Reply With Quote
Well, then! There you go!
Then smoking should become mandatory!!
Well, then! There you go!
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.
This seems reasonable, and I am a smoker. Although, unless ALL unhealthy lifestyles (obeseness, etc) are included, expect a fight.
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]
- 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.
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...
Competence is a separate issue. But, again, a company should have the same ability to fire the incompetent as they do the costly.
...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.
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.
Yeah? Well I'd rather not subsidize what ever the 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 of a lot more out of smokers than the other way around.
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..
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....and that doesn't cover the fact that smokers miss more work and take 500 smokebreaks a day..
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.
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..
I don't know where the 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.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 can't imagine they'd cost anyone that much money for very long.....they'd be dead.
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.. ok, not 500, but maybe 499!I don't know where the 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.
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.
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/whyg...0employers.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 en led, 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.
I had no problem with him being fired.
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.
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.
Companies should be able to hire and fire who they please.
I agree.
Sincerely,
Donald Trump
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".
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?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions