Company Fires Smokers!

[Nbadan]

Company Fires Smokers
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

POSTED: 5:53 pm EST January 24, 2005
UPDATED: 6:26 pm EST January 24, 2005


LANSING, Mich. -- A Michigan health care company has fired four of its employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

The company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after-hours, or at home.

The founder of Weyco Inc. said the company doesn't want to pay the higher health care costs associated with smoking.

The KCRA Channel (http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/4125477/detail.html)

I suppose alcohol drinkers and those whom are over-weight are next? Back down the road to prohibition...

How some people do forget or never took a history lesson.

Speaking of history lessons some may or may not know that the original Prohibition of the 1920's was in fact sponsored by corporations, in the background of course. This thinking was for the working person to produce more while on company time (i.e. not to come into work with a hangover). Of course it took the crash of Wall Street to make Big Business look like a bunch of idiots and eventually have the law removed. But, Big Business being back in the saddle once again, we are about to revisit the past. Forward to the past.

[Drachen]

speaking of which, gotta hit the corner store.

[3rdCoast]

thats ridiculous

[Clandestino]

it is an easy way for the company to save on healthcare costs.. smokers more than any group for the company in terms of healthcare costs and number of days missed from work...

remember, a company doesn't hire people just because they want to give people jobs..they hire people to make them money...if some people are losing them money, then they have a right/need/duty to fire them...

[tsb2000]

I think they should enact the same policy for those heffers who eat Twinkies and clog their arteries with that delicious creme filling. :lol

[SpursWoman]

This is the second day my son is home sick with the Flu. Should I check his backpack for tobacco?

:wtf

[Guru of Nothing]

I think they should enact the same policy for those heffers who eat Twinkies and clog their arteries with that delicious creme filling. :lol


You laugh, but that is the direction we are headed. Personally, I don't mind, because I'd rather not subsidize other people's vices.

[Hook Dem]

I think they should enact the same policy for those heffers who eat Twinkies and clog their arteries with that delicious creme filling. :lol
Here Here! Everyone knows those fat slobs are more healthy. Right Dan? :lol I don't think anyone will argue that smoking is good for you but alcohol is in the same category. Is that next???? Let's hope not. Gonna be a lot of "speak easys" pop up.

[Clandestino]

right, but the facts are, smoking has shown cause companies to pay more for insurance, lose money on unproductive sick employees, etc...

also, it is the companies choice to hire/fire who they want.. why can't a company choose who it wants to work for them?

[Clandestino]

This is the second day my son is home sick with the Flu. Should I check his backpack for tobacco?

:wtf

you never know mom!

[Sec24Row7]

People like Dan are the reason that we have all these wacky anti smoking laws in the first place and now he is surprised that companies are fireing people for smoking?

Haha.

Give it up.

Which side of the fence are you on?

[Clandestino]

People like Dan are the reason that we have all these wacky anti smoking laws in the first place and now he is surprised that companies are fireing people for smoking?

Haha.

Give it up.

Which side of the fence are you on?

dan: smokers are infringing on my right to breath fresh air...
gov: ok, we will ban them in public buildings

headline: workers fired for smoking
dan: this is wrong...those poor smokers!

[sbsquared]

While I agree that smoking is a bad habit and causes lots of problems - I have a problem with people being fired over it. It seems we could be headed into a future that would penalize employees for any number of health-related issues. As mentioned above, would overweight employees be next? If the trend continued - then only the "beautiful people" would have jobs! This sounds like a scene out of the movie "Demolition Man" - remember they outlawed anything that was bad for you - including the transfer of bodily fluids!

[Clandestino]

While I agree that smoking is a bad habit and causes lots of problems - I have a problem with people being fired over it. It seems we could be headed into a future that would penalize employees for any number of health-related issues. As mentioned above, would overweight employees be next? If the trend continued - then only the "beautiful people" would have jobs! This sounds like a scene out of the movie "Demolition Man" - remember they outlawed anything that was bad for you - including the transfer of bodily fluids!

well, there aren't enough beautiful people in the world to run the world so the so called fat and ugly will have jobs too..

