"Owning" the employees

[OhioTC18]

A local company has instituted a new work policy. If you smoke or use tobacco products in any manner, you will be fired. It doesn't matter if it's after hours in your home, in your car or wherever. You WILL be terminated if management finds out.
This policy has been developed because of higher health care costs for smokers and more lost time due to illness. They of course will offer cessation classes and give you until next summer to accomplish the goal of quitting. They will also offer discount memberships to the company owned fitness center (a multi-million dollar facility) on the grounds, provided you use it at least once a week for a certain time period.
My question is........should they "own" you to the extent they can tell you how to live while not at work?

 

[HarryG]

I feel this is a form of discrimination. I would say they have a right to limit your smoking ON THE JOB but not in your own time.
I don't smoke but I don't feel I have a right to tell you not to.
Whats the next level? If you are overweight? What happens if you got diabeties, arthritis, etc? can they dismiss you? What if you had a family history of heart disease, cancer? See where this can lead.

 

[Durwood RIP]

I would say they are looking at a major lawsuit and once they lose it they will change that policy.

But to answer your question-Nobody should have the right to tell you how to live once you leave work. Unless it would be something illegal.

Dur

 

[Melensdad]

One of the products I sell is tobacco. In fact I sell a lot of it. Literally millions of cigarettes per week. However, as an insurance paying employer, I belive employers have the right to set policies like this.

 

[DaveNay]

One of the products I sell is tobacco. In fact I sell a lot of it. Literally millions of cigarettes per week. However, as an insurance paying employer, I belive employers have the right to set policies like this.

No. I will grant you every right to exclude those employees from the health insurance policy, or to charge them a (much) higher portion of the premium, but I do not believe that gives the right to exclude them from gainful employment.

 

[BadAttitude]

Fat chance I'd be working very long for a company that instituted that policy...and YES I smoke. Next thing they'll do is tell you what polital party you have to support

My employer does have a smoking policy, but limits it to outdoors or the shop.

 

[OhioTC18]

My employer does have a smoking policy, but limits it to outdoors or the shop.

Mine does too. Outside, away from public view.....as if the public never saw anyone smoke before.

 

[OhioTC18]

One of the products I sell is tobacco. In fact I sell a lot of it. Literally millions of cigarettes per week. However, as an insurance paying employer, I belive employers have the right to set policies like this.

The financial info they quoted was it cost $3800 more per employee per year for a smoker. Now I have no idea if that is a true cost of the insurance or not. I say, raise the premium for them, but you're liable to miss out on a lot of excellent employees by firing them.
A little public scuttle butt I do hear is that people are liable to quit buying their products as well. Could be a financial hit for them.

 

[thcri]

Our whole city and parts of the county have gone to no smoking. All restaurants are non smoking and public buildings. Most business have followed suit. My company itself is non smoking. However you are allowed to smoke on your break but it has to be outside. Our insurance pushes this also because of law suits that have arised. As far as what a person does outside of work is their business.

murph

 

[Big Dog]

Our company had a strict policy of NO SMOKING on company property lasting 10 years. The contract the union just voted in changed it to allow smoking in outside areas! Gotta wonder what's up with that...........

 

[thcri]

Fat chance I'd be working very long for a company that instituted that policy...and YES I smoke. Next thing they'll do is tell you what polital party you have to support

Don't want to steal or change the original thread but????


They do, the Unions in our area take some money out of each person's check to fund a particular party of which is not my choice. And I think it is wrong either way.

 

[OhioTC18]

Don't want to steal or change the original thread but????


They do, the Unions in our area take some money out of each person's check to fund a particular party of which is not my choice. And I think it is wrong either way.

You also can ask that those monies taken out of your check to support political issues be refunded to you. Unless it is in the bargaining agreement that they won't be refunded.

 

[Av8r3400]

... You also can ask that those monies taken out of your check to support political issues be refunded to you. ...

