not hiring smokers...fair or not? : RSS 0.91http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/low.mtmen-usnot hiring smokers...fair or not? : RSS 0.91http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/low.mtm<![CDATA[mewhitenoise @ 6/8/2008 4:26:42 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q39
Soon they will be telling war protesters they don't want to hire dissidents, Atheists they don't want nonbelievers, and polygamists they don't want to alienate the other employee's.]]><![CDATA[mewhitenoise @ 6/8/2008 4:20:37 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q38« mutil8or : First they came for the smokers , and I didn't stand up because I wasn't a smoker.
Then the came for the over weight people , and I didn't stand up because I wasn't over weight.
Then they came for the tattooed people.....and the list goes on and on and on....
Where does it end ?You couldn't have said it better.]]><![CDATA[gammerus @ 6/7/2008 12:05:25 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q37« madhatteraggie :
This is still a form of discrimination. Its a lifestyle I choose to live and you won't hire me because of it. f**k you!Businesses are allowed to discriminate against lifestyle choices. Hooters can discriminate against fat women, and dental offices can avoid hiring people who don't care for their teeth. It is a FREE country, and that means I should be free not to hire someone who's lifestyle choices compromise my company in any way.

It is only wrong to discriminate against those who cannot help, or choose not to change whatever it is that makes them less appealing to hire.]]><![CDATA[madhatteraggie @ 6/6/2008 10:17:38 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q36
This is still a form of discrimination. Its a lifestyle I choose to live and you won't hire me because of it. f**k you!

/end rant

P.S. I'm going through nicotine withdrawls right now from my decrease in smoking so bare with me people. I'm a little edgy.]]><![CDATA[ReBoot @ 6/6/2008 6:46:06 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q35<![CDATA[indisguise @ 6/6/2008 4:05:11 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q34« kassy : Soon people will be suing other people for the smell of second hand alcohol drifting over to their house from someone having a backyard party serving alcohol to everyone.they already are:
http://www.plime.com/plime-com/l/35758/1/
]]><![CDATA[kassy @ 6/6/2008 8:42:16 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q33In fact many doctors smoked.
Maybe I am not the norm, but after I started smoking my ashma went away and I lost weight and I did not get sick anymore. When I was overwieght as a child I was constantly sick with cold after cold.
I have been smoking for almost 46 years and I have a physical every year since I was 18 years of age. I do not take any drugs prescribed by a doctor or any other drugs that are legal or illegal. Knock on wood I am probable as healthy as any 20 yr old, I have chosen not to carry insurance not because I can't afford not too, but because it is not tax deductable for an individual and I did not want to be experimented on.
I try to eat right and have avoided alcohol and most processed foods and foods containing sugar.
Has anyone done a study on smokers that do not drink and how that affects their health.
From my experience I have noticed that people that smoke but do not consume alcohol they do not seem to have the health problems that drinkers do.
The insurance companies are experiancing cancelations of their policies because people can't afford the premiems because it is not tax deductable by an individual, unless it exceeds 7 1/2 % of AGI and if your subject to AMT it must exceed 10% of AGI. So as more and more people and companies quit carrying health insurance the permiems must go up. So the insurance companies raise the premiems on smokers to make up the difference.
Drinking is a lot more serious problem then smoking. Second hand alcohol does kill and causes a lot more problems than smoking tabaco.
I am also almost 65 and people think I am 45, I do not have wrinkles like they say smokers do, but I think I don't have wrinkels because I do not drink alcohol and if I want to I can walk 2 to 3 miles a day and not get out of breath. My husband quit smoking 15 years ago and gained 200 pounds and because he is grossly overweight he has a lot of heath problems.
I am self employed so I have no smoking restrictions. But I guess since I soon will be aplying for medicare insurance, but I do not think I will take part B, since I am not one to take many prescribed drugs, maybe I should apply for disability insurance since I am a smoker, and that would enable to get a higher payment instead of SS. I wonder how many people will apply for ssi because they smoke a legal substance.??
If the government knew it would cost them more money maybe they would stop this nonsense.
Soon people will be suing other people for the smell of second hand alcohol drifting over to their house from someone having a backyard party serving alcohol to everyone.]]><![CDATA[blurmore @ 3/18/2008 12:22:22 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q32