[SpursWoman]

I can see the argument from a stand point of company paid life insurance, or prohibiting smoking in the offices/on the premises, but firing them all together...when they've already been employed there (I presume) for a while?

Now they can all get on unemployment and raise the company's rates that way. And there's a lawsuit in there somewhere, I'm sure...that's not going to be costly. :fro

I didn't realize smoking had reached "Have you ever committed or been convicted of a felony" status yet....

[Clandestino]

I can see the argument from a stand point of company paid life insurance, or prohibiting smoking in the offices/on the premises, but firing them all together...when they've already been employed there (I presume) for a while?

Now they can all get on unemployment and raise the company's rates that way. And there's a lawsuit in there somewhere, I'm sure...that's not going to be costly. :fro

I didn't realize smoking had reached "Have you ever committed or been convicted of a felony" status yet....

it is not just life insurance, but regular everyday health insurance too. also, the company probablys figure the cost of all this litigation(if there is any) will still cost them far less than employing smokers.. i'm sure they've done their cost-benefit analysis!

bottom line... if something detracts from the company it should be done away with...

[SpursWoman]

I don't know.....genetics plays a huge role in someone's health, whether they smoke or not. I know people who smoke like a chimney and never miss work due to illness, and those who don't who are constantly sick. You don't have to smoke to get cancer or heart disease or have respiratory problems...it doesn't help, but it's not a given.

I wonder if there are actual studies comparing the health related issues and the costs of people who smoke v. people who are obese. Both of which could be categorized as "voluntary" conditions. I can't possibly see how you can ban one and not the other.

[desflood]

One way or the other, I smell a big fat lawsuit coming.

[travis2]

One way or the other, I smell a big fat lawsuit coming.

Nahhhhh...it'll be settled out-of-court in smoke-filled back rooms...

[SpursWoman]

http://www.boomspeed.com/sweetc/ydoh.gif

That was really baaaaaaaah'd, travis.


:lol

[Spurminator]

If the problem is health insurance costs, then any changes should begin with the providers.

[Yonivore]

Us fatties are next!

[SpursWoman]

If the problem is health insurance costs, then any changes should begin with the providers.

Are they self-insured though? That might make the difference.

[Yonivore]

I think a company has every right to limit it's exposure to exorbitant insurance premiums by hiring only people who engage in healthy lifestyles.

[Shelly]

But what if these healthy people suck at their jobs, thus costing the company more money to fix their mistakes?????

[Useruser666]

But what if these healthy people suck at their jobs, thus costing the company more money to fix their mistakes?????

Then smoking should become mandatory!!

[Shelly]

Well, then! There you go!

[tsb2000]

I think what it should logically come to is that smokers will have to pay higher health insurance premiums, just like they pay higher life insurance premiums. Makes sense to me- if a person lives a healthy lifestyle, they should pay less. If not, they pay more. :)

[Drachen]

This seems reasonable, and I am a smoker. Although, unless ALL unhealthy lifestyles (obeseness, etc) are included, expect a fight.

[SpursWoman]

I think what it should logically come to is that smokers will have to pay higher health insurance premiums, just like they pay higher life insurance premiums. Makes sense to me- if a person lives a healthy lifestyle, they should pay less. If not, they pay more. :)


I think people with a long family history of heart disease, cancer & diabetes should pay more, too. :)


And people who drive cars, and live in smoggy cities, who jog on busy streets.....


































[/smartypants] :lol

[tsb2000]

- and why not? Some cities have higher life insurance premiums than others, and car insurance premiums as well. Why not health insurance? I pay through the nose for car insurance because simply because I live in Phoenix, but my driving record is perfect. To get life insurance, one must take a physical, and their health as well as their family history is taken into consideration when determining the premiums. Health insurance should be the same. I say that even though I'd end up paying a lot more for it if that were the case. :)

[Clandestino]

but who cares what we think??? it should be the companies business who they hire and fire... why should anyone be able to tell a company who to hire and fire??? whether a company says they don't want smokers or fat people it should be their decision...

also, studies have shown that people more appealing to the eye get more job offers...

[Yonivore]

But what if these healthy people suck at their jobs, thus costing the company more money to fix their mistakes?????
Competence is a separate issue. But, again, a company should have the same ability to fire the incompetent as they do the costly.

