Quoted: Your employer has a contract with you. You provide a service, they provide a paycheck. That is the end of the fucking story.

Sounds about right.  +1

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The point that has not been pointed out is that they company pays for the healthcare. You guys are protesting this but how many of you would money into a bad situation? The option should be this.  You can have healthcare paid for if you want it.  If you want to keep it you cant smoke.  If you decline coverage then you can do whatever the fuck you want.  That seems fair to me. Smoking costs BILLIONS of dollars of our healthcare dollars year.  How many of us on this board have had relatives die of lung cancer?  I think I can remember about 5 members since I have joined the have lost loved ones to lung cancer.  With me getting hit twice!   Both of my parents had cancer, they even had the same type of cancer, my mom died of complications relating to the original treatment and the spread of several other types. My dad is kicking just fine, Neither smoked not did their parents or family. Stuff happens, think about Radon, that is the second biggest reason for lung cancer, it's quite prevelent in Michigan also. Asbestosis is another, the risks go up if you smoke and the blame is placed on smoking, but the real fact is that many thing cause lung cancer, but the blame is very easy to place on smoking. I'd bet Scotts has more then a few suits against it by employees who blame lung injuries on the chemicals used and inhaled and their defense will be that smoking increased the risk. For many years their employees wore no protective wear whatsoever, not even a mask, and the chemicals were much more dangerous then now, tho to say it's safe is a joke. We are only seeing a small tip of the game here I'd bet. Doesn't matter. Nothing guarantees them a job.  If they don't like the way they get treated, or disagree with the reasoning the emplyoer uses... They have two choices. 1) Suck it up. 2) Go find employment elsewhere. I really don't get people that think we have a right to work someplace and to control the workplace as employees. I started my own business so that I could run shit the way I wanted. Prior to starting this business, if an employer enacted policy I disliked, I hauled ass. Rather than bitching and moaning like they were infringing upon me, I packed up and got out, and always found better circumstances elsewhere. eta:  Sorry about your parents.

No, what I am stating is that if companies were allowed free reign, they would hire at 25 and fire at 45, that is in their best interest in the long run financial wise. It's funny that alcoholism is a DISABILITY/DISEASE and smoking is not. I have never, ever had anyone tell me that smoking is either of those, tho the parallels are there.
Do I think companies have the right to ban smoking on their property? Yes. Do I think that companies should be able to ban smoking by employees on their own time and property? No, because they should have no right to dictate a LEGAL activity away from work. That includes ANY legal activity. Homosexuality  is a High risk behavior that can lead to the transmission of AIDS/HIV. The cost associated with the drugs to keep it at bay make someone dying by smoking/lung cancer seem like a piker over the long term. BUT, ban the sexual behavior of a gay employee and fire a AIDS infected gay and all hell would decend from every corner. But to a company trying to cut costs it should be allowed, correct? And legal, right? And if not, why? Homosexuals seem to have plenty of problems related to depression and the like, Heck, so do women, they seem to go to the doc every time their ovaries hurt it seems. Look at that cost.

All I'm saying is it is a very gray area to allow a company to begin to control. Sure, quit, but after 90% of the companies are playing the same game because they can, exactly what are you going to do?

Quoted: Quoted: Screw a nanny state. But I think employers should be able to hire and fire whoever the hell they want. +1

How about undocumented workers?

Quoted: Tag for the supporters of the nanny state... Assholes. Every-fucking-one of them. ETA: You employer has a contract with you. You provide a service, they provide a paycheck. That is the end of the fucking story. You don't get to dictate to them, they don't get to dictate to you. Every fucking do-gooder health nazi is a commie shitheel at heart, and longs to exert their own ideals over someone else. Get fucked. I don't give a shit if you don't like my smoke. I don't like your whiny commie voice, but do you hear me whine about it? Nope. We're all gonna die. But I'm gonna sure as fuck enjoy myself on the way to the grave. If you want to live to 100 and die in a hospital drooling on yourself, fine by me, but don't you fucking DARE impose that on me. You can take your sin taxes, wad them up and fucking pound them up your ass.

On the surface I agree with you. I think an employer doesn't have the right to dictate what you do in your off time but I actually agree with the company on this case.

While it seems a slippery slope to start with cigarettes and then go to maybe weight or skydiving or shooting or scuba or whatever,   I don't think it is.

Getting hurt shooting,  or wrenching your back golfing or tripping while you bowl are all accidental injuries.  The sports in-and-of-themselves don't cause damage.

Smoking, on the other hand, causes damage.  It's causing harm.

So what?! you say.

Well those companies are paying for your health care if they have any benefits package.  And if you're smoking,  you are going to be making claims that they are paying for.

The money they spend on smoking related health problems raises their rates,  impacting EVERYONE.  Someone who says "so f****** what if I smoke?!" have never seen the impact of continuously rising health care rates and the impact they have on a business.  Has your company been hiring a lot?  Been getting large bonuses?  Maybe not, part of that is because of huge health care costs.

I don't necessarily agree with firing them, but do beleve a company can  hire whoever they want or fire as well,  but I'm totally comfortable with them pulling all health benefits fro smokers in order to keep the costs down until they stop smoking.


I find it hilarious that in one paragraph you say that you don't give a shit if we don't like your smoke,  but in the next paragraph you say if we want to live to 100 and die in a hospital fine by you but those are contradictory statements.  You don't give  a shit if we don't like your smoke but you are going to inflict it on us anyway.  I'm pretty sure you'd be offended if I walked over and dropped a big stinky shit right in the middle of your dinner plate and I sure as hell offended when I am sitting there with my kids and some asshole fires up a cigarette, inflicting his stink on everyone in the building.