This is a product, of it. If they needed to fill a lot of jobs they would lower their standards...Unfortunately in some businesses you have herds of job seekers and not many jobs...then employers can be petty and picky. I'm gonna start a business and not hire people who drink (on or off the job) because drinking causes spousal abuse, low birth weight, and destroys the liver, all major drains on my health plan...I will however hire people who smoke weed, because those people are cool and more fun to hang out with at the office Christmas party...This is yet another example of why the traditional workplace/college/life and I would never get along, and I am glad I have found a way to make a living outside these places of senseless, controlling and mind numbing conformity. Hire who you want, give people a full physical if you want before you hire and insure them, but don't base hiring decisions on one legal habituation.]]><![CDATA[tundramonkey @ 3/17/2008 11:13:17 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q31
I'd personally rather hire a smoker than an obese person, though, but I'm not going to discriminate against either.

Actually, I lied there. I do field work, and while I've never had anyone huge apply for a job, I would likely not hire a very fat person to be my rock mule in the mountains.

The bottom line is: I'm damn glad that the majority of health care/insurance is dealt with by the province and not employers.]]><![CDATA[dollyllama @ 3/17/2008 9:58:02 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q30« lljames : I have to agree if my foot is in the shoe of the business owner.

I'm not willing to take up the cost of that person being sick because its self inflicted...

Its not fare to me and has nothing to do with discrimination.

Here is why. Dissabilities that people are born with like Cerebral Palsey, are not terminal.

Smokers create TERMINAL illnesses that I would have to pay for, for the rest of the suffering person's miserable life while they either end up on dissability or chemotherapy, radiation, and surgeries.

I was a smoker. So, please... Understand that I don't think I'm better than someone who smokes, but the statistics speak for themselves and money lost is money lost.

I recommend the book called "The Cost of Being Sick" by Nicholas Web. We are already paying Medicaid and Medicare to millions of people in the Trillions in the US, because cardio vascular and diabetes is putting our insurance costs to the point of UNNAFORDABLE!

Let's keep our insurance costs down and increase productivity in the work place while keeping the moral up with healthy non smoking people.

Make sense?Good idea.

Let's ban all the pregnant people too. And the one's with kids because they take off for every sniffle. Oh, let's ban the fat people cause you know heart disease and all. Let's ban the stupid people (please) because they're sure to do something do disrupt the workflow and can we please ban the dude with aftershave overdose cause it's making me gag and I might have to go home. Can we also ban the guy with mid-life crisis that drives the fancy sports car while trying to "connect" with the escort service from his cell while driving because that can't be good. Oh and that sheepish chick in accounting? She has allergies, to everything, better get rid of her too.

Yeah, let's make sure those insurance premiums stay low and let's inspect EVERYONE'S behavior, habits and peccadilloes, shall we?

/clue]]><![CDATA[mutil8or @ 3/17/2008 9:03:07 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q29« lljames :

I'm not willing to take up the cost of that person being sick because its self inflicted...

Let's keep our insurance costs down and increase productivity in the work place while keeping the moral up with healthy non smoking people.

First they came for the smokers , and I didn't stand up because I wasn't a smoker.
Then the came for the over weight people , and I didn't stand up because I wasn't over weight.
Then they came for the tattooed people.....and the list goes on and on and on....
Where does it end ?]]><![CDATA[donteatpoop @ 3/17/2008 8:44:14 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q28
*hack*

Man, all this dust, all these old threads.

*a-choo*]]><![CDATA[Nunkii @ 3/17/2008 8:26:36 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q27« Phildo : I apologize for getting off thread but I was only trying to point out that there are many addictions people have that cost insurance companies money. I will exclude examples as this isn't the time nor place! Congrats BB on 7 years... that's great!How does coffee affect medical inssurance?]]><![CDATA[lljames @ 3/17/2008 8:00:58 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q26
I'm not willing to take up the cost of that person being sick because its self inflicted...