[exstatic]

...right up to the point where they fire the pharmacist who won't fill the morning after pill prescription, right conservatives?

I think that if it ain't illegal, and it ain't happening in the workplace, the company should have no say. They could make it VERY difficult by denying any smoke breaks, forbidding smoking on company property, etc., but to outright terminate someone is not good.

Oh, and BTW, health premium contributions for smoking and non-smoking employees ARE different. I've been both for the same company.

[SpursWoman]

Competence is a separate issue. But, again, a company should have the same ability to fire the incompetent as they do the costly.


I think the whole point is that if they are going to fire the smokers because allegedly they cost more and it's a voluntary (for lack of a better word) behavior or condition, than they need to do the same for obese people. Do you need a run-down of health conditions that are proven to arise out of that? It wouldn't surprise me if it ended up being even more costly than smoking.

[whottt]

You laugh, but that is the direction we are headed. Personally, I don't mind, because I'd rather not subsidize other people's vices.


Yeah? Well I'd rather not subsidize what ever the hell it is that smokers subsidize with the 50% tax on every pack of cigarettes...they are about to jack up the tax again to curb the Texas Legislatures cuts of the CPS program.


If all smokers quit smoking you'd be amazed at the negtive financial impact it would have...don't talk to us about subsidizing...Non-smokers get a hell of a lot more out of smokers than the other way around.

[Clandestino]

...right up to the point where they fire the pharmacist who won't fill the morning after pill prescription, right conservatives?

I think that if it ain't illegal, and it ain't happening in the workplace, the company should have no say. They could make it VERY difficult by denying any smoke breaks, forbidding smoking on company property, etc., but to outright terminate someone is not good.

Oh, and BTW, health premium contributions for smoking and non-smoking employees ARE different. I've been both for the same company.

the company should be able to fire him(pharmacist) too. if ANYONE does not adhere to company policies or costs the company more than they are worth the company should have the right to do as they please...

honestly...a company should be allowed to do as it pleases as long as it does not violate any laws.. firing people for costing them money is not illegal the last i heard...

also, the extra premium the smokers pay is obviously not enough...and that doesn't cover the fact that smokers miss more work and take 500 smokebreaks a day..

[exstatic]

...and that doesn't cover the fact that smokers miss more work and take 500 smokebreaks a day..

The fire them AFTER they exhibit the behaviors, not before. They can be fired for taking too many breaks. They can be fired for missing too much work.

[Guru of Nothing]

Yeah? Well I'd rather not subsidize what ever the hell it is that smokers subsidize with the 50% tax on every pack of cigarettes...they are about to jack up the tax again to curb the Texas Legislatures cuts of the CPS program.


If all smokers quit smoking you'd be amazed at the negtive financial impact it would have...don't talk to us about subsidizing...Non-smokers get a hell of a lot more out of smokers than the other way around.

That's interesting, and I missed that one completely, but that is all I say because I don't how much comes in and how much goes where.

[Clandestino]

Yeah? Well I'd rather not subsidize what ever the hell it is that smokers subsidize with the 50% tax on every pack of cigarettes...they are about to jack up the tax again to curb the Texas Legislatures cuts of the CPS program.


If all smokers quit smoking you'd be amazed at the negtive financial impact it would have...don't talk to us about subsidizing...Non-smokers get a hell of a lot more out of smokers than the other way around.

i seriously doubt non-smokers get more our of smokers than the other way around... even small things that smokers do add up... hiring people to pick up all the cigarette butts and clean ashtrays is a tiny one.. all the health issues are the biggest ones..

however i don't agree with all the bans on smoking the government is doing..i still think we should let our businesses decide what they want to do..

[SpursWoman]

also, the extra premium the smokers pay is obviously not enough...and that doesn't cover the fact that smokers miss more work and take 500 smokebreaks a day..

I don't know where the hell you work, but if someone is taking 500 smoke breaks a day...smoking at least one per trip, that person is smoking minimum 25 packs per day.

