupid to keep smoking. If they had not, I hope he gets his ass sued off and loses his business. As much as I hate smoking and lawsuits, this is a case, to me where this guy is wrong and should pay.

 

[Skookum]

Sounds like a great idea to me. Where can i buy stock in chewing gum?

 

[N8 v2.0]

The biz owner and his lawyer were on ABCNewz this morning... getting raked over the coals...

 

[SkaredShtles]

<snip>
you like to drive fast? two tickets in the past year? that's a dangerous lifestyle, and your insurance is going up.

Well, if your auto insurance carrier can do it, why not your health insurance carrier?

-S.S.-

 

[SkaredShtles]

This statement is ridiculous. I know plenty of smokers who are highly intelligent people who also work very hard at their jobs. I also know plenty of brain dead slackers who don't smoke or do drugs.

I think that statement was a joke.........

-S.S.-

 

[SkaredShtles]

<snip>
I would have preferred this guy just drop benefits for those who refused the test. It's a much more reasonable approach (IMO). At that point those who continued to smoke would have to face the burden of their choices on their own&#8230; and even though it would be a larger financial burden to them, I think its fair.

You know, this would've been a *far* less controversial way to do it...... I'm curious why the businessman didn't do it. Good idea!

-S.S.-

 

[Jou]

Well, if your auto insurance carrier can do it, why not your health insurance carrier?

-S.S.-

smoking isn't illegal though, speeding is. your being penalized for not doing anything illegal.

 

[SkaredShtles]

smoking isn't illegal though, speeding is. your being penalized for not doing anything illegal.

I don't think the insurance companies care about the legality of it - they care about the cost to them of risky behavior............

-S.S.-

 

[DH Diva]

I’m not commenting here on whether this person’s actions were right or wrong. I just want to add a perspective. Many people here are saying that if you smoke on your own time, it doesn’t impact the work place. I believe Snacks already pointed out that most smokers do not go over 8 hours with out a cigarette and often take more breaks than there non-smoking coworkers to smoke.

First Situation:
My work group consists of about 12 people. All of which are non-smokers. Last year we hired a contract worker (6 months) that smoked. He would take a 10 minute smoke break every hour on the hour, under the blanket of “I’m addicted and if I don’t smoke every hour, I can’t do my job.” Our work policy is that we are allowed two 10 minute breaks a day. So, how does it not impact the work place when people spend approximately 80 minutes a day, of their 480 required work minutes a day smoking.

Second Situation:
I work in a secure building. When I say secure I mean, bullet proof glass, no opening windows, internal hvac air system, auto locking doors, key card access. Essentially, NO VENTILATION!!! Because of this lack of ventilation, we have a verbal policy that you don’t wear strong perfume, lotion, after shave, or anything else that could potentially cause people respiratory stress.

I am horribly allergic to cigarette smoke. Allergic enough that medication does little to help the discomfort. As was another coworker. When the temp started, he and his clothing, backpack, cubical, ect. smelled so badly of smoke that you could tell he had been in a room within the last hour it left such a smell in the air. It was so bad that I would have to go sit outside several times a day because I couldn’t stop sneezing and coughing.

Our manager approached him and told he would have to figure out a way that he wouldn’t smell when he was at work. Suggested keeping a set of clothes at work and changing when he got here. Offered to help him with addiction classes. Asked him to try not smoking in his car on the way to work to minimize the residual smell on his clothing ect. He wouldn’t comply. Luckily for me his 6 month contract was up and he’s gone.

My question is, are there not some work environments were it may be appropriate to require a no smoking lifestyle??

 

[binary visions]

You know, this would've been a *far* less controversial way to do it...... I'm curious why the businessman didn't do it. Good idea!

-S.S.-

...like the outcome would have been any different. Do you really think that the employees would have up and said, "Oh, sure, drop our health insurance. No problem."

There would have been the exact same outcry.

On a different note, I don't think a lot of you understand that for a majority of the U.S., workers are considered "at will" employees. That means that they can be fired at any time for almost any reason. The flip side of that is that you are free to leave whenever you want.