This is not an option for most union members. Where it is, the members are put under such pressure that the cannot or will not apply this option.

The unions that I am familiar with (and know people who belong) are pumped with so much one-sided half information and spin, which is treated as gospel, that there is little choice in their minds.

Without this union pressure and browbeating, there would be no Democrat party and as much as I hate to admit it, this would be a very bad thing.

 

[BoneheadNW]

Our company had a strict policy of NO SMOKING on company property lasting 10 years. The contract the union just voted in changed it to allow smoking in outside areas! Gotta wonder what's up with that...........

Seattle just passed a law forbidding smokers to light up within 24 feet of the entrance to a business (could be 25 feet).
Bonehead

 

[Melensdad]

I would say they are looking at a major lawsuit and once they lose it they will change that policy.

But to answer your question-Nobody should have the right to tell you how to live once you leave work. Unless it would be something illegal.

Dur

Actually this has already been tested in court and in fact the courts have sided with the companies.

No. I will grant you every right to exclude those employees from the health insurance policy, or to charge them a (much) higher portion of the premium, but I do not believe that gives the right to exclude them from gainful employment.

Nope again. That is totally illegal and discriminatory. With regards to providing health insurance, you can legally 'discriminate' against groups of employees based on job class, seniority, etc but not on what they do with their personal lives.

The financial info they quoted was it cost $3800 more per employee per year for a smoker. Now I have no idea if that is a true cost of the insurance or not. I say, raise the premium for them, but you're liable to miss out on a lot of excellent employees by firing them.

The $3800 is very likely the added cost related to covering additional sick time and lost productivity. In negotiating 'group' insurance policies the insurers have never asked me for a list of smokers/non-smokers but as an employer, I can see that smokers (on average) miss more hours of work than non-smokers (and again there are plenty of exceptions but overall this is a true statement).

 

[johnday]

I don't think an employer, or the government, or any other faction, has any right what so ever, to determine what I, or anyone else, does on their own time, on their own property, or in their own home, unless it is detrimental to the welfare and safety of others. And even then, the control freaks better put a real good argument behind it.
The company I'm presently employed with, at a fossil fueled power plant at that, has outlawed smoking in any building owned by them. WTF? A powerplant? Give me a break!! Anybody ever hear of blacklung? Come on over to my place, and I'll show you how filthy a powerplant is inside. Coal dust everywhere, arsenic, and other heavy metal, including mercury, laden flyash everywhere. Too bad the control freaks aren't more concerned with that, than the maybe 10% of employes who are still paganistic, crude, no self control, nonthinking, uncontrollable louts.
I feel most of it has to do with control issues more than anything else. The insurance costs, though maybe true, is just another way to convince the middle class that Big Brother, really knows and cares about you. What an over flowing crock of cattle feces.
Down with these pompous scumbags!!!! Guess I'm on a roll here, but anytime, anywhere, anyone, that infringes on my rights, your rights, anyones rights, should be flogged, beaten, dragged thru their waste, spit upon, and then stoned to death, all in public ofcourse.
Gggaakkkk! I'm quiting now before I piss off myself!!! :14_6_12:

 

[Dargo]

I mentioned this very subject to Bob a week or so ago. Yes, it is happening, and yes, it is being upheld by courts. The bottom line is that the additional amount that smokers cost their employers is so staggering that they could not charge enough. And, as Bob mentioned, you may not exclude a person or group of persons from being able to join in your health care. Trust me on this. I used to sell group health insurance. You wouldn't believe how many times an employer wanted to fire a person because they had diabetes and either disqualified the entire group from being eligible for coverage, or raised the entire group cost around $5000 per month.