I can't imagine they'd cost anyone that much money for very long.....they'd be dead. :wow :lol

And I hate to blow your other theory, but could you back up that "smokers miss more work" bit? I don't think my dad missed a day of work his entire life and he smoked like it was going out of style....which it was, apparently. :lol

[Clandestino]

I don't know where the hell you work, but if someone is taking 500 smoke breaks a day...smoking at least one per trip, that person is smoking minimum 25 packs per day.

I can't imagine they'd cost anyone that much money for very long.....they'd be dead. :wow :lol

And I hate to blow your other theory, but could you back up that "smokers miss more work" bit? I don't think my dad missed a day of work his entire life and he smoked like it was going out of style....which it was, apparently. :lol

LOL.. ok, not 500, but maybe 499!

anyway:

A study of 2,500 postal employees published in the American Journal of Public Health found that the absentee rate for smokers was 33% higher than for nonsmokers.
•Smokers are absent from work 50% more than nonsmokers. They're also 50% more likely to be hospitalized and have 15% higher disability rates.
•Employees who take four 10-minute smoking breaks a day actually work one month less per year than workers who don't take smoking breaks.

http://www.workingsmokefree.com/whygosmokefree/WSF%20fact%20sheet%20-%20Costs%20to%20employers.pdf

[SpursWoman]

LOL.. ok, not 500, but maybe 499!

anyway:

A study of 2,500 postal employees published in the American Journal of Public Health found that the absentee rate for smokers was 33% higher than for nonsmokers.
•Smokers are absent from work 50% more than nonsmokers. They're also 50% more likely to be hospitalized and have 15% higher disability rates.
•Employees who take four 10-minute smoking breaks a day actually work one month less per year than workers who don't take smoking breaks.

http://www.workingsmokefree.com/whygosmokefree/WSF%20fact%20sheet%20-%20Costs%20to%20employers.pdf


I can appreciate the sample, but I know quite a number of smokers who are never sick. I also know a lot of people with allergies that call in sick an outrageous number of times.

And btw, you do realize if you work an 8 hour day you are entitled, by law , to two 15 minute breaks and an hour lunch (or at least 1/2 hour?), right? Regardless of your smoking status. Just because you don't smoke and don't take the breaks doesn't necessarily give you a right to complain about it. You can take them if you want to.....go for a short walk or something. :)

[Yonivore]

...right up to the point where they fire the pharmacist who won't fill the morning after pill prescription, right conservatives?
I had no problem with him being fired.

[Shelly]

Re: smoke breaks

uh....how many 'internet' breaks do we all take? I'm sure they waste just as much, if not more, of a company's productivity time. A lot of people do personal things instead of working on company time.

[JoeChalupa]

From what I've heard the company announced this change in policy many months ago and about 14 smokers quit in order to comply with company policy.
So these who got fired where not "surprised" by the company and they very well knew the consequences of their actions.

That being said I can see both sides. As a company they have a right to have a policy and have their employees abide by it.
Is it a legal policy? Only lawsuits will tell.

But every single life and health insurance company has higher rates for smokers and yes, they test for it too. They'll come and pump more blood and urine out of you that you'll be eating cookies and drinking juice the rest of the day.

But urine tests can be a bummer too.

[scott]

Companies should be able to hire and fire who they please.

[JoeChalupa]

I agree.
Sincerely,
Donald Trump

[Hook Dem]

...right up to the point where they fire the pharmacist who won't fill the morning after pill prescription, right conservatives?

I think that if it ain't illegal, and it ain't happening in the workplace, the company should have no say. They could make it VERY difficult by denying any smoke breaks, forbidding smoking on company property, etc., but to outright terminate someone is not good.

Oh, and BTW, health premium contributions for smoking and non-smoking employees ARE different. I've been both for the same company.
Out of all the posts on this subject, this is the one I agree with mostly. Some in here evidently have never heard of "Affirmative Action".

[SpursWoman]

I'm sort of perplexed, I guess you can say. I worked in Human Resources and Employee Benefits for god knows how long, and I have NEVER heard of anyone taking a piss test for HEALTH insurance coverage...or rates quoted for smoking/non-smoking participants. I've definitely seen it for life insurance, but never health. What insurance provider does this?

[whottt]

I'm just glad to know this...

I've been looking for a way to dump all the goddamn diabetics that work for me...