I don't think this is such an awful thing. You can't even remotely compare this to race/sex/religion arguements - it is ABSOLUTELY different. This has a measurable, detrimental effect on the profits of the company - the guy is getting cheaper health insurance because people aren't smoking, which means his profits go up.

I don't think you can make the argument that worshipping Buddha has a serious effect on quarterly prophets (hee hee.. get it?)

 

[pnj]

that's a slippery slope, though.

ok, you are a DH'er. you broke yr arm in '01 and yr finger in '03. pay an increase in yr health insurance.

you like to drive fast? two tickets in the past year? that's a dangerous lifestyle, and your insurance is going up. double-ditto if you ride a motorcycle.

where does it end?

exactly!

 

[Velocity Girl]

But if you cost your company x amount of dollars a year due to poor performance(lack of sales,incompetency etc)you can be fired right?If you smoke you cost the compant x amount of dollars per year right?

The problem is that a lot of things could potentially cost the company money. Obese people have more health related problems so they jack up health insurance costs. You get into an accident and have to go on disability for awhile, that can drive up costs....the list goes on and on. Those that don't smoke they see it as something they shouldn't have to pay for. So along those lines of thinking shouldn't those who aren't obese not have to pay for those that are? Or how about those who never use maternity leave, why should they have to pay for that or for the higher costs associated with "family plans"? This argument can be made against so many things (hence why protected classes probably came into light in the first place) but because smoking is socially unacceptable now a days it's a much easier target it seems.

And I do agree DHDiva that if it causes problems with how you do your day-to-day job in the office, measures need to be put in place for a reasonable work environment.

 

[Slugman]

DHDiva - you have a rare case, and in that situation I would absolutely agree that there should be rules. I'm not against saying to someone that they can't smoke while at work, or that they better not smell like an ashtray at work... as long as they know it when they take the job. I might even agree with this No-Smoking policy if the employees knew about it when they accepted the job.

That contractor should have been fired after the first day since he took more breaks than were allowed...

...like the outcome would have been any different. Do you really think that the employees would have up and said, "Oh, sure, drop our health insurance. No problem."

There would have been the exact same outcry.

You're probably right, but at that point the employer looks like he is much more reasonable. The way he did it was strong handed - "quit or I fire you!"

 

[binary visions]

The problem is that a lot of things could potentially cost the company money.

I view the issues that you brought up as being a little different than smoking.

Working people can't simply quit having babies - though short term, it might benefit the overpopulation problem , the net result is that people need to have kids. Survival of the species and all. People are more likely to sympathize with this anyway, since it's a natural biological urge, not to mention there's cost benefit to having more consumers, more potential workers, etc.

Obesity is not quite as cut-and-dry; not everyone is fat simply because they're lazy. There are medical reasons as well.

Obesity is much closer to the issue than pregnancy is, but I liked the idea stated above about obese people paying more money to the company for their health insurance.

It's pretty easy to make a blanket statement of, "Smoking is an unhealthy lifestyle choice and costs the company money. Quitting is not easy, but it's possible to do with help and can be done in a reasonable amount of time. Thus, it is unacceptable for employees to smoke."

Losing weight is a much longer-term item, and you have to take possible medical conditions into consideration. There is no medical condition that would cause someone to smoke. It's a personal choice. I have no delusions about quitting being easy, but it's possible.

 

[SkaredShtles]

...like the outcome would have been any different. Do you really think that the employees would have up and said, "Oh, sure, drop our health insurance. No problem."

There would have been the exact same outcry.
<snip>

Politically I think it would be a much easier defensible position, though.

-S.S.-

 

[pnj]

I view the issues that you brought up as being a little different than smoking.

Working people can't simply quit having babies - though short term, it might benefit the overpopulation problem , the net result is that people need to have kids. Survival of the species and all. People are more likely to sympathize with this anyway, since it's a natural biological urge, not to mention there's cost benefit to having more consumers, more potential workers, etc.

Obesity is not quite as cut-and-dry; not everyone is fat simply because they're lazy. There are medical reasons as well.

Obesity is much closer to the issue than pregnancy is, but I liked the idea stated above about obese people paying more money to the company for their health insurance.