If you combined the cost of missed work, lost time due to additional breaks, and the added cost for the group health care policy, it could easily be an additional $10k per year for each smoker. The employers have found that it is less expensive to battle in court a policy that does not allow a specific drug use, and yes; the health insurance field and the legal system looks at smoking as a drug use. In court, they are simply adding nicotine to a list of recreational drugs that are not allowed per their employment agreement. It is viewed as no different than current random drug testing. It's only adding a new drug to the "banned" list. In a court battle, a fortune 500 company did concede that if an employee was able to provide a prescription from a physician for nicotine, that employee would be allowed to have that drug in their system. The smokers stating that employers cannot demand this are basically (in the eyes of the law) demanding that their employers cannot direct what drugs they use in their off time. There are several employers that do not allow alcohol as well.

I'd mentioned this issue to Bob because several smaller employers, around 100 employees or less, are instituting this policy as of January 1st. The smokers there have threatened all sorts of law suits, but based on case law, not many attorneys are takers for them unless they are paid by the hour. If they do that, you know what they are doing. I was just surprised that "smaller" employers are already doing this. They, too, are paying for 6 months of therapy and offering other incentives. So much so, that there are actually some law suits by non-smokers demanding an incentive program for them to continue to be non-smokers. They are filing suits stating that they are being descriminated against because they were not smokers, therefore, are not getting the additional perks.

The battle will rage. I know the attorneys will win. Otherwise...

 

[OhioTC18]

Maybe I should have mentioned this same company manufactures lawn care products including some that contain vermiculite. A lot of their workers, both in the plant and those in the mines, have developed cancer. And they knew years ago that vermiculite handling was dangerous.

 

[Big Dog]

Take it a step further........... Companies will next want to fire me for being overweight cause I'm a health risk! Were the f*** does it STOP???

 

[johnday]

Take it a step further........... Companies will next want to fire me for being overweight cause I'm a health risk! Were the f*** does it STOP???

Greg, same here. You know, we used to worry about other countries changing our life styles. I'm more afraid of the control freaks we've got right here.
Crap!! Forgot where I was going with this!

 

[ddrane2115]

NO, they should not be able to tell me what I can and cannot do on MY time. In fact I wish they would try. I will turn the cell phone off so fast, and when they NEED me, I wont be AVAILABLE, as I now am 24/7,.........even on my own time.

they dont complain about what THEY DO, as in drink themselves into a "driving drunk" so I say lets stop all the spending the company money on booze at parties on thier time or the company..........oh wait they are salary, they are ALWAYS on company time.and drinking at that...........and no more lunches...........might get fat..............dont drive home, you might be in an accident, then you would cost us by not being here.

Point is, you will NEVER hear the shirts complain about what the shirts do!

 

[Dargo]

Hey, don't kill me for it. I didn't come up with the idea. I'm just telling you that courts are upholding the employer's decision as part of their drug policy. The employers are simply adding nicotine to the drugs not allowed. Not all recreational drugs are illegal, but some are banned by certain employers. Now, due to the extreme costs associated, several are beginning to add nicotine to their list of banned drugs in their drug testing.

I was sort of shocked to hear it, but I had several attorneys tell me that the law only views smoking as a form of drug use, and employers can require employees to not use drugs that will interfere with their performance and the business' profitibility. Get the insurance companies and attorneys; not me. I have no such rule for my employess, even though I do not smoke.

 

[BoneheadNW]

Hey, don't kill me for it.

Not to worry. ddrane has stated that he will only kill if you threaten him or his family. You were the one to worry about, remember?
Bonehead

 

[bczoom]

Without making this post the length of "War and Peace"...

I don't believe they have the right.
I've never seen the lost productivity of smokers. Actually, a lot of the best answers and ideas have come from a group of smokers that dedicate their conversations on "smoke breaks" to work related items.

Shall they ban any drinkers or people with cancer or other disease? Why not as they raise group rates as well.

 

[DaveNay]

Nope again. That is totally illegal and discriminatory. With regards to providing health insurance, you can legally 'discriminate' against groups of employees based on job class, seniority, etc but not on what they do with their personal lives.