If those Sugar loving fucks knew how to control their vices they wouldn't be so goddamn unhealthy. So I'm gonna fire their animal killing insulin shooting asses because they are prone to strokes and all sorts of other shit.

Anyone that eats sugar is goneamundo...diabetics too.

Ditto the motherfucking cripples with those fucked up diseases who are likely to have medical problems down the road.

You ever see how much time a cocksucker in a wheelchair takes to do something? Takes those slow motherfuckers forever to get shit done...why should I pay for that kind of work when I can get a healthy motherfucker instead?

Next...Red meat is one of the leading causes of colon cancer, heart disease and heart attack and people that consume red meat more than 3 times a week are 50% more likely to develop colon cancer or some other shit...I'm going to fire their barbaric asses. I aint going to be paying for their fucking vice. I'm not going to hire anyone that eats redmeat.

Furthermore, heavy snorers are likely to have sleep apnea which can lead to all sorts of bad shit, heart diseases, depression, unproductive work environment, high blood pressure...If they snore, I am going to fire their fucking ass.

Spending more than 1 hour of leisure time on the computer leads to an increased risk of cancer, eye sight, back and joint problems...anyone that spends any more than an hour on their computer at home is not going to work for me.


Finally...a recent study proved that people that eat runny bullshit 3 times a day directly out of a cows ass are 10% more efficient than people who don't, they are 10 times less likely to call in sick, or develop any other health problems, therefore, from now all my employess will be required to eat runny bullshit out of a cows ass three times a day. If they want to work for me.

Laugh now...but it's coming like a freight train. The insurance companies are now officially dictating employer policy...that should scare the living hell out of anyone with a brain.

And Clandestino...

I pay an increased price on cigarettes for all the class action lawsuits in the mid 90's...I pay a 40 cent luxury tax on those cigs in addition to normal sales tax, I pay much higher insurance rates as well.


Now can you tell me something you buy on a daily basis that I don't that has that kind of tax?

They are about to raise the tax on cigarettes 1 full dollar to bail the state government CPS services out of getting it's ass sued off for incompetence, that has absolutely nothing to do with smokers...

Who does CPS protect?

Children and the elderly...

Well Children are non-smokers in the eyes of the law...And since smokers are less likely to live to be elderly(which is why we pay higher insurance rates) I would say that the elderly can pretty much be considered non-smokers as well.

A large portion of my taxes goes to the elderly and the poor, well the poor can't fucking afford cigarattes and there aren't near as many oldsmokers as their are non.

On top of that it is a government branch...the same government who has outlawed my right to smoke even outside of many places in Austin...that damn sure aint a smoking body...

Ironically all the uptight non smokers have pretty much crippled downtown Austin financially...well done...Since smokers tend to eat out more.

So I want to you tell me what you are paying that goes into my pocket to help me.

Don't claim increased insurance rates because I already pay that myself, and I pay for the higher costs of other smokers with every pack I buy.

And don't claim butt pick up either...Non smokers litter too

[whottt]

Recent studies have found that people who run 10 miles a day are just flat out better than other people...Insurance companies have now begun to have different rates for people who run 10 miles a day...this has lead to an increased in employers who will not hire anyone who does not run 10 miles a day.


Recent studies have discovered that fat people are more likely to have heart attacks and other shit...Insurance companies are now offering separates for unfat people...this has lead to an increase in employers who are no longer hiring fat people.

Recent studies have discovered that skinny people are more likely to suffer crippling arthritis...and so on and so forth.

In todays news...an employer has announced he will no longer be hiring people that are non aryan, since Aryan's are perfect, better workers, etc...

Just keep drawing that I'm better than you line...eventually you are going to wind up on the wrong side of it.

[travis2]

...right up to the point where they fire the pharmacist who won't fill the morning after pill prescription, right conservatives?


No...here's another conservative who thinks he could have been fired.

But as usual, your freak-liberal outlook prevents you from seeing truth...such as conservatives actually living by the rules they advocate. Unlike liberals such as yourself, who concern themselves much more with telling other people how to live and fucking up their lives, since they've already fucked up their own.

[Useruser666]

Re: smoke breaks

uh....how many 'internet' breaks do we all take? I'm sure they waste just as much, if not more, of a company's productivity time. A lot of people do personal things instead of working on company time.