You're all for the freedom to smoke as long as it doesn't curtail your freedom to inflict your smoke on everyone around you.   That's  like me saying I don't give a shit if you like my shooting or not and I'm sitting in a cafe capping people in the ass as they walk by.

how's this,  as a  non smokers I am  over joyed you are smoking yourself to death. I seriously couldn't care less. I hope you never have even a cough from your cigarettes and you live to a ripe old age of a 100 but  don't fire those stinky ass cigarettes up where me, my wife or my kids have to breath them.  Cause every time you do I get a little  sense of satisfaction when they raise the price of nicotine, and I vote for every tax increase on Cigs I get a chance to

And if you're REALLY close and in some sort of enclosed space, I'll probably walk over and drop the gaseous remnants of last night's tacos right in your face just for the pleasure of it.

Quoted: The problem is that in order to stop companies from doing this you would have to change at-will employment.  In other words, you'd have to write laws saying "an employer cannot fire an employee for X . . . ." because the current rule in most states is you can fire someone for any reason or no reason whatsoever, except for a few limited exceptions like age, gender, race, retaliation, etc. Real solution is to quit working for companies that try to dictate your personal life.

Yup.  It is an interesting conundrum, tough.  We have people bemoaning the "nanny state" when what they really want is for the state to step in and make sure private employers play nice.  When you get right down to it, they really do want a nanny state.  They just want the nanny enforcing different rules.

Quoted: The point that has not been pointed out is that they company pays for the healthcare. You guys are protesting this but how many of you would money into a bad situation? The option should be this.  You can have healthcare paid for if you want it.  If you want to keep it you cant smoke.  If you decline coverage then you can do whatever the fuck you want.  That seems fair to me. Smoking costs BILLIONS of dollars of our healthcare dollars year.  How many of us on this board have had relatives die of lung cancer?  I think I can remember about 5 members since I have joined the have lost loved ones to lung cancer.  With me getting hit twice!

Aids costs $ too. I'm sure they are going to fire pole smokers.

Quoted: Quoted: Tag for the supporters of the nanny state... Assholes. Every-fucking-one of them. ETA: You employer has a contract with you. You provide a service, they provide a paycheck. That is the end of the fucking story. You don't get to dictate to them, they don't get to dictate to you. Every fucking do-gooder health nazi is a commie shitheel at heart, and longs to exert their own ideals over someone else. Get fucked. I don't give a shit if you don't like my smoke. I don't like your whiny commie voice, but do you hear me whine about it? Nope. We're all gonna die. But I'm gonna sure as fuck enjoy myself on the way to the grave. If you want to live to 100 and die in a hospital drooling on yourself, fine by me, but don't you fucking DARE impose that on me. You can take your sin taxes, wad them up and fucking pound them up your ass. the following statements in red will be mine. GT On the surface I agree with you. I think an employer doesn't have the right to dictate what you do in your off time but I actually agree with the company on this case.Would you be so eager to support the company when they cut bennies to people with kids in the interest of cutting costs? While it seems a slippery slope to start with cigarettes and then go to maybe weight or skydiving or shooting or scuba or whatever,   I don't think it is. Then, and I say this with all due respect, your head is likely so far up your ass you need a glass bellybutton to navigate in an open field. Getting hurt shooting,  or wrenching your back golfing or tripping while you bowl are all accidental injuries.  The sports in-and-of-themselves don't cause damage. You ignored all the warnings on your ammo, and in your gun manuals where it is clearly stated that shooting can be dangerous. You are at fault--you chose to engage in a dangerous activity. Smoking, on the other hand, causes damage.  It's causing harm. To me. So is drinking rum and living in a large population center. What's your point? So what?! you say. Well those companies are paying for your health care if they have any benefits package.  And if you're smoking,  you are going to be making claims that they are paying for. Just like they'll be paying for your hemorroid surgery and your kid's tonsilectomy and broken arm, and cough, and fever in the middle of the night that you think requires a trip to the ER and 7k worth of tests, at the end of which your Doc tells you to give him two asprin and come back on Monday. I pay a portion of that cost. Again, what's your point? That's how insurance works. Don't like the prospect of paying for someone else's illness? Pay your own way. I'm going the insurance route so that I can afford smokes. The money they spend on smoking related health problems raises their rates,  impacting EVERYONE.  Someone who says "so f****** what if I smoke?!" have never seen the impact of continuously rising health care rates and the impact they have on a business.  Has your company been hiring a lot?  Been getting large bonuses?  Maybe not, part of that is because of huge health care costs. Ha! The depressed auto market is more likely for cost cutting at my company. Not smokers. I am not so vain, nor so stupid as to assume that smokers are crippling a company. Trust me, health care for the people who have 7 kids costs the company WAY more than it's EVER gonna pay for me... I don't necessarily agree with firing them, but do beleve a company can  hire whoever they want or fire as well,  but I'm totally comfortable with them pulling all health benefits fro smokers in order to keep the costs down until they stop smoking. Once again, if you purely believe that the company can do whatever it feels it needs to do to save money, you'd have no problem with Catbert the HR guy coming up with the brainstorm that anyone with more than 2 kids now has to pay an additional 7k a year per child, and if there is a further pregnancy, coverage will be withdrawn, right? Didn't think so. I find it hilarious that in one paragraph you say that you don't give a shit if we don't like your smoke,  but in the next paragraph you say if we want to live to 100 and die in a hospital fine by you but those are contradictory statements.  You don't give  a shit if we don't like your smoke but you are going to inflict it on us anyway.  I'm pretty sure you'd be offended if I walked over and dropped a big stinky shit right in the middle of your dinner plate and I sure as hell offended when I am sitting there with my kids and some asshole fires up a cigarette, inflicting his stink on everyone in the building. Read the statement again. Now once more. I don't want to die at 100 while drooling on myself after a lifetime of clean living and healthy food. Fuck. That. Noise. And if I was sitting in the "Shitting on other people's plates" section of the restaraunt, well then, I'm the idiot. But since there is no "Shitting on other people's plates" section in ANY restaraunt, I would probably call the police and then hold you until they arrived to take you away for indecent exposure. Have fun in prison. Maybe your strawman will keep Bubba away from your behymen. You're all for the freedom to smoke as long as it doesn't curtail your freedom to inflict your smoke on everyone around you.   That's  like me saying I don't give a shit if you like my shooting or not and I'm sitting in a cafe capping people in the ass as they walk by. Once again, if you sitting in a cafe engaged in capping people (an illegal act I might add) I would probably shoot you. Repeatedly with a .45. Because that's the kind of guy I am. how's this,  as a  non smokers I am  over joyed you are smoking yourself to death. I seriously couldn't care less. I hope you never have even a cough from your cigarettes and you live to a ripe old age of a 100 but  don't fire those stinky ass cigarettes up where me, my wife or my kids have to breath them.  Cause every time you do I get a little  sense of satisfaction when they raise the price of nicotine, and I vote for every tax increase on Cigs I get a chance to That's because you are a Commie, and have no qualms about creating an underclass to lord over and feel superior to. You would probably love China. And if you're REALLY close and in some sort of enclosed space, I'll probably walk over and drop the gaseous remnants of last night's tacos right in your face just for the pleasure of it.

