Companies firing people because they smoke

[Sac State]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...s_latimes/costsmakeemployersseesmokersasadrag

Is this right? What authority do companies have over what an employee does on their 16 hours out of the office? Especially if it is legal.

Looks like there are many topics that have the ability to generate discussion.

 

[ToyotaDoodz]

I created a poll to go with this thread.

PS, I'd LOVE to have 16 hours OUT of the office. Mine's 16 hours IN the office and on call 24x7x365.

This could be stretched to include employees that are over weight, etc., etc.

Many give incentives for weight loss.

 

[kglueck]

PS, I'd LOVE to have 16 hours OUT of the office. Mine's 16 hours IN the office and on call 24x7x365.

hehe...feel your pain! I managed to leave the office at 6pm yesterday AND turn off my pager and cellphone for an hour or two nap when I got home. man, it was heaven! :

Kev

 

[Sac State]

hehe...feel your pain! I managed to leave the office at 6pm yesterday AND turn off my pager and cellphone for an hour or two nap when I got home. man, it was heaven! :

Kev

slacker!

 

[ToyotaDoodz]

hehe...feel your pain! I managed to leave the office at 6pm yesterday AND turn off my pager and cellphone for an hour or two nap when I got home. man, it was heaven! :

Kev

They HAVE an off switch???? Damn, they never told me that.

Both my pager and cell are required to be on 24x7. I MUST be reachable no matter where I am in the USA, etc. Part of the job.

 

[olliebear]

I can see the employer's point.

Smokers--regular 1-2 packers type tend to use more sickdays, more health problems, more likely to have long term cardio-pulmonary issues in their 50s and 60s, causing significantly increased health insurance costs to the employer and lost productivity.

The difference between smoking and say, a family history of cancer is that smoking is a choice one makes, and since employement is at will in most places--the worker has no right to force the company to hire him, the company has no right to be forced to hire people that will cost them money.

On the other hand, how much can companies dictate in our own lives? What if your off work hobby is mountian climbing? Isn't that a high risk of injury? How about scuba diving? But what about someone who does not smoke, run, dive, or stay active outdoors --where there is always a risk of injury, but stays at home most of the time, isn't that person more prone to health issues from being sedentary?

What about race based health issues such as sickle cell anemia for blacks? Or that certain ethnic groups have a disproportionate
rate of cardio-pulmonary issues either higher or lower? Cna companies hire more or less of that group based on health issues?

Interesting issues that will no doubt go to the courts. The legal system can solve everything, right? If we can't iron it out, let some lawyers and a judge call the shots. Surely that are much wiser than we are......

 

[Sac State]

They HAVE an off switch???? Damn, they never told me that.

Pop out the battery. What do you do, are you the 2nd key of the NORAD missle launch system?

 

[Sac State]

Re: I can see the employer's point.

Smokers--regular 1-2 packers type tend to use more sickdays, more health problems, more likely to have long term cardio-pulmonary issues in their 50s and 60s, causing significantly increased health insurance costs to the employer and lost productivity.

The smokers in my firm are outside smoking for about 15 minutes for every hour worked. It is a sore spot with me, because I don't smoke and at the end of the week, these people have taken off 10hrs. of work. I would like 10 hrs/ added to my vacation time.

So I am being discriminated against!

BTW...My CEO, VP and other officers are all smokers.

 

[ToyotaDoodz]

Pop out the battery. What do you do, are you the 2nd key of the NORAD missle launch system?

<grin> Almost. I'm the senior network admin for a Fortune 500 company.

My company has been around since 1902. They used to not hire people that rode motorcycles and would not hire married women. If she got married, she had to quit. Would you believe these rules only changed in the 70's!!! Don't ask, I won't tell you . . .

 

[ToyotaDoodz]

I can see the company's side and the employee's side. Health costs are skyrocketing and they're looking for ways to mitigate that. I just don't know if it can be taken this far unless it was a pre-existing condition at the time you were hired.

 

[sharp4runr]

Re: Re: I can see the employer's point.

The smokers in my firm are outside smoking for about 15 minutes for every hour worked. It is a sore spot with me, because I don't smoke and at the end of the week, these people have taken off 10hrs. of work. I would like 10 hrs/ added to my vacation time.