I thought it was my job to post here?!!

[Shelly]

ssssshhhhhhh....Big Brother is watching!

[Spurminator]

I don't recall anyone saying the pharmacist shouldn't have been fired. I believe the debate was over whether or not he should have been incarcerated.

[Samurai Jane]

I'm sort of perplexed, I guess you can say. I worked in Human Resources and Employee Benefits for god knows how long, and I have NEVER heard of anyone taking a piss test for HEALTH insurance coverage...or rates quoted for smoking/non-smoking participants. I've definitely seen it for life insurance, but never health. What insurance provider does this?

I had to do it here, along with blood tests, when they were signing me up for my insurance but we all have individual plans. I'm not sure if its different for those with HMOs or whatever.

[SpursWoman]

I had to do it here, along with blood tests, when they were signing me up for my insurance but we all have individual plans. I'm not sure if its different for those with HMOs or whatever.

I thought about that after I posted....it may be different on individual plans as opposed to the group plans you get through work, which is what I'm used to seeing.

[JoeChalupa]

I would have thought conservatives would have been for employer's rights.
I don't think they are doing anything illegal. Not smoking is a requirment of employment. Just as passing a urine test for drugs is a requirment of employment.

Will the ACLU get in on this?

[Hook Dem]

I'm just glad to know this...

I've been looking for a way to dump all the goddamn diabetics that work for me...

If those Sugar loving fucks knew how to control their vices they wouldn't be so goddamn unhealthy. So I'm gonna fire their animal killing insulin shooting asses because they are prone to strokes and all sorts of other shit.

Anyone that eats sugar is goneamundo...diabetics too.

Ditto the motherfucking cripples with those fucked up diseases who are likely to have medical problems down the road.

You ever see how much time a cocksucker in a wheelchair takes to do something? Takes those slow motherfuckers forever to get shit done...why should I pay for that kind of work when I can get a healthy motherfucker instead?

Next...Red meat is one of the leading causes of colon cancer, heart disease and heart attack and people that consume red meat more than 3 times a week are 50% more likely to develop colon cancer or some other shit...I'm going to fire their barbaric asses. I aint going to be paying for their fucking vice. I'm not going to hire anyone that eats redmeat.

Furthermore, heavy snorers are likely to have sleep apnea which can lead to all sorts of bad shit, heart diseases, depression, unproductive work environment, high blood pressure...If they snore, I am going to fire their fucking ass.

Spending more than 1 hour of leisure time on the computer leads to an increased risk of cancer, eye sight, back and joint problems...anyone that spends any more than an hour on their computer at home is not going to work for me.


Finally...a recent study proved that people that eat runny bullshit 3 times a day directly out of a cows ass are 10% more efficient than people who don't, they are 10 times less likely to call in sick, or develop any other health problems, therefore, from now all my employess will be required to eat runny bullshit out of a cows ass three times a day. If they want to work for me.

Laugh now...but it's coming like a freight train. The insurance companies are now officially dictating employer policy...that should scare the living hell out of anyone with a brain.

And Clandestino...

I pay an increased price on cigarettes for all the class action lawsuits in the mid 90's...I pay a 40 cent luxury tax on those cigs in addition to normal sales tax, I pay much higher insurance rates as well.


Now can you tell me something you buy on a daily basis that I don't that has that kind of tax?

They are about to raise the tax on cigarettes 1 full dollar to bail the state government CPS services out of getting it's ass sued off for incompetence, that has absolutely nothing to do with smokers...

Who does CPS protect?

Children and the elderly...

Well Children are non-smokers in the eyes of the law...And since smokers are less likely to live to be elderly(which is why we pay higher insurance rates) I would say that the elderly can pretty much be considered non-smokers as well.

A large portion of my taxes goes to the elderly and the poor, well the poor can't fucking afford cigarattes and there aren't near as many oldsmokers as their are non.

On top of that it is a government branch...the same government who has outlawed my right to smoke even outside of many places in Austin...that damn sure aint a smoking body...

Ironically all the uptight non smokers have pretty much crippled downtown Austin financially...well done...Since smokers tend to eat out more.