And if you really think that farting in someone who is holding a lighter's face is an intelligent act, feel free. But don't give me a dirty look when I set your ass on fire. And no, I will not put you out--I'll be too busy laughing at the funny man ablaze in front of me.

Quoted: Quoted: The problem is that in order to stop companies from doing this you would have to change at-will employment.  In other words, you'd have to write laws saying "an employer cannot fire an employee for X . . . ." because the current rule in most states is you can fire someone for any reason or no reason whatsoever, except for a few limited exceptions like age, gender, race, retaliation, etc. Real solution is to quit working for companies that try to dictate your personal life. Yup.  It is an interesting conundrum, tough.  We have people bemoaning the "nanny state" when what they really want is for the state to step in and make sure private employers play nice.  When you get right down to it, they really do want a nanny state.  They just want the nanny enforcing different rules.

No, I want as little intrusion into my PERSONAL FUCKING LIFE as possible. They don't want me to smoke at work? Hey, no problem. But in my house? Fuck you and everyone who looks like you. That's what I want.

And yes, I am headed out of that company. Fuck them and their idiot policies.

Quoted: As a condition of employment, you could be required to call in from home on a daily basis in order to sing "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow" to the boss.  You could be required to drive a purple Pinto.  They can tell you to buy 15 pairs of clown shoes.   You don't like it?  Form a union or work somewhere else.   An employer can do whatever they want within legal limits.  YOU have the right not to work for dirtbag dictators.

And who SETS those legal limits?? In the USA it's the Voters.


At least it's supposed to be.

But we've all become lazy and apathetic.
Until it affects us personally, that is.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The point that has not been pointed out is that they company pays for the healthcare. You guys are protesting this but how many of you would money into a bad situation? The option should be this.  You can have healthcare paid for if you want it.  If you want to keep it you cant smoke.  If you decline coverage then you can do whatever the fuck you want.  That seems fair to me. Smoking costs BILLIONS of dollars of our healthcare dollars year.  How many of us on this board have had relatives die of lung cancer?  I think I can remember about 5 members since I have joined the have lost loved ones to lung cancer.  With me getting hit twice!   Both of my parents had cancer, they even had the same type of cancer, my mom died of complications relating to the original treatment and the spread of several other types. My dad is kicking just fine, Neither smoked not did their parents or family. Stuff happens, think about Radon, that is the second biggest reason for lung cancer, it's quite prevelent in Michigan also. Asbestosis is another, the risks go up if you smoke and the blame is placed on smoking, but the real fact is that many thing cause lung cancer, but the blame is very easy to place on smoking. I'd bet Scotts has more then a few suits against it by employees who blame lung injuries on the chemicals used and inhaled and their defense will be that smoking increased the risk. For many years their employees wore no protective wear whatsoever, not even a mask, and the chemicals were much more dangerous then now, tho to say it's safe is a joke. We are only seeing a small tip of the game here I'd bet. Doesn't matter. Nothing guarantees them a job.  If they don't like the way they get treated, or disagree with the reasoning the emplyoer uses... They have two choices. 1) Suck it up. 2) Go find employment elsewhere. I really don't get people that think we have a right to work someplace and to control the workplace as employees. I started my own business so that I could run shit the way I wanted. Prior to starting this business, if an employer enacted policy I disliked, I hauled ass. Rather than bitching and moaning like they were infringing upon me, I packed up and got out, and always found better circumstances elsewhere. eta:  Sorry about your parents. It's funny that alcoholism is a DISABILITY/DISEASE and smoking is not.

No its not.

It is a rack of discipwine.  Nothing more.