It's pretty easy to make a blanket statement of, "Smoking is an unhealthy lifestyle choice and costs the company money. Quitting is not easy, but it's possible to do with help and can be done in a reasonable amount of time. Thus, it is unacceptable for employees to smoke."

Losing weight is a much longer-term item, and you have to take possible medical conditions into consideration. There is no medical condition that would cause someone to smoke. It's a personal choice. I have no delusions about quitting being easy, but it's possible.

people don't have to be having kids. it's a personal choice. and a poor one....
the human race is not going to die out anytime soon, allthough I wish it would.

as for obese people, I hear your argument alot but I have to say, I have never seen an obese person that ate correctly and exercised. I know there are rare cases but most over weight/obese people are responsible for being that way. there is no way your body can create fat from nothing.

most fat people ARE lazy and eat poorly.

 

[DRB]

A friend of mine works for a company that requires employees to pay more into their med insurance if they support certain lifestyles. If you drink, smoke are overweight etc you have to pay more. You fill out a form saying whether you smoke or not and you are randomly tested. If you say you don't smoke and test positive for it your canned, I think they even have to declare if they are around second hand smoke a lot. The insurance payments by the employees can vary by thousands of dollars a year depending on lifestyle. I would get hit because I like beer but I would have no problem taking part in such a system.

I've wondered why there isn't more of this.

 

[binary visions]

most fat people ARE lazy and eat poorly.

Absolutely agreed. No doubt.

However, since it's not 100% cut and dry as a personal choice, but smoking is, it makes more sense to start with smoking if you're looking to cut healthcare costs.

Besides, a lot of the problems associated with overweight people are very subjective. What, exactly, is "lazy"? What defines a "healthy diet"?

Smoking is smoking. If you injest nicotine, you're a smoker. Very black and white...

 

[narlus]

the part which really alarms is when "unhealthy lifestyle choices" turn to "high risk for increased costs".

with advances made in genetic screening, you could conceivable see this going to the extreme of people being screened for probability of cancer or other diseases.

 

[SkaredShtles]

<snip>Smoking is smoking. If you injest nicotine, you're a smoker. Very black and white...

Ummm.......... I chew nicorette just 'cause I like the taste.

-S.S.-

 

[SkaredShtles]

the part which really alarms is when "unhealthy lifestyle choices" turn to "high risk for increased costs".

with advances made in genetic screening, you could conceivable see this going to the extreme of people being screened for probability of cancer or other diseases.

Pssssst. Hey Narlus. I think they're coming again. We should put our tinfoil hats back on........

-S.S.-

 

[Echo]

How would you smokers feel if companies simply didn't offer you health insurance as a benefit? If you get popped for smoking, you lose your health insurance, plain and simple. Would that be more fair? At least then you can keep the job.

 

[pnj]

I could do without my insurance. I never use it......
I'll take the cash instead.

 

[Echo]

I could do without my insurance. I never use it......
I'll take the cash instead.

I suppose they would have to offer you the amount of cash for coverage that the other employees are allowed.

But that still doesn't account for the fact that smokers get sick and miss work more, and take longer and more frequent breaks.

 

[Velocity Girl]

I view the issues that you brought up as being a little different than smoking.

Working people can't simply quit having babies - though short term, it might benefit the overpopulation problem , the net result is that people need to have kids. Survival of the species and all. People are more likely to sympathize with this anyway, since it's a natural biological urge, not to mention there's cost benefit to having more consumers, more potential workers, etc.

Obesity is not quite as cut-and-dry; not everyone is fat simply because they're lazy. There are medical reasons as well.

Obesity is much closer to the issue than pregnancy is, but I liked the idea stated above about obese people paying more money to the company for their health insurance.

It's pretty easy to make a blanket statement of, "Smoking is an unhealthy lifestyle choice and costs the company money. Quitting is not easy, but it's possible to do with help and can be done in a reasonable amount of time. Thus, it is unacceptable for employees to smoke."

Losing weight is a much longer-term item, and you have to take possible medical conditions into consideration. There is no medical condition that would cause someone to smoke. It's a personal choice. I have no delusions about quitting being easy, but it's possible.