Its not fare to me and has nothing to do with discrimination.

Here is why. Dissabilities that people are born with like Cerebral Palsey, are not terminal.

Smokers create TERMINAL illnesses that I would have to pay for, for the rest of the suffering person's miserable life while they either end up on dissability or chemotherapy, radiation, and surgeries.

I was a smoker. So, please... Understand that I don't think I'm better than someone who smokes, but the statistics speak for themselves and money lost is money lost.

I recommend the book called "The Cost of Being Sick" by Nicholas Web. We are already paying Medicaid and Medicare to millions of people in the Trillions in the US, because cardio vascular and diabetes is putting our insurance costs to the point of UNNAFORDABLE!

Let's keep our insurance costs down and increase productivity in the work place while keeping the moral up with healthy non smoking people.

Make sense?]]><![CDATA[suebe @ 6/16/2007 9:11:58 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q25« steelshooter : Good luck! I have my fingers crossed for you. (And it really makes typing tough.)Thanks. Nothing like starting a new job, moving out of my bf's place and maybe buying my place for a little stress.]]><![CDATA[steelshooter @ 6/16/2007 8:56:06 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q24« suebe : I will let you know. The program is supposed to be 4 weeks - 1st week on low dose, then next 3 weeks on the regular dosage. A co-worker's husband quit in 10 days. I'm just plotting my start date so I have the best chance of success.

When I quit in '92, I attended a Green hypnosis seminar - you get reinforcement tapes and can attend a seminar forever if you need to. I went to one a couple of years ago, but it didn't click at the time.

I'm going to get those tapes (now CDs) out too.Good luck! I have my fingers crossed for you. (And it really makes typing tough.)]]><![CDATA[suebe @ 6/16/2007 1:35:28 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q23« steelshooter : Let me know how these work out. My wife's doctor has suggested them for her, but they are tweaking her diabetes meds and want to wait til that is more stable.I will let you know. The program is supposed to be 4 weeks - 1st week on low dose, then next 3 weeks on the regular dosage. A co-worker's husband quit in 10 days. I'm just plotting my start date so I have the best chance of success.

When I quit in '92, I attended a Green hypnosis seminar - you get reinforcement tapes and can attend a seminar forever if you need to. I went to one a couple of years ago, but it didn't click at the time.

I'm going to get those tapes (now CDs) out too.]]><![CDATA[steelshooter @ 6/16/2007 1:51:47 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q22« suebe :

I recently filled a prescription for a smoking cessation drug, which my insurance did not cover - it was $128. I'm working on my new stop smoking plan now.Let me know how these work out. My wife's doctor has suggested them for her, but they are tweaking her diabetes meds and want to wait til that is more stable.]]><![CDATA[steelshooter @ 6/16/2007 1:47:18 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q21« WheresMySanity : getting a cup of coffee usually does not take ten minutes per hour to accomplish. plus, most people drink coffee while working or in meetings, while smokers leave the office for a smoke break.Look around a typical office. There are as many hallway bull sessions and breaks among the non-smokers. Don't think that because they are not standing outside that they must be heads down and productive. Also do not assume that because I am standing outside I am not working. My job involves a lot of times where I need to just think about how to do something before I act, or talk to someone that also smokes, or hold a conference call, etc. (You would be suprised how much work gets done in a smoking area.)

I really hated those places that assumed you had to be sitting at your desk typing to accomplish work. They typically drive out the THINKERS. If they make identical widgets, day after day, they may not want thinkers. Most other companies should require more of it.]]><![CDATA[steelshooter @ 6/16/2007 1:40:23 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q20« Alton : It's a slippery slope. What's next? A cholestrol test? How about requiring a complete family medical history? Gene test? How about a weight test? Anybody that's more than 10% overweight has 2 months to lose the extra weight or they are no longer eligible to work here. Would that be fair? Legal?