The company I work for has a "No Smoking" policy. I dont smoke, and I dont enjoy the smoke of others, so it doesnt bother me a bit. They wont hire anyone who uses any tobacco products of any kind.
Its their perogative. They are the one handing out paychecks. If they don't want to hire people who smoke, for whatever reason, they dont have to.
A woman I work with asked me what I thought about it the other day. She and several other women claim it's "Discrimination". Discrimination is based on something you cant change- Skin Color, Race, Birth Defects, etc. Drinking, Smoking, chewing tobacco and drug use are choices people constantly make, and can be changed anytime.  

I was amazed when I came here, how many people thought the benefits were "expensive". I pay $20 a pay for BC/BS, Dental, Prescription and Vision coverage, for Myself, my Wife and two kids.
At my last job, I paid $70 every two weeks, for bare-bones medical coverage for myself.
Everyone acts like they are entitled to pay next to nothing for health insurance from their company.
Typical Union Socialism.

Quoted: Quoted: The problem is that in order to stop companies from doing this you would have to change at-will employment.  In other words, you'd have to write laws saying "an employer cannot fire an employee for X . . . ." because the current rule in most states is you can fire someone for any reason or no reason whatsoever, except for a few limited exceptions like age, gender, race, retaliation, etc. Real solution is to quit working for companies that try to dictate your personal life. Yup.  It is an interesting conundrum, tough.  We have people bemoaning the "nanny state" when what they really want is for the state to step in and make sure private employers play nice.  When you get right down to it, they really do want a nanny state.  They just want the nanny enforcing different rules.

Libertarian horseshit. I guess that anti-slavery laws are nanny state interferance as well?

Commerce in this nation is a privelage, not a right and the government has not only the power but also the responsability to regulate the activities of employers in order to defend the rights of the people from being trampled by private entities, especially corporations.

My employer does.

Quoted: The company I work for has a "No Smoking" policy. I dont smoke, and I dont enjoy the smoke of others, so it doesnt bother me a bit. They wont hire anyone who uses any tobacco products of any kind. Its their perogative. They are the one handing out paychecks. If they don't want to hire people who smoke, for whatever reason, they dont have to. A woman I work with asked me what I thought about it the other day. She and several other women claim it's "Discrimination". Discrimination is based on something you cant change- Skin Color, Race, Birth Defects, etc. Drinking, Smoking, chewing tobacco and drug use are choices people constantly make, and can be changed anytime.

Not hiring people who smoke is one thing. Coming through one day and demanding that 20% of existing employees submit a sample of their bodily fluids for inspection so that the company can determine whether or not you are engaged in prohibited activities, and threatening to fire those who do not comply is something else entirely.

I was amazed when I came here, how many people thought the benefits were "expensive". I pay $20 a pay for BC/BS, Dental, Prescription and Vision coverage, for Myself, my Wife and two kids. At my last job, I paid $70 every two weeks, for bare-bones medical coverage for myself. Everyone acts like they are entitled to pay next to nothing for health insurance from their company. Typical Union Socialism.

Union Socialism? HA! Unions are capitalists just as the corporations are. The unions have a commodity that is in demand, and they are making sure that they get the fairest market price for that commodity. Just as employees don't have a right to have a job, corporations don't have a right to have employees. If corporations don't want to hire Union labor then let them go hire someone else, and let them endure the boycotts, protests and ramifications as well. It's a free country...well, it USED to be a free country.

I employ 6 people and that means I pay their health care.  If I want to fire them because they smoke, I should be able to do it.  As employees they can quit at any time for any reason, why should I, the one who has the sleepless nights, whose entire economic fortune is at risk, and works all the weekends not have the same right to get rid of them for any reason.

It is not about the nanny state.  It is about my economic freedom.  I owe no one a job.  And they do not owe me their labor.  Placing conditions on who I can and can not fire is a limitation on my freedom.

Everything is negotiable.  

I would be willing to give up my monthly cigar and poker night in exchange for a $1,000,000.00 a year contract.  Employment is just an agreement that either party can terminate.  If I don't like the terms, I will make an agreement for my services with somebody else.

Quoted: I employ 6 people and that means I pay their health care.  If I want to fire them because they smoke, I should be able to do it.  As employees they can quit at any time for any reason, why should I, the one who has the sleepless nights, whose entire economic fortune is at risk, and works all the weekends not have the same right to get rid of them for any reason. It is not about the nanny state.  It is about my economic freedom.  I owe no one a job.  And they do not owe me their labor.  Placing conditions on who I can and can not fire is a limitation on my freedom.

You don't have a right run a business. State governments have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce, and the Federal government has the constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. Owning your business is a privelage, and since it has the potential to effect the lives of other citizens your business must be regulated.

You chose to put your economic future at risk by starting your own business, and you also will reap the benefits if/when that risk pays off. But in return for helping you achieve your financial independance you want to dictate to your employees what they can and cannot do on their own time. Freedom is good for you, but not the people who help you gain your economic freedom? That's disgusting!

Let me know what business you are in, so that I can be sure that you never get one red cent of my money!

Smokers were just the first targets. Everyone that doesn't smoke and thought it didn't apply to them are soon to be proven wrong.

The Fat Tax: A Controversial Tool in War Against Obesity

By Alan Mozes
HealthDay Reporter Wed Jan 11, 11:47 PM ET

WEDNESDAY, Jan. 11 (HealthDay News) -- In America's ongoing battle of the bulge, one strategy to combat the nation's obesity epidemic has generated more than a decade's worth of attention and controversy.

Popularly known as the "fat tax" or the "Twinkie tax," the concept first gained widespread attention in 1994 when Yale University psychology professor Kelly D. Brownell outlined the idea in an op-ed piece in The New York Times.