Ahhh....Bob, Bob, Bob....are we discussing what is legal, or what is "right"?

That is the great thing about our Rupublic form of government, if something doesn't appear to be quite right, we have a method of recourse to change it.

I was stating what I felt to be the "right" way of handling the situation, not what may be the current "legal" method. Just because it is legal, does not always make it "right"

 

[Melensdad]

Well I posted what is legal.

• Within employer group insurance plans, it is not legal to charge people who eat butter higher insurance rates than people who don't eat dairy products.
• Within employer group insurance plans, it is not legal to charge people who drink Johnny Walker Red higher insurance rates than people who don't drink any alcohol.
• Within employer group insurance plans, it is not legal to charge people who smoke higher insurance rates than people who don't use tobacco.

Consequently, a small but growing number of employers are deciding that some groups of people are simply too risky to employ. So far the courts are upholding their actions.

 

[DaveNay]

Well I posted what is legal.

• Within employer group insurance plans, it is not legal to charge people who eat butter higher insurance rates than people who don't eat dairy products.
• Within employer group insurance plans, it is not legal to charge people who drink Johnny Walker Red higher insurance rates than people who don't drink any alcohol.
• Within employer group insurance plans, it is not legal to charge people who smoke higher insurance rates than people who don't use tobacco.

Consequently, a small but growing number of employers are deciding that some groups of people are simply too risky to employ. So far the courts are upholding their actions.

In no way was I implying that what you stated was not factually correct, but that does not change the fact that it may not be the best solution, and should not be subject to evaluation and possible modification. The reason that stuff like this is happening is because companies are being forced down that route because that is the current legal method, therefore the end results becomes pre-ordained. If you (you personally Bob) were told by your insurance company that you must terminate all employees that are smokers, and your #1 producing salesman falls into that category, wouldn't you want to look for options that would allow you a different result?

 

[Melensdad]

I am actually expecting that the day will come when I won't be able to buy group insurance. I'd say it will come within a decade.

My guess is that there will eventually state high risk insurance pools and there will be private insurance policies for individuals. The group policies will probably become too expensive to maintain because of high risk individuals and so employers will likely pay employees a monthly 'allowance' so they can buy their own insurance.

Our legal system won't allow the 'right' thing to occur.

 

[BadAttitude]

One of the products I sell is tobacco. In fact I sell a lot of it. Literally millions of cigarettes per week. However, as an insurance paying employer, I belive employers have the right to set policies like this.

I find it strange that you endorse this policy, and yet you contribute to the problem. Why not set an example and discontinue selling the tobacco? (just asking, not looking to flame you )

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveNay
If you (you personally Bob) were told by your insurance company that you must terminate all employees that are smokers, and your #1 producing salesman falls into that category, wouldn't you want to look for options that would allow you a different result?

Would you(Bob) 'can' that same employee if he refused to quit smoking?

 

[Dargo]

The group policies will probably become too expensive to maintain because of high risk individuals and so employers will likely pay employees a monthly 'allowance' so they can buy their own insurance.

Our legal system won't allow the 'right' thing to occur.

That would be me. I described my insurance plan as bonus money provided equally that allowed each person to buy their own health insurance and choose their own levels of coverage and deductibles. Their health plan is completely portable and can be taken with them wherever they may go; it is their plan. Also, if one should be diagnosed with diabetes (I mention this because for employers with under 25 employees, one diabetic usually disqualifies the entire group), you will not have to worry about a future employer not employing you because they are afraid of what you would do to their premiums. The same could be applied to smokers. My smokers do pay a considerably higher premium for both health and life insurance. I provide them the same bonus as non-smokers towards their health ins. My thought, therefore, is that if they want to smoke, fine, I am just not going to pay for them to do so.

Maybe I'm a scrouge, but this is the way I was advised to do things by my attorneys (relatives) and accountant when I first began. All I know is that (hopefully) I won't have to get involved in this imminent debate.