Surely someone who's had cancer or has diabetes is going to have more medical issues. Should they be excluded from a company?

Medical costs are only going to get worse. Especially as the baby boomers reach their senior years. Someone is eventually going to have to address the issue instead of finding means to cut corners at the expense of so called higher risk groups.The courts already ruled that hiring/firing decisions based on genetic testing is illegal. It is also illegal for life insurance companies to do genetic testing for RISK of a disease. (They can decline you for having a disease, or for too many risk factors, but they cannot require a DNA test for hereditary indicators.

Also, some jobs CAN fire you for how you look or not meeting certain physical standards, but it must be a requirement of the job. (Ususally these are in the entertainment field.) They cannot just come in and fire you for being fat unless the job changes in such a way that you must be thin to perform it.

I know that when I interview someone, I cannot ask any health questions, and if they volunteer the information I must stop them. Just knowing someone (or their dependent) has a disease such as diabetes opens up the liability of being sued if they are not hired.

Illegal drugs can be tested for, but legal prescriptions and alcohol cannot be. (You gotta show up to work drunk or miss work because of drinking.)

I am sure this will see the inside of a courtroom. I am also sure that it will depend more on where it happens than precedent to date.]]><![CDATA[steelshooter @ 6/16/2007 1:31:17 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q19« misterc :

Edit: I forgot to mention that I recently heard someone try to claim that "addictions" are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have no idea if there is any case law that supports this, but that would certainly be an interesting sidebar to the discussion.Under ADA, you cannot descriminate against someone who is an admitted addict. You can, however, fire (or refuse to hire) someone who is currently using illegal substances. (ie You cannot fire me if I say I go to NA, but you can if I test positive for current pot usage.)]]><![CDATA[imnotyoo @ 6/15/2007 7:50:34 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q18« WheresMySanity : I have noticed that some buisnesses now are refusing to hire smokers. Not just not letting them take smoke breaks, but if they are cought smoking anywhere or found to have nicotine in their systems they can be fired for it.

My husband (who is a non-smoker) who has been job hunting had to go through drug screening for nicotine for 2 places. When there companies decided to go smoke-free, these companies told their employees that they had a definite date to stop smoking or they would be fired. and they refuse to hire anyone who smokes.

Now part of me says that it's a good idea. Non-smokers don't take smoke breaks. It also saves companies a ton of money on health insurance. It's also difficult for customers if their sales people reek of smoke.

BUt then, it's disturbing that some companies are not hiring people because they are more expensive on their health insurance than others. This just seems like one step away from not hiring disabled/chronically ill people because of the cost of insurance.

so what do you think?The job wasn't for an anti-smoking ad agency was it?]]><![CDATA[suebe @ 6/15/2007 7:32:55 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q17
I'm starting a new job where there is a 10% premium for smokers on the health insurance. The company sponsors stop smoking programs and if you are smoke free for 180 days (I think) you can get non-smoking status.

I recently filled a prescription for a smoking cessation drug, which my insurance did not cover - it was $128. I'm working on my new stop smoking plan now.]]><![CDATA[pjanaway @ 6/15/2007 7:18:30 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q16<![CDATA[donteatpoop @ 6/13/2007 4:59:29 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q15<![CDATA[kirkmcd @ 6/13/2007 4:15:53 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q14« BrightonCub : Is this not discrimination?In the US, smokers are not a protected class. You can discminate against them all you want.


Many companies are starting this policy because they can get better health care rates.]]><![CDATA[Milkshake @ 12/18/2006 7:04:04 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q13
At least thats my little jooble.
Its kinda like not employing someone cos they eat horseraddish. Its got nothing to do with work or anybody.
Fine, keep it off the premises. My last boss made everyone stand in the car park but if he tried a stunt like that he'd get shut down. Its just not cricket what what!