Addressing what he called a "dire set of circumstances," Brownell proposed two food-tax options: A big tax, in the range of 7 percent to 10 percent, to discourage the purchase of unhealthy processed foods while subsidizing healthier choices; or a much smaller tax to fund long-term public health nutrition programs.

"The American food system is set up as if maximizing obesity were the aim," Brownell told HealthDay. "So the idea was to tax either certain classes of foods -- like soft drinks or fat foods -- or to just tax specific foods high in calories or low in nutrition. Then you use the income from such a tax to subsidize the sale of healthy foods in order to reverse what is the unfortunate reality now: that it costs more to eat a healthier diet."

The tax, said Brownell, would be a pro-active response to a food industry and consumer culture that increasingly promotes high-fat/low-nutrition products as the cheapest, tastiest, most convenient and most available dietary options.

Brownell emphasized that, if properly implemented, fat taxes could yield major benefits. For example, slapping a single penny tax onto the cost of soft drinks across the country would generate almost $1.5 billion annually -- a figure that far exceeds the budgets of current government-sponsored nutrition programs, he said.

The non-profit Washington, D.C.-based Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports that, in recent years, levies of this kind have, in fact, been imposed -- with states such as Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia and Washington creating "fat taxes" on soft drinks sold within their borders.

Other states such as California, Maine and Maryland have also experimented with hefty "fat-tax" legislation, Brownell said. However, all the levies were ultimately repealed, highlighting several practical problems with the fat-tax concept identified by both Brownell and the IOM.

One big problem is that money collected through fat taxes has typically not been earmarked for obesity-prevention programs or healthy food subsidies; instead they were often used to cover budget deficits.

Concerns have also been raised that such a tax is inherently regressive, meaning it punishes poorer people who must spend much of their limited income on food.

And although the fat tax appears to have gained popularity as a theoretical approach to weight management, deciding exactly which products are unhealthy, taxable foods is a tricky practical matter.

Nonetheless, while the IOM has remained neutral on the fat-tax issue, some legislators across the country are moving full-steam ahead to get food-related levies on the books.

New York State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, a Democrat from New York City, is one such proponent of the fat tax.

For three years Ortiz has championed a bill that would ding any foods high in calories, fat or carbs -- including perennial favorites such as potato chips, candies and french fries. The bill would also add a one-cent surcharge on video games.

The taxes would generate an estimated $50 million a year, and all the money would be used to augment the state's $1.5 million budget for the Childhood Obesity Prevention Program. The program, established in 2001, is designed to promote healthy eating habits among children and adults through family physician interventions and after-school dietary and physical activity workshops.

"We have a very chronic epidemic regarding obesity," said Ortiz. "And we think the food tax is part of the solution. This will be a vehicle to fund the obesity prevention program that can provide the services needed to assure that our children and the working families of the state of New York will get the proper information on healthy lifestyles. It will save lives and the next generation."

Once they start they don't let up. Remember one of the first companies to start testing/firing smokers?

Can The Boss Insist On Healthy Habits?

Jan. 14, 2006
(AP)

Quote

"There is no law that prohibits an employer from saying, 'You look about 15-20 pounds too heavy, you're fired.'"
employment attorney Glenn Patton


(Christian Science Monitor) This article was written by Randy Dotinga.


A year ago, the Weyco medical benefits firm in Michigan made news nationwide by sacking employees who refused to try to quit smoking.

But that was just the beginning. Now, the company is working even harder to force its workers to take better care of themselves.

In 2006, Weyco employees who refuse to take mandated medical tests and physical examinations will see their monthly health insurance premiums jump by $65. By next year, their annual insurance bills will grow by more than $1,000 if they still fail to follow instructions.

"The cost of healthcare is frustrating everybody, and we believe at Weyco that we have to heal ourselves," says Howard Weyers, company president and founder. "We think it's vital."

But at what price? Should bosses like Weyers worry about whether workers are getting annual dental exams, eating healthy, or jogging regularly? Or should employees have a basic right to live their personal lives without interference?

These questions are gaining resonance as more American companies try to convince employees to watch their health.


Interest In 'Wellness' Programs

Smokers, not surprisingly, are often the targets, with some companies going as far as testing their workers for tobacco use. In addition, some employees are being told to shape up or pay up, including those who are overweight, avoid exercise, have high blood pressure or high cholesterol.

"A lot of employers are wrestling with this internally," says Glenn Patton, an employment attorney in Atlanta.

In some cases, bosses are telling workers to take part in preventive "wellness" programs — a nutrition class, for example — or face higher premiums.

"You can't require someone to get better ... or lose weight," says Mila Kofman, assistant research professor at Georgetown University Health Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. "But [employers] can require you to participate in [a health program]."

At Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina, for example, company employees with health conditions such as obesity will automatically get socked with higher insurance premiums — as much as $480 a year — unless they agree to take part in wellness programs. The higher premiums began last year for the company's own employees; this year, employers who contract with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina for insurance can choose to impose the higher fees on their workers, too.

"We give people an alternative to not pay the higher rates if they work on their problems," says executive medical director Dr. Don Bradley, who says more than half of his company's employees are overweight. "Folks respond far better to carrots than they do to sticks, so the secret here is to keep this as an incentive rather than a punishment."

The approach makes sense for employers, says Lisa Horn, manager of healthcare at the Society for Human Resource Management in Alexandria, Va., which advises personnel managers. "They're really trying to improve the health of their employees overall, and not just reduce costs for the employer, but also for employees," Horn says. "It certainly seems like their intentions are in the right place."


An Invasion Of Privacy?

Workers' rights groups don't agree. They're appalled by the pushy-employer trend, which they have seen growing over the past couple of years.

"This isn't about smokers," says Jeremy Gruber, legal director of the National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J. "This is about all of us being able to go about our private lives without employers making decisions based on what we do off the job."

Some observers worry that employers will let their interest in health get out of hand. "My biggest fear," Kofman says, "is that ... companies will try to use these wellness programs as a subterfuge to discriminate against unhealthy people."

Currently, federal law forbids employers from discriminating against workers if genetic testing suggests they're susceptible to certain diseases. But could employers refuse to hire applicants because they smell like smoke?

"It's probably legal," Kofman says.

Some lawmakers want to change that. In Michigan, an outcry against the firing of smokers at Weyco sparked a state senator to push for a law that would prevent employers from firing workers for engaging in legal activities outside the workplace. About 30 other states have similar laws protecting the private lives of employees, although their protections differ.

Weyers, the Weyco president, doesn't have regrets. "I tell people that this was not a privacy situation, this was a company policy," he says. "Employees are adults, and we expect them to make adult decisions about things like drugs or tobacco. What's more important: your job or the use of those things?"

The company was generous enough to give employees 15 months to make a decision about whether to quit smoking, Weyers adds. Some workers "decided tobacco was more important, and that's fine. They can go someplace else and work."


Workplaces Often Lack Private-Life Protections

The color of your eyes, the car you drive, and your weight may all sound like private matters. But in many states, employers can take those facts — and many more — into account when they decide whether to hire or fire you.

Some groups are protected on the federal level: Employers can't discriminate against workers based on age, gender, race, disability, national origin, or religion. But unless state law says differently, all other characteristics are fair game, including your political leanings and even what you wear outside of work.

In 2004, for example, an Alabama housing insulation company reportedly fired a woman for sticking a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker on her Chevy Lumina. In 2002, Goodwill Industries sacked a man who ran for mayor of Miami as a member of the Socialist Workers Party. Also that year, a federal court ruled that the Winn-Dixie grocery chain had the right to fire a Louisiana employee because he wore women's clothing off the job.

These firings didn't violate the law thanks to "at-will employment," a legal concept in 49 states that allows bosses to fire workers for virtually any reason — or none at all. (Montana is the sole exception.)

Even a seemingly arcane factor like your weight can come into play. "To be honest, generally speaking there is no law that prohibits an employer from saying, 'You look about 15-20 pounds too heavy, you're fired,'" says Atlanta employment attorney Glenn Patton.

There are some exceptions. Almost all states protect employees from being fired for "exercising a right of public policy," such as voting, says Camille Olson, an employment attorney in Chicago. Government employees have special protections, as do many union members and others with contracts.

As of 2003, 29 states and the District of Columbia forbade bosses from firing workers for engaging in certain legal off-duty activities, according to the Society for Human Resource Management. Tobacco use is the most widely protected activity; four states protect employees who do anything legal outside the workplace.

Outside those states, workers can still get pink slips for engaging in private activities.

Quoted: Should they be able to terminate you for smoking?  No, not unless smoking in some way intereferes with the proper performance of the job. Should they be able to terminate you for illegal drug use or prescription drug abuse?  Yes, you are a hazard to yourself and those around you.  BTW, you are also egaged in a criminal activity.

Utter and complete hypocrisy.  Someone smoking a joint over the weekend has NO bearing on job performance, period.  "A hazard to yourself and those around you".......right out of the DEA manual.  If you are high, be it pot, booze, whatever, at work, that is a different story.

]quote]If your job involves serious safety issues and things you do in the off hours could hold over to your work hours (drugs & alcohol), then yes, they should be able to terminate you.  This should be made part of the employment "contract" - you need to know the conditions of employment before you start.

Yeah boy, keep up the cluelessness.

Here's the CLINKER - if you are on an insurance-paid or government-paid health care plan, you have surrendered some of your rights.  This is how they got their hooks into you, despite all your cursing and swearing, Gravity Tester.  

BTW, I DO NOT want to pay to treat your smoking-induced lung cancer treatment.

All this dancing around to say that you think it is okay.

You and you ilk are one of the main reasons why this shit has come about.

Quoted: No one is entitled to any particular job.  Likewise, no one is forced to take any particular job.  I wouldn't want to work there because I value freedom of association.  While I have a very strong dislike of smoking, some of my best friends are smokers.  And sometimes, I like to have a cigar.  I will not be punished for hanging out with smokers.  Therefore, I would either quit or go quietly when fired.   The owner of the business needs to be free to run it as he so pleases.  It is his property.  However, the employees are not.  They are all volunteers.  Whenever the employer/employee relationship sours, both side have equal power when it comes to ending it. I can understand where this guy is coming from.  Smoking causes lost productivity and increased health care costs.  Maybe he just got fed up with it.  Or maybe he is some sort of control freak.

Another one who thinks this is just fine.

Quoted: The point that has not been pointed out is that they company pays for the healthcare. You guys are protesting this but how many of you would money into a bad situation? The option should be this.  You can have healthcare paid for if you want it.  If you want to keep it you cant smoke.  If you decline coverage then you can do whatever the fuck you want.  That seems fair to me. Smoking costs BILLIONS of dollars of our healthcare dollars year.  How many of us on this board have had relatives die of lung cancer?  I think I can remember about 5 members since I have joined the have lost loved ones to lung cancer.  With me getting hit twice!

Another vote for the employer.

Quoted: Just don't smoke on their time. One thing I hate is a bunch of smokers whinning about the lack of "smoke breaks" I don't get one or need one, you are on the companies time. Off the clock and off the property do what you want.

Well, this is about being off the clock.  Read the damn thread.

Quoted: ETA: You employer has a contract with you. You provide a service, they provide a paycheck. That is the end of the fucking story. You don't get to dictate to them, they don't get to dictate to you. Every fucking do-gooder health nazi is a commie shitheel at heart, and longs to exert their own ideals over someone else. Get fucked. I don't give a shit if you don't like my smoke. I don't like your whiny commie voice, but do you hear me whine about it? Nope. them up your ass.

not in support of "nanny state" but I think depending on your employment what you do in your off hours can be important and worthy of firing.

for example
TRW employee clocks out then fraternizes with russian embassey (falcon and the snowman btw)
Assistant priest clocks out and head for mustang ranch
Secretary at Brady clocks out and goes to the shooting range.

Quoted: Doesn't matter. Nothing guarantees them a job.  If they don't like the way they get treated, or disagree with the reasoning the emplyoer uses... They have two choices. 1) Suck it up. 2) Go find employment elsewhere. I really don't get people that think we have a right to work someplace and to control the workplace as employees. I started my own business so that I could run shit the way I wanted. Prior to starting this business, if an employer enacted policy I disliked, I hauled ass. Rather than bitching and moaning like they were infringing upon me, I packed up and got out, and always found better circumstances elsewhere. eta:  Sorry about your parents.

Some of you seem to have reading comprehension difficulties.  This is not about the workplace, this is about employers trying to control the employees' lives away from the workplace.

BTW, not everyone can afford to start their own business.

I can't wait until they start wanting to fire people just because they own guns.  Some of you who think this is okay will sing a different tune then.

Fucking hypocrites.

Quoted: Quoted: Should they be able to terminate you for illegal drug use or prescription drug abuse?  Yes, you are a hazard to yourself and those around you.  BTW, you are also egaged in a criminal activity. What about those who have a few drinks then get in their car to drive home? Should employers have the right to fire you for any illegal activity after work hours? Where does one draw the line...once you allow an employer any contol over your personal life. Fuck them, it is BS.

are you a police officer? or perhaps a drug and alchol counselor?  if so then yep they can fire you for that off duty behavior

Quoted: Once they start they don't let up. Remember one of the first companies to start testing/firing smokers? Can The Boss Insist On Healthy Habits? Jan. 14, 2006 (AP) Quote "There is no law that prohibits an employer from saying, 'You look about 15-20 pounds too heavy, you're fired.'" employment attorney Glenn Patton.

They would have to apply this evenly, including ALL employees, fat-assed CEOs and CFOs too.  They'd be smarter to just fire you because they can and leave out the crack about your poundage.

I find it quite interesting that some of those who would be stroking out about this time if this were about the police being legally allowed to come into your house at any time and check your guns out, are the same one's that think that you have no right to expect your employer [not massa] to leave you the hell alone on your own property.

Someone who has a business and has 8 employees fall under different  state and federal guidelines then a company that employs 8000, that is a fact of life. It's not even close.

And most large companies are not owned by one person/CEO, they are owned by groups of people called stockholders. Damn, thats a no brainer.

Quoted: The company I work for has a "No Smoking" policy. I dont smoke, and I dont enjoy the smoke of others, so it doesnt bother me a bit. They wont hire anyone who uses any tobacco products of any kind. Its their perogative. They are the one handing out paychecks. If they don't want to hire people who smoke, for whatever reason, they dont have to. A woman I work with asked me what I thought about it the other day. She and several other women claim it's "Discrimination". Discrimination is based on something you cant change- Skin Color, Race, Birth Defects, etc. Drinking, Smoking, chewing tobacco and drug use are choices people constantly make, and can be changed anytime.   I was amazed when I came here, how many people thought the benefits were "expensive". I pay $20 a pay for BC/BS, Dental, Prescription and Vision coverage, for Myself, my Wife and two kids. At my last job, I paid $70 every two weeks, for bare-bones medical coverage for myself. Everyone acts like they are entitled to pay next to nothing for health insurance from their company. Typical Union Socialism.

Yeah, if they don't want to hire people who own guns, they don't have to.  How's that sound?

Two choices.

1. The employer can decide to not pay for health benefits.
The smoking employee has to find a health care provider that
accepts smokers (most likely at a much higher cost).
The employee is no longer liable for any health problems the smoker may have.

2. The employer can force the employee to pay the difference.
The smoking employee has to fork over more money so the smoker can continue to
receive the benefits.

Getting fired for doing something LEGAL OFF HOURS can set the employee
up for being sued for wrongful termination.
The key word is legal.
Partaking in a legal activity after hours.
The smoker is not smoking crack or snorting blow.

Quoted: You know sheep don't know they are sheep until they loaded into the slaughter house.

Some sheep even think its for the greater good of all sheepdom.

I wonder what kind of twist this debate will take WHEN this country adopts socialized medicine.

Will the government be able to deny health care to tax payers who smoke or are overweight due to the increased financial burden placed on the system? Will more people start bitching that the government should outlaw cigarettes, red meat and junk/fast food because the health risks associated with these things put a strain on the federal health care system?

Also, I wonder if these kinds of issues will cause more employers and corporations to start supporting socialized medicine. Having the taxpayers fund their own health care will reduce overhead for corporations and relieve them of the burdens associated with mandating employee behavior.

