Company fires all employees who smoke!

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Incidently, if your 'generation' of nonsmokers were so bloody high and righteous, WTF are the ****ing things still legal and being taxed to excess? Hmmm?

Cram your holier than thou bull**** until you actually do something to change things, OK?

You are told the effects of smoking -> you do it anyway = stupid.

If something looks like a duck and swims like a duck, I'll call it a duck. And regarding my "holier than thou bull****" - I practice what I preach. I don't smoke despite being well and truely able to pick the habit up. :shrug: I guess I learn from the experience of others.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by rah
No, what this thread shows is the raw hatred of smokers by non-smokers. If the same hatred was shown towards their group, they complain. But it's ok to hate smokers because they choose to smoke. Pretty pathetic. It stopped being a choice many years ago. I've tried to quit many times. I would choose not to smoke, but it is a strong addiction and I have not been strong enough. Instead of showing sympathy, some choose hate. It's disgusting.

It's sadly true. The lack of tolerance here is baffling.

Don't take me wrong, I hate people who smoke elsewhere than in smoker areas, and I have tried hard to derive my friends from smoking (until I understood how nonproductive it was). And I would even probably leave my gf if she smoke.

However, no matter how much I dislike the smoker's lifestyle (and in particular when it affects the non-smoker I am), I find it terrible to fire people on these grounds, to discriminate on these grounds. The employer can condone a behaviour code at the workplace. I'm perfectly OK with a No-smoking policy at work, just like I agree with a No-gay-sex policy, or just like I agree with a No-preaching-your-religious-hatred-of-abortion policy at a pharmacy. But to intrude in the employee's private life, where he cannot affect the company, is definitely not the employer's job.

The support for such intrusion by so many people here is not a pretty picture

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


You are told the effects of smoking -> you do it anyway = stupid.

If something looks like a duck and swims like a duck, I'll call it a duck. And regarding my "holier than thou bull****" - I practice what I preach. I don't smoke despite being well and truely able to pick the habit up. :shrug: I guess I learn from the experience of others.

Yeah, like the experience of those who have been smoking for 20 or 30 years.

I guess you laugh at alcoholics and heroin junkies too, yes?

[notyoueither]

It's good you don't smoke, just don;t be an ******* to those who do. There but for the grace of God, or something...

[Skanky Burns]

Thats the thing though, by smoking the employees are driving up costs for their health-insurance. As the company pays for these costs, it affects the company. All employee costs should be based on the work they do - not one rate for smokers and another rate for non-smokers. Where is the equality in paying more for one worker than their coworker based on nothing more than their private life?

EDIT: Xpost. This reply was based on this quote:

But to intrude in the employee's private life, where he cannot affect the company, is definitely not the employer's job.

[notyoueither]

But what about fat people? What about those genetically predisposed to disease? Is some company in Michigan right in wanting DNA to see if you will be a risk for early heart disease or some rarer conditions?

[notyoueither]

Why not people who participate in extreme sports, or even skiing?

Why not people who eat too much?

Why not people who don't excersize at all?

Why not people who drink too much?

Why only smokers?

Why? We are the new lepers. If you think that singling people out and culling them off is OK, you are normal. That has been going on for a long time. Someone has always been the target of the busy bodies. I guess it's just my turn.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Thats the thing though, by smoking the employees are driving up costs for their health-insurance.

Are the insurance premiums higher for smokers than non-smokers? If yes, I would have agreed with the employees being offered the chance to pay this difference with their own salary, but certainly not with firing them outright.

And this individualized health insurance system sucks bigtime. This thread is yet another reason to oppose it

[Skanky Burns]

If the company is required to pay for their employees health insurance I don't see why they can't choose employees using the same criteria insurance companies already use to assess the health-risks of their customers.

An even better solution, of course, would be to make employees pay for any excess costs over the base cost of insurance. This way the company pays for all employees equally and people who make lifestyle choices that are likely to increase their future medical costs will be free to at their own expense.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Are the insurance premiums higher for smokers than non-smokers?

Apparently.

If yes, I would have agreed with the employees being offered the chance to pay this difference with their own salary, but certainly not with firing them outright.

You aren't the only one to think so, either.

And this individualized health insurance system sucks bigtime. This thread is yet another reason to oppose it

[notyoueither]

Well'ell there's a good question, why is the insurance industry charging smokers more, but not the chronically fat? Hmm?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well'ell there's a good question, why is the insurance industry charging smokers more, but not the chronically fat? Hmm?

I don't know about US health-insurance policies, but I'd imagine they have a broad array of fine-print clauses, that make fat people, smokers, gay people, people in violent neighborhoods, or whatever pay more money...

Well, maybe not, But I would be surprised if the American health insurance companies singled out smoking as the only health hazard that is worth higher premiums.

[notyoueither]

Nope, nope, nope, wait, smokers? Yup.

Only category that gets the treatment.

Interesting, in'it?

[notyoueither]

I mean, I could have been convicted of drunk driving 4 times, and driving without a license 8 times, I could be imprisoned for years for that behaviour which is likely to take human life and result in significant injury to myself, but I'll not be charged a dime extra in health insurance. But if I smoke three times a month, once each on the Sundays that I go to Church, I am an evil risk and therefore must be charged more.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Interesting, in'it?

Yup.

How old is it (to demand higher health insurance premiums from smokers)? Maybe the insurance companies are testing a system they want to see generalized in the future, by targetting the group whose singling-out will raise the lowest backlash.