PS - Well done BB - Have a cig on me. ;)]]><![CDATA[teaya21 @ 12/17/2006 5:37:31 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q12
while smokers leave the office for a smoke break.
doesn't mean they aren't talking about work or even doing work whilst they are out having a break. I've often gone for a smoke break and achieved more out there work wise then I would have in the office.]]><![CDATA[xxxxxpp @ 12/16/2006 9:30:38 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q11<![CDATA[Phildo @ 12/16/2006 12:34:57 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q10<![CDATA[Bornbad @ 12/15/2006 11:30:53 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q9(pretty much) can make the rules for their company. I just passed my 7year quit smoking anniversary on Dec. 13. Yay, me! Health ins. is very costly. Smokers cost my company $400 a month no matter what their age or anything else.
P.S. Let's not go off thread for eaters, drinkers, etc. This was a smoking issue.]]><![CDATA[WheresMySanity @ 12/15/2006 11:13:08 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q8« Phildo : I've always found it offensive that smokers take the brunt of everything. Nobody thinks twice about caffeine users and the time wasted getting a fix of that drug!
getting a cup of coffee usually does not take ten minutes per hour to accomplish. plus, most people drink coffee while working or in meetings, while smokers leave the office for a smoke break.

Health Insurance companies will raise their costs for smokers (which is paid by the employers and employees). Every health and life insurance policy I dealt with asked if I was a smoker. I have never heard of an insurance company charging a caffiene drinker more just because they drink caffiene.]]><![CDATA[Phildo @ 12/15/2006 9:29:15 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q7DRUG. I wonder how company executives would feel about moral and productivity if they got rid of that addiction!


*** Yes I smoke, trying to quit! 6 years without caffeine, never felt better! ***]]><![CDATA[2manyusernames @ 12/15/2006 1:17:56 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q6
Denying them the right to smoke while they are off duty is wrong.

As Alton said, what's next? Can't hire people who don't exercise enough? Fire people who engage in dangerous behavior such as skydiving. Fire people who are not in a monogamous relation since they might catch a disease. Etc etc.

No the whole premise is horrible]]><![CDATA[Alton @ 12/15/2006 12:37:48 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q5
Surely someone who's had cancer or has diabetes is going to have more medical issues. Should they be excluded from a company?

Medical costs are only going to get worse. Especially as the baby boomers reach their senior years. Someone is eventually going to have to address the issue instead of finding means to cut corners at the expense of so called higher risk groups.]]><![CDATA[BrightonCub @ 12/15/2006 12:21:54 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q4<![CDATA[tomphoolry @ 12/15/2006 12:20:24 PM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q3<![CDATA[misterc @ 12/15/2006 11:39:52 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/business/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q2
But on the other hand, if the company is willing to let go of it's best people because they smoke, well it's their loss, and their competitors gain, right?

Of course, I'm sure that cigar smoking is a-ok, right? The upper crust can't be cut for such trivial things.

(I know that you're not supposed to regularly smoke cigars. Hell, I smoke cigars myself. But I'm sure that the occasional cigarette smoker would probably get pink-slipped if they were "busted".)

Edit: I forgot to mention that I recently heard someone try to claim that "addictions" are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act. I have no idea if there is any case law that supports this, but that would certainly be an interesting sidebar to the discussion.]]>
not hiring smokers...fair or not?
 < 1 2 >
<![CDATA[WheresMySanity @ 12/15/2006 11:22:41 AM]]>http://www.plime.com/f/453/1/rss0_91.rss#q1
My husband (who is a non-smoker) who has been job hunting had to go through drug screening for nicotine for 2 places. When there companies decided to go smoke-free, these companies told their employees that they had a definite date to stop smoking or they would be fired. and they refuse to hire anyone who smokes.

Now part of me says that it's a good idea. Non-smokers don't take smoke breaks. It also saves companies a ton of money on health insurance. It's also difficult for customers if their sales people reek of smoke.

BUt then, it's disturbing that some companies are not hiring people because they are more expensive on their health insurance than others. This just seems like one step away from not hiring disabled/chronically ill people because of the cost of insurance.

so what do you think?]]>