So I am being discriminated against!

BTW...My CEO, VP and other officers are all smokers.

Yup that annoys me too bro. So I take my smoke break and it consists of coming on here :arrow:

 

[benhar]

Re: Re: I can see the employer's point.

The smokers in my firm are outside smoking for about 15 minutes for every hour worked. It is a sore spot with me, because I don't smoke and at the end of the week, these people have taken off 10hrs. of work. I would like 10 hrs/ added to my vacation time.

So I am being discriminated against!

BTW...My CEO, VP and other officers are all smokers.

Yeah, we gripe about that at work all the time. It's pretty much punishing the non-smokers.

So, try this... Step outside, light a cigarette and set it down in an ashtray or something, and step away about 15 feet while it burns down. While you are enjoying your break, if someone asks you what you are doing, say "I'm smoking my cigarette over there!"

 

[Kanab]

It's funny when companies try to control there employees, they can try but there are always employees that will figure away to get even. You screw with people and they will screw with you.

 

[dcampen]

http://www.drugpolicy.org/flash/smoking/

 

[24runners]

at the risk of people flaming me....here's my views...

i think the company should be able to have a policy for anything it wants...if it doesnt want to hire smokers....they shouldnt have to...i think that is their choice...might NOT be a good choice just might cost them the successfullness of their business...word would get around that they discriminate and it would hurt their business...probably do them in...
BUT i dont think they should be required to hire people they dont want
also, would you WANT to work for a company that you KNOW doesnt want you there? i wouldnt....

so, i say that it would be in the best interest of the company itself to make the appropriate policies and rules...but i dont think they should be 'required' to follow anything....if I own a business, I dont want someone telling me i have to hire people that smoke if I dont want to. (insurance issues aside)

now personally i wouldnt care if they smoked or not...i'm just throwin the ideas out there

if i owned a business i would try to make it as friendly as i could...for both employees and cusomers

seems to me that if it wasnt a "friendly" business to employees or customers, that it wouldnt last long anyway...problem solves itself *hehe*

 

[94yotarunner]

Re: I can see the employer's point.

Smokers--regular 1-2 packers type tend to use more sickdays, more health problems, more likely to have long term cardio-pulmonary issues in their 50s and 60s, causing significantly increased health insurance costs to the employer and lost productivity.

I don't agree with this. As in I agree with the generalization because in more than less times, its true. So should we descriminate against women who tend to take more sickdays over a career because of caring for kids, having kids? So should the elderly be descriminated against beause they take more sickdays to see the doctor, a debilitating immune system? I don't think so.

The difference between smoking and say, a family history of cancer is that smoking is a choice one makes, and since employement is at will in most places--the worker has no right to force the company to hire him, the company has no right to be forced to hire people that will cost them money.

What if I'm a healthy smoker? Is it fair to hire someone with a health disease instead of me, a healthy smoker? In your argument that they shouldn't be forced to hire people that will cost them money, you're saying companies should be allowed to descriminate against people who will use their medical insurance more, who will take more sick days because of a disease. Thats not fair.
But lets make the example a choice, like you said. What about alcoholism? The difference is that smoking proves to show itself as a problem throughout someones life, where alcoholism only shows itself in a desctructive sense later on. So I might be a mild smoker and I will be descriminated against, but a full raging alcoholic with liver disease that will show up and cost the company money would be allowed to be hired while I would not be. What about people who do risky sports like bungee jumping, skydiving, diving? Its a risky sport, it could cause the company more money because they could die and retraining someone costs money. What about people who drive dangerously.

I think you're focusing on more visible examples of poor choice in peoples lives, like smoking, when people make horrible choices that could be detrimental to their health, their future and the companies future.

I say let people do what they like... if it makes you happy go take a walk while they smoke, go stroll around the block, noone said you had to sit there and work if you didn't smoke.

On the other hand, how much can companies dictate in our own lives? What if your off work hobby is mountian climbing? Isn't that a high risk of injury? How about scuba diving? But what about someone who does not smoke, run, dive, or stay active outdoors --where there is always a risk of injury, but stays at home most of the time, isn't that person more prone to health issues from being sedentary?

What about race based health issues such as sickle cell anemia for blacks? Or that certain ethnic groups have a disproportionate
rate of cardio-pulmonary issues either higher or lower? Cna companies hire more or less of that group based on health issues?

Interesting issues that will no doubt go to the courts. The legal system can solve everything, right? If we can't iron it out, let some lawyers and a judge call the shots. Surely that are much wiser than we are.

I didn't see this last bit... so obviously you understand the other point of view.

 

[tomhaney1]

Re: Re: I can see the employer's point.

I don't agree with this. As in I agree with the generalization because in more than less times, its true. So should we descriminate against women who tend to take more sickdays over a career because of caring for kids, having kids? So should the elderly be descriminated against beause they take more sickdays to see the doctor, a debilitating immune system? I don't think so.


What if I'm a healthy smoker? Is it fair to hire someone with a health disease instead of me, a healthy smoker? In your argument that they shouldn't be forced to hire people that will cost them money, you're saying companies should be allowed to descriminate against people who will use their medical insurance more, who will take more sick days because of a disease. Thats not fair.
But lets make the example a choice, like you said. What about alcoholism? The difference is that smoking proves to show itself as a problem throughout someones life, where alcoholism only shows itself in a desctructive sense later on. So I might be a mild smoker and I will be descriminated against, but a full raging alcoholic with liver disease that will show up and cost the company money would be allowed to be hired while I would not be. What about people who do risky sports like bungee jumping, skydiving, diving? Its a risky sport, it could cause the company more money because they could die and retraining someone costs money. What about people who drive dangerously.

I think you're focusing on more visible examples of poor choice in peoples lives, like smoking, when people make horrible choices that could be detrimental to their health, their future and the companies future.

I say let people do what they like... if it makes you happy go take a walk while they smoke, go stroll around the block, noone said you had to sit there and work if you didn't smoke.



I didn't see this last bit... so obviously you understand the other point of view.

We shouldn't discriminate against anyone; however, there is a huge difference between discrimination based on ideology and decisions made based on facts. It is an irrefutable fact that smokers cost employers more money, are more unhealthy in general than non-smokers (in both acute and chronic illnesses). They [smokers], as previoiusly alluded to, also cost the company time as they are somehow allowed "smoke breaks" (what an asinine proposition) and even endanger the health of others who are around their smoke effluent. They take more time off from work due to illness and yes, have been scientifically proven by research to be less productive than non-smokers, especially in fine and gross motor skill tasks- why do you think smokers get into more automobile accidents. I can even post test results backing this if anyone wants to try to refute it. I mean, would you say a heroin addict is as competent as a non-addict, I don't think so- nicotene has the same addiction factor as crack-cocaine. And for the "discrimination" against women: women 1) cost more money to a company than men and 2)Yes, they should be held to the same number of sick/personal days as men. It is rediculous to say, well because you are a woman it is ok for you to abandon your job for 3 months because you CHOSE to have a child. Women weren't even taken seriously in the workplace until the advent and mass institution of birth control in the 1970's. They remain, to this day, a statistical liability to corporations but you will never hear that publicly stated because the ACLU will jump on that like Oprah on chocolate cake.

The only issue here is that our country runs on CAPITALISM, therefore the corporations that hold power and make people rich are at the steering wheel. Am I saying, keep women out of the workplace, of course not! But take a moment to reflect why they are trying to keep their employees from smoking- they are completely valid reasons. Most companies actually offer to pay for their employees to stop smoking! How many times have you heard of a company offering to send their employees to rehab for cocaine abuse?? None- that's what I thought. If they help their employees stop smoking they will not only be better employees but will be healthier individuals overall. Geez...

 

[Gromulus]

Re: Re: I can see the employer's point.

Originally posted by 94yotarunner
What if I'm a healthy smoker? .

OK, not quite an oxymoron, but I have a hard time with this concept!

 

[Xenon330]

If compaines are worried about Health Care being costly. They may not want to hire Women.

As we all know Women are not cheap!

Women have such a high risk of Breast Cancer. Some Company is going to say we can't hire you unless you have you breast removed.

It's all BS. We breath and are exposed to so much sh-t it doesn't matter.