Yes there are cases where someone has a medical problem that causes them to be obese, but that can be determined by a doctor. So you go get the tests and if you fall into that category, you're exempt. Smoking is physically and mentally addictive so it can be just as hard as losing weight. Yes it was a choice to start, but so is choosing to not watch your weight and let it balloon to unreasonable proportions.

As for working people having kids...well it is still their choice so why can't they shoulder the extra cost and let my premiums go down as a result? I know that society would probably never let that happen because I am in the small minority of individuals who feel this way, but I think that's why smokers get picked on, because they're in the minority now. I think the company should evaluate how much more their policies will cost due to the smokers and then divide up between them. I don't think they should be fired or loose their health care over it though.

As for smokers being sick more and missing more work...I don't know if I totally buy that. I've seen people who smoke never miss a day of work and those who don't be out at least once a month!

 

[SkaredShtles]

<snip>
As for working people having kids...well it is still their choice so why can't they shoulder the extra cost and let my premiums go down as a result?

Ummm......... have you looked at the premiums for married w/children folks vs. single people? I think you'll see that they're paying more.........

If not, I wanna work for *your* company.

-S.S.-

 

[narlus]

Ummm......... have you looked at the premiums for married w/children folks vs. single people? I think you'll see that they're paying more.........

If not, I wanna work for *your* company.

-S.S.-

 

[binary visions]

As for working people having kids...well it is still their choice so why can't they shoulder the extra cost and let my premiums go down as a result?

Well, when I sign up for my company's policy, I need to check off a little box that says that I want a family plan to cover my kids. From all of my coworkers' complaints, they're paying a hell of a lot more money than I am for that choice.

What I don't have to do, is check off a little box that says I've chosen to do constant damage to my body and will likely run up tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical costs if I develop cancer or emphazima (spelling ?) - which I have a pretty high likelihood of doing - so give me a more expensive medical plan, please.

 

[riderx]

What is next?
Letting all the Fat people go? That is a health risk that increases premiums isn't it?

I'm supprised no one has sued them yet.

Morbid obesity is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act

 

[UiUiUiUi]

Morbid obesity is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act

ok does that mean its ok to kill yourself with fast food but not ok with cigs?


EDIT: i know this is a bad analogy but for the heck of it.
is it possible for a US company to put similar policies in place regarding overweight people?

 

[speedster]

Awesome idea! I hope more companies follow suit because I hate smoking. Even if a smoker hasn't smoked at work you can still smell them and it is rank...the smell never leaves them. Hats off to Weyco. However, I can see this getting out of hand for other unhealthy life choices...and it could turn out to be a lawyers wet dream in the future.

 

[JSB]

Well, when I sign up for my company's policy, I need to check off a little box that says that I want a family plan to cover my kids. From all of my coworkers' complaints, they're paying a hell of a lot more money than I am for that choice.

What I don't have to do, is check off a little box that says I've chosen to do constant damage to my body and will likely run up tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical costs if I develop cancer or emphazima (spelling ?) - which I have a pretty high likelihood of doing - so give me a more expensive medical plan, please.

What my co-workers complain about is my company gives me more benefit dollars to use towards my choices of coverage. Therefore they get pissed because I get more money because I have kids. They're not paying more, because my policy cost more to cover 4 than 1.

DHDiva brought up a good point. All these freaking allergy prone people. I have them in my own family. My 4 year old is on zertec. Talk about healthcare cost. Where was all this crap when I was growing up. We have commercials for a ton of allergies out there now. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is trying to get prescription allergy meds. because the sneeze.

This debate is about health care cost not smoking. Does smoking cause healthcare to go up. I for one, and the article I posted from 1987-2000
doesn't think so. My great aunt smoked since she was 15, she died of Alzheimer's. My grandfather died of cancer due to second hand smoke. He was in the hospital about a week and died. My grandmother died of Emphysema, I don't think her oxygen tank she dragged around cost more that the triple bi-pass my neighbor hand because he eats like shiat! What cost more? I can't say for sure, because I think it would require serious studies, but I don't think Emphysema or lung cancer is a top 3 or 5. 91% of people diagnosed with Emphysema are over 45. They way I see that a$$ won't be covering my healthcare when I'm that age anyway, so he doesn't have anything to worry about. I doubt it's coming out of his pocket anyway. I know it doesn't come out of my companies pocket. It's Cigna. Now I'm sure Cigna may raise their rates if they are loosing money, but I doubt they can say it's from people who smoke. You know how many people have babies. It was 20k for us to have a baby. I have two therefore I caused 40K in healthcare expenses. Granted on the first one I paid 20%, but the second one it was $150.00 Now times that by all the people that have babies. I bet it's high. Especially those 4D sonograms. Expensive little piece of equipment right there. Smoking is one of those things that gets you at the end of your race. Not during like alot of other things. At least in my opinion. By that time grandmas on some medicare plan that screws her out of everybit of SS money she has coming in.

 

[JSB]

Awesome idea! I hope more companies follow suit because I hate smoking. Even if a smoker hasn't smoked at work you can still smell them and it is rank...the smell never leaves them. Hats off to Weyco. However, I can see this getting out of hand for other unhealthy life choices...and it could turn out to be a lawyers wet dream in the future.

I think it will open doors for healthcare companies. Pretty soon no one will be qualified to be covered. Your laughing now, because you hate smokers. I don't hate them, but I hate to smell it now, and hate to have to eat with it in my face. I actually feel sorry for them, because they are addicted to something worse than heroin if you ask me. You'll never know until you've done it. But you think it's hard now with preexisting conditions, you just wait. Your form will be like, Have you ever had alcohol, have you ever smoked, and or lived with anyone that has. Have you ever been involved in a car accident. Have you ever seen a chiropractor. These are extreme, but I can seen it happening. They've got to protect themselfs. You could be a liability. This all kind of reminds me of that movie gatica. You've have to take a test and if you have a type of gene that may possibly turn into any form of cancer or illness your denied coverage. Praise companies like Weyco.

 

[pnj]

DHDiva brought up a good point. All these freaking allergy prone people. I have them in my own family. My 4 year old is on zertec. Talk about healthcare cost. Where was all this crap when I was growing up. We have commercials for a ton of allergies out there now. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry is trying to get prescription allergy meds. because the sneeze.

and everybody has ADA.....

the health care industry are drug dealers. get your clients hooked, and you will forever have cash coming in.

as I said before, don't belive the hype.

 

[JRB]

Here's the deal with insurance. It's gambling. They keep hedging their bets, and this jackass is just helping them along. I wish I could just say F the insurance companies. I would love to see their financials. They are not in business to help us, but I know what happens for margins. Seems they just keep expanding theirs and the government has plenty of peeps in insurance, just like they do with tobacco, so it will not change. Too many factors to discuss on a forum, but it would suffice to say you will fire someone because of personal practices. That is less EOE than racism to me.

 

[binary visions]

Does smoking cause healthcare to go up.

That kind of speculation is so far out into space, it's almost surreal. Are you seriously suggesting that the hundreds of thousands of people who develop cancer and lung disease don't cost healthcare companies lots of money, and the healthcare companies don't try and recoup that money?

What you're saying with the rest of your post is, since we can't establish definitive healthcare costs associated with all types of unhealthy lifestyle choices, nobody should take any actions to ensure that they contribute to cutting healthcare costs.

In other words, if you can't sove the entire problem 100%, just throw up your hands and give up rather than taking steps towards the solution.

Gotcha.

Hey, when you get hurt and you can't leap back up and go for a ride, do you just throw up your hands and give up riding all together? Or do you do little things, day by day, that could help you towards your goal of riding again?

Smoking is a black and white target that can be removed from the increasing health care costs equation very easily, while most other factors aren't so easy to pick out.

 

[SkaredShtles]

and everybody has ADA.....

the health care industry are drug dealers. get your clients hooked, and you will forever have cash coming in.

as I said before, don't belive the hype.

And the population is playing right along......

Patient: Hey Doc - I seem to have a cold. Can you give me some of the good antibiotics? Yeah - the stuff that costs an arm and a leg. My insurance has a cheap-a$$ co-pay, so give me the good stuff.

Doctor: Your cold is viral. Antibiotics will do nothing.

Patient: Well I can't very well just do *nothing* about it........ give me some of those antibiotics, dammit.

-S.S.-