Quoted: I wonder what kind of twist this debate will take WHEN this country adopts socialized medicine. Will the government be able to deny health care to tax payers who smoke or are overweight due to the increased financial burden placed on the system? Will more people start bitching that the government should outlaw cigarettes, red meat and junk/fast food because the health risks associated with these things put a strain on the federal health care system? Also, I wonder if these kinds of issues will cause more employers and corporations to start supporting socialized medicine. Having the taxpayers fund their own health care will reduce overhead for corporations and relieve them of the burdens associated with mandating employee behavior.

Then we will be just like Canada.




(Not that there's anything WRONG with that...)

I think the employer should be able to fire you for any reason he likes unless you have a contract.


"I don't like you, you're fired".

"I don't hire blacks, you're fired"

"I don't hire whites, you're fired"


"I want you to commit to no drinking and no smoking even when you're not at work. Don't like it? Then you can quit, this will be enforced by random testing. Don't like that? There's the door"


etc.

mmmmm. MrsWind, MsWind, and theWind don't smoke, barely drink and are all getting in shape..I want more money in our checks

Quoted: under certain conditions yes. my company requires i sign and live by a written ethical standard and is in fact a condition of my employment.  if i get busted with a dead hooker in the trunk they reserve the right to fire me. Employees are denamding cheaper health care costs. Insurance companies are puttting the pressure on employers to push employees to live healthier lifestyels. heathier people equals fewer claims and lower costs. I have no problem with a company mandating NEW employees be non smokers. Private enterprise should be able to hire who the want. That said requiring a long term employee that was not hired under that mandate is bullshit. Their participation should be voluntary. If the decide to continue smoking and pay a higher premium... so be it. This was announced early last year as i recall. It is purely a cost saving attempt by management.

Fuck the insurance companies! Insurance is a racket plain and simple. Insurance companies take money from policy holders hoping that the company will never have to pay out, and when policy holders file a claim the insurance company does everything it can to keep from paying or pay as little as possible. Their enitre business model is based on taking money from customers and providing nothing in return. The insurance industry should be closed completely, and the upper management of every insurance company should be prosecuted under RICO statutes.

In my opinion, the ideal solution to health care would be to establish tax free employer matched savings plans similar to IRA's or 401K's, severely limit lawsuits against hospitals and doctors, allow the government to provide limited subsidies to presciription drug R&D, and allow the government offer interst free student loans and scholarships to people seeking to enter the medical field. That'd bring health care costs down quite a bit/

Quoted: In my opinion, the ideal solution to health care would be to establish tax free employer matched savings plans similar to IRA's or 401K's, severely limit lawsuits against hospitals and doctors, allow the government to provide limited subsidies to presciription drug R&D, and allow the government offer interst free student loans and scholarships to people seeking to enter the medical field. That'd bring health care costs down quite a bit/

Tax free contributory medical savings accounts already exist. I use one to pay the expenses I have that aren't covered by my insurance. I don't get employer matching funds, being a public sector employee, but then I don't have the 401K, the Christmas bonuses etc that many of you have.

Student loans already exist, but maybe one of the docs here can describe what loans already exist for the medical field. But hey, ya know what? Raise your hand, promise the country 6 or 7 years after graduation and the military will provide you all the medical training you want.

Prescription drug costs need to be reduced, certainly. We are getting raked over the coals on drug prices.

I'd think it would probably allow them to shed (by legal means) a lot of pension obligations as well as other costs.

Quoted: Quoted: In my opinion, the ideal solution to health care would be to establish tax free employer matched savings plans similar to IRA's or 401K's, severely limit lawsuits against hospitals and doctors, allow the government to provide limited subsidies to presciription drug R&D, and allow the government offer interst free student loans and scholarships to people seeking to enter the medical field. That'd bring health care costs down quite a bit/ Tax free contributory medical savings accounts already exist. I use one to pay the expenses I have that aren't covered by my insurance. I don't get employer matching funds, being a public sector employee, but then I don't have the 401K, the Christmas bonuses etc that many of you have.

True, they do exist but right now they are only suited for paying medical expenses for care that your insurance company doesn't cover, and anything that you don't spend in the year that you deposited it disappears.

Student loans already exist, but maybe one of the docs here can describe what loans already exist for the medical field. But hey, ya know what? Raise your hand, promise the country 6 or 7 years after graduation and the military will provide you all the medical training you want.

True also, but the military doesn't turn out enough doctors to meet the needs of the entire country.

One of the factors contributing to the high cost of health care is the fact that medical students have to shell out alot of money to become doctors. This prohibits alot of qualified people from becoming doctors, reducing the number of doctors on the market and increasing the demand for the doctors that do graduate. These doctors can then demand high salaries and get them (and they usually need them to cover the costs of their student loans and malpractice liability insurance). By increasing the number of doctors available you can decrease the cost of doctor salaries and by limiting lawsuits you decrease the cost of malpractice insurance (if we cannot imprison the entire insurance industry that is)

Lets imagine that all kinds of sanctions apply and employers fire folks who smoke, take drugs, are fat and those that engage in dangerous activities.   At some point, employers will begin to have difficulty finding employees that are otherwise qualified to do work for them.  Unless a lot of people's lifestyles change (I don't think they will), the market will drive how this issue is addressed.  

My guess is that we will see more & more employers requiring risky employees contribute more for healthcare, than they do for other non-risk factor employees.   That is, until healthcare is nationalized and things really deteriorate.  

Quoted: True, they do exist but right now they are only suited for paying medical expenses for care that your insurance company doesn't cover, and anything that you don't spend in the year that you deposited it disappears.

That depends on