Company fires all employees who smoke!

[Mrs. Tuberski]

Originally posted by Sprayber


What do you mean for real? Do you stand there puffing on it without inhaling the smoke. If you inhale the smoke you are smoking for real no matter how little or how much you smoke.

I dont get that either. What you hold a ciggerette to look cool? F*** that if you smoke you smoke smokers arent leepers you know.

[Spiffor]

They're *******s

That kind of crap is the reason why the employers should be required by law to give a valid reason before firing someone. That's typically an abuse of power

[Whoha]

Re: Company fires all employees who smoke!

Originally posted by Dissident

http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html

Pretty radical in my opinion. And this comes from someone who does not like smoking. Or the fact I have to pay higher insurance costs because of it.

While I do not like the restrictions in individual freedom, or the possible things that can come of this (such as firing unhealthy fat people in the future). I can't help but think it's fair for non-smokers not to have to pay higher insurance to cover their smoking co-workers.

Why should we have to pay for other people who want to kill themselves?

I'm really divided on this issue myself. I'm not sure how to vote. In this case, it's good because it forced many non smokers to quit smoking. Isn't that a good thing. But I hate the restrictions in personal liberty. I could go either way on this issue- the flip-flopper that I am.

If the company in question can provide a reason why they should be able to fire smokers then they should be able to. I doubt they can, but it is apparently a health care company.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Company fires all employees who smoke!

Originally posted by Whoha
If the company in question can provide a reason why they should be able to fire smokers then they should be able to.

1) It's an at-risk state, the employer can fire you on whim
2) It raises health insurance premiums if you're a smoker, raising company cost

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Spiffor
They're *******s

That kind of crap is the reason why the employers should be required by law to give a valid reason before firing someone. That's typically an abuse of power

This balanced by unemployment liability. While employment may be at-will, companies will be held liable for unemployment claims should it be determined that they terminated without adequate cause. And in most cases, the judges favor the employees much, much more than the companies. I've participated in several hearings disputing unemployment claims for people fired for blatantly wrong behavior, but the judges almost always rule in the favor of the employee.

One such example was a woman who logged onto someone else's computer, read their e-mail and then confronted the person over what she read in their e-mail. She was fired over it, but a judge still made us liable for unemployment costs because she supposedly wasn't given "adequate" knowledge of the policy and that she was never warned before the incident that she would be terminated over such a thing. This is despite the fact that such actions are explicitley forbidden in the employee handbook, which she certainly had and which states such behavior can lead to immediate termination, and that there was no reason to give her a warning before the incident, as this was the first time it had happened.

Unemployment costs are quite sizable for companies, so they aren't going to go around firing people willy-nilly.

[MikeH]

If that's not illegal then US employment law totally sucks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mike, like Boris said, there are other, secondary 'penalties' on companies. Even if they fire someone legally, they will still have many costs associated with such an action.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Mike, like Boris said, there are other, secondary 'penalties' on companies. Even if they fire someone legally, they will still have many costs associated with such an action.

yeah, like the disgruntled worker bringing an assualt rifle to work on his last day.

[Japher]

My insurance costs something like $90/month pretax for myself and my dependents. The company tacks on another $500/year to that cost for some unknown reason. They say you will get a $500 "deduction" to your health care costs (or the costs the company pays) if you take a health servey and meet with a registered nurse if you are an "at risk" person.

When I took the survey I smoked, had high blood pressure, and a high cholesterol.

The nurse I talked with over the phone told me I shouldn't smoke and urged me to quit, informing me that if I quit smoking and lost a couple of pounds I would feel better and live longer. That was it.

They gave me the discount. I still quit smoking (6 months now) and am on a diet now. It wasn't because of them, they still gave me my "discount"... or was it?

I still think it's dubious that they call it a discount when it is actually a fine

[alva]

Anyway most smokers start to have health problems when they no longer work.
---

Strong (not too strong though ) unions.

[rah]

I have no problem with them controlling me at work, but what I do outside is my business, as long as it doesn't impact work.

There are many many other bad health habits that this smacks of discrimination.

And the they had two years arguement doesn't change anything.

And the health cost thing may be a smoke screen.
I have only cost my insurance company a few hundred dollars over the last 10 years (I smoke) vs the thousands and thousands that my wife and child have cost them. They don't smoke. Many other smokers tell me the same thing. Ask a smoker the last time he saw a doctor for a non-emergency situation.


A lot of smokers will avoid doctors because they don't like listening to their lectures. Another reason they die younger. And less money is usually spent on their treatment prior to death since by the time they seek care and the time they die is usually shorter because it's sometimes too late to provide expensive live extending treatment.

What I find funny is that most everyone hates or distrusts insurance companies, but have no problem believing this because they're not smokers.

So the whole thing stinks.

Next it will be the guy that has a few extra drinks on Friday night, or the guy that picks up women all the time.

[Asher]

I have only cost my insurance company a few hundred dollars over the last 10 years (I smoke)

The problem obviously isn't short-term costs related to giving health insurance to smokers.

They have a far higher rate of cancer, which is extremely expensive to treat.

[rah]

If they seek treatment.

[Asher]

How many of smokers diagnosed with cancer will not seek treatment?

[rah]

You said it again, DIAGNOSED, by whom, Doctors. If you don't see the doctor you can't be diagnosed. If you don't get it diagnosed until their are obvious symptoms, it's usually too late and your treatment cost is actually cheaper.