So I want to you tell me what you are paying that goes into my pocket to help me.

Don't claim increased insurance rates because I already pay that myself, and I pay for the higher costs of other smokers with every pack I buy.

And don't claim butt pick up either...Non smokers litter too
Telling it like it is! If you think this is taking it to the extreme, you are going to wake up surprised tomorrow or the next day! Wake up America!!!!!!!

[Clandestino]

I can appreciate the sample, but I know quite a number of smokers who are never sick. I also know a lot of people with allergies that call in sick an outrageous number of times.

And btw, you do realize if you work an 8 hour day you are entitled, by law , to two 15 minute breaks and an hour lunch (or at least 1/2 hour?), right? Regardless of your smoking status. Just because you don't smoke and don't take the breaks doesn't necessarily give you a right to complain about it. You can take them if you want to.....go for a short walk or something. :)

yes, everyone knows someone who does this or that... but the fact is...studies have shown the majority of smokers cost more to employers...

also, are you tellng me that most smokers only smoke 2 cigarettes throughout the day? all the smokers i know usually smoke at least once per hour...

[Clandestino]

Re: smoke breaks

uh....how many 'internet' breaks do we all take? I'm sure they waste just as much, if not more, of a company's productivity time. A lot of people do personal things instead of working on company time.

hell yeah, they do...that is why so many companies restrict internet use and have the right to monitor everything you do...

[Clandestino]

And Clandestino...

I pay an increased price on cigarettes for all the class action lawsuits in the mid 90's...I pay a 40 cent luxury tax on those cigs in addition to normal sales tax, I pay much higher insurance rates as well.


Now can you tell me something you buy on a daily basis that I don't that has that kind of tax?

They are about to raise the tax on cigarettes 1 full dollar to bail the state government CPS services out of getting it's ass sued off for incompetence, that has absolutely nothing to do with smokers...

Who does CPS protect?

Children and the elderly...

Well Children are non-smokers in the eyes of the law...And since smokers are less likely to live to be elderly(which is why we pay higher insurance rates) I would say that the elderly can pretty much be considered non-smokers as well.

A large portion of my taxes goes to the elderly and the poor, well the poor can't fucking afford cigarattes and there aren't near as many oldsmokers as their are non.

On top of that it is a government branch...the same government who has outlawed my right to smoke even outside of many places in Austin...that damn sure aint a smoking body...

Ironically all the uptight non smokers have pretty much crippled downtown Austin financially...well done...Since smokers tend to eat out more.

So I want to you tell me what you are paying that goes into my pocket to help me.

Don't claim increased insurance rates because I already pay that myself, and I pay for the higher costs of other smokers with every pack I buy.

And don't claim butt pick up either...Non smokers litter too

regardless of what you pay, you don't enough... tobacco is still highly subsidized.

and i do agree the gov imposed smoking bans are incorrect...but i also think trying to tell a business he can't fire a smoker is also wrong...

[SpursWoman]

and i do agree the gov imposed smoking bans are incorrect...but i also think trying to tell a business he can't fire a smoker is also wrong...


Would your reaction be the same if they decided to fire everyone that was more than 10 lbs overweight?

[Useruser666]

Somebody needs some .....

http://altura.speedera.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/200000/204700/204700/products/3289883.jpg

:lol :angel

[JoeChalupa]

I'd be out the door in a heart beat.
But if I was given a year's notice..damn right I'd lose weight.

[Clandestino]

Would your reaction be the same if they decided to fire everyone that was more than 10 lbs overweight?


i believe a company should have the right to fire and hire at will. if there is a contract is has to be upheld...but if there is no contract, too bad..

the military already fires people for being overweight...

[JoeChalupa]

Or for being gay..no?

[Useruser666]

Don't ask if they smoke, don't tell if you're a smoker?

[whottt]

Health statistics (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/02minorityhealth.html)


Oh, black men are 30% more likely to have heart disease...aint gonna be hiring me no darkies.

What's that? Hispanic and African American Men make up 75% of all Aids cases...

Well that solves that. The South has risen again.

And those damn women always gettin preagnant....


I'm sorry if you guys don't see the backwards potential of this precedent...but you will when it finally comes around to you. And also...Lesser pay for lesser people.

