Company demands workers give up smoking to keep jobs

It would probably be a better idea, both PR-wise and employee relation-wise to give incentives to be healthier rather than penalties for being unhealthy.

 

LOL you can't make up your mind, can you? Is it quitter or flip flopper? I don't know how long mc mark would last (I venture to guess he must have tried more than once before this one), I hope he does it for good.

Anyway I will stop making this a bigger deal. It's a personal choice, really. But if you have ever thought about maybe one day you may want to give it a try, that's a good sign. And you can always start sooner rather than later.

 

It's cool my brother.

I just started have a persistant cough...for the last two years. And decided it was time. It was starting to affect the projection and support. We all have our reasons.

And I said I just quit smoking tobacco.

 

I agree that offering more expensive coverage for smokers (I don't agree with making them not have any) would be the way to go, if businesses feel they need to act to cut costs.

A good way to quit, I discovered a very long time ago, is to give yourself a "date certain" to stop... as long as a couple of years. That way, your subconscious is preparing itself. The morning you quit, with a tremendous hangover, and/or "whatever floats your boat," and after 2 or 3 packs the night before, you shrug and just stop.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

i havent smoked since a week b4 ramadhan, so about mid october...

two months now...

i need to stop selling those things at walgreens now.

 

Tell THAT to the delivery man...

from the deleted scenes on the Goldmember dvd

 

I've been smoke free for 28 years, 3 1/2 months...

 

One of our insurance company choices refunds $20.00/month of our health club membership if we go at least 8 times per month.

 

So you wouldn't have a problem if your employer told you that you couldn't do those things like riding a motorcycle too? What if they told you no family ski trips, etc? What if they monitored your time in the sun for skin cancer?

I think this is crazy, and we are in trouble if we accept this.

 

The unfairness of 'smoke' breaks used to irritate me too, until one of the higher-ups at my last job complained because I took 10 minutes to eat breakfast in the cafeteria. I pointed out to my supervisor that I didn't take smoke breaks, and that the certain higher-up did on a more than regular basis. I said that if me eating for 10 minutes was an issue (I had a very good relationship with my supervisor), I would just start taking smoke breaks too, but instead of smoking, I would just eat breakfast, talk on the phone or do something else with the rest of the smokers. I mentioned that it would work out well for me because I could work out longer at lunch.

My supervisor was my advocate and took that up the chain as a response, and it was the last I heard of it. It's a completely valid argument, so don't let 'smoke' breaks get to you; just work the system and take one too. It's only fair.

As for the no-hire policy, I have no problem with it. If my place of work did it, my insurance would go down, so I'm all for it. In the end, if there are changes that are beneficial all-around, such as a healthier environment and saving everyone money, how can you argue against it?

A-Train: I think they give a urine test that scans for Nicotene.

This is known as a 'wellness' program. I wish I had it where i work now. At my last job, not only was the use of the on-site gym free, I got an extra 1.5 hours a week paid time to use it if I was following a workout program. As it is now, not only do I have to pay $60 a month for my wife and I to use the on-site gym, there are no incentives to use it (not that it deters me). I wrote the director about this once, and he said that their wellness program included a tour of the gym and a workout reccomendation.

 

Those of you that think that insurance will go down are being naive.

This is for the insurance companies benefit, nothing more....and rates will go up no matter what.

Insurance companies are some of the biggest and most profitable companies in the USA, and are a major reason why we have no national healthcare program.

Too bad...everyone in america is entitled to healthcare and education...money should not be an issue.

DD

 

This week it is smokers
next week it is overeaters
the next week it is folx with Risky hobbies
[I had a coworker have an accident sky diving
he survived and was lucky to do so . . . ]

any health issue can cause med insurance to go up

would you be ok if they stopped hiring people with
Heart Defects? Epilepsy?
the list of health issues that are on going and costly

If the company bottom line is the only issue . . .
then their would be reason to weed out a whole lot of folx

Rocket River

 

Life Insurance has been based on actuary tables for decades. I don't see why basing Health Insurance on actuary tables gets people in such an uproar. It's more the hot-topic smoking issue than anything else. If the company in question offered a health plan that had a discount for not smoking, no one would be upset about it.

 

^ Most Life Insurance policies already have contract lingo to not pay in the event of dangerous activites like sky diving. It's all spelled out in the fine print that no one reads.

 

I would think that a company could build a more positive plan to improve their employees' health:

• for a standard employee, company will pay 50% of medical costs.
  
  
• if you want the company to pay 75%, you must be a non-smoker. This means that you must voluntarily submit yourself regularly for checkups to confirm that you're not smoking.
  
  
• If you want the company to pay 95%, you must be a non-smoker who is carefully watching their fat, calories, and cholesterol. This means that you must voluntarily submit yourself reguarly for checkups to confirm your health.

Using this plan, you respect the rights of those who may choose to smoke, yet the company won't have to pay as much money for when they get lung cancer.

On the other hand, if people are willing to submit themselves for checkups, they could get a dramatic discount on health insurance costs. The company feels better about providing more coverage because their good helth reduces the risk of them needing to use the coverage.

I would gladly improve my diet and exercise, and submit myself for checkups if it meant getting better health insurance benefits. And as a fringe benefit, I get in better health for it.

 

For $15 million/year, they can watch me have sex to make sure its protected

 

Of course, I'm not talking about Life Insurance actuary tables being applied to Health Insurance. They would need to devise a new set of tables.

 

DD is right about the insurance companies.

And those who talk about weight are also right on. Remember when big tobacco settled? Some said the fast food industry would be next. Happen? Yep. Then they said the soda industry would be next. Happen? Yep. Activities like outdoor grilling, eating too much salt, eating peanut butter, drinking too much coffee (if you're a woman) or not enough coffee (if you're a man) have similar corollated risks to your health as smoking. Do you really think once smoking has been extinguished (what a pun ) that the companies won't move on to other 'risk' activities? Especially when costs continue to escalate? Many large employers are moving to these policies - BMC in Houston is a good example. They won't hire a smoker and IIRC they use a hair test, not a urine sample. I think its hogwash. Besides, if all of the random health conditions slapped down at the feet of tobacco are true - then you are less of a burden on the healthcare system than your coworkers. You die younger with a heart attack or lung cancer than your peers. Your coworkers end up sucking the system for an extra twenty or thirty years with progressively more expensive care costs.

Smokers take smoke breaks - and? I've seen just as many nonsmokers wasting time jerking around on the internet, or in the pantry, or walking around the office. If we could smoke at our desks then that wouldn't be a problem, would it - lol?