[whottt]

Don't ask if they smoke, don't tell if you're a smoker?

And then they can fire you when they find out you do smoke. Not a bright idea if you are responsible for taking care of a family.

[whottt]

Some of you guys may like this because it's point for non-smokers, but it's actually a grandslam for employers inclined to discrimanatory practices, and psycho execs at insurance companies looking for ways to save money...it's a huge step backwards, it's an invasion of privacy, and it can potentially allow employers and insurance companies way more intrusion into your personal life and lifestyle than you would ever imagine...

I just hope none of you celebrating this are complaining about your so called loss of civil rights under the Bush administration...because this is about 100 times worse.

At least Dan is consistent on this one.

Anyway, it won't likely effect me since I am subcontractor and pay for my own insurance...but it's eventually going to effect a lot of people in a very wrong way...and not just smokers.

Besides, I can quit smoking and likely will when they raise the tax by a full dollar...a lot of people won't be able to change some of the things they can discriminate against...when that happens, if it happens to you, just remember you celebrated it's beginning.

[Useruser666]

And then they can fire you when they find out you do smoke. Not a bright idea if you are responsible for taking care of a family.

Whottt, did you not see the parallel to the gays in the military policy? :lol

[violentkitten]

you want the boss to pay for your health care well then shut the fuck up

[JoeChalupa]

Yeah...and stop smoking.

[whottt]

Whottt, did you not see the parallel to the gays in the military policy? :lol


Do you not see the differences between serving in the US military and being employed as a private citizen?

[SpursWoman]

it was a joke, whottt....go take a smoke break. :)

[JoeChalupa]

Is it odd that I, known as a liberal, do not have a problem with this?

[Useruser666]

Do you not see the differences between serving in the US military and being employed as a private citizen?

IT WAS A JOKE WHOTTT!!! :lol :lol :lol

[Drachen]

As long as they offer reimbursment for programs to stop smoking, I dont think this is horrible. USAA did this when they stopped all on-campus smoking.

[whottt]

Is it odd that I, known as a liberal, do not have a problem with this?

Not really...since most anti-smoking legislation is championed by the left.

Alas, there's nothing odd about liberals being contradictory...

[JoeChalupa]

Oh please. Conservatives are just as contradictory as anyone else. :rolleyes

[Drachen]

Not really...since most anti-smoking legislation is championed by the left.

Alas, there's nothing odd about liberals being contradictory...


And this is about Business' rights, which is clearly on the conservative agenda.

[whottt]

In America liberalism has married socialism..

The only individual rights most liberals are interested in preserving is the right to get cornholed by another man in your bedroom.(which is why I can only chuckle when I see them supporting this precedent...talk about a lack of foresight) and to make sure murderers live longer and have more rights than the people they murder.

[whottt]

And this is about Business' rights, which is clearly on the conservative agenda.

You are kidding right?

Who do you think owns the cigarette companies?

[Drachen]

the tobacco is arbitrary in this case. It is about business' ability to employ at will.

[whottt]

Agree 100%, the tobacco is arbitrary in this case. But you miss my point...this should be an issue that the left is rallying against...however since the left is largely anti-smoking and in favor of regulating the private lives of individuals(except in the cases I noted above)...they are riding a proud shotgun on this particular precedent setting issue.

Like I said earlier...the contradiction doesn't surprise me...and no doubt the left will be the one crying the loudest about this once is starts being used against them in issues of major importance to their core base. Just don't cry about it then.

And at least Dan can say he was on the right side of this one from the beginning.

[Drachen]

To be honest with you, I can see your point. I mean I am a smoker and know I shouldnt be, but am too lazy to quit, that is why this particular case doesnt really bother me. But if I was to be persuaded to one side of the fence, you make an excellent case, because it does set a dangerous precedent.

[whottt]

I just wish they'd outlaw freaking cigarettes...Problem solved. Smokers are already being ostracized and treated as if criminals...so once they have started down that path they might as well make them illegal...I mean since they are a great evil and all. It beats people profiting off the addiction, which is really all they are doing from a governmental perspective.

But I don't blame the left for that...I am sure they would outlaw them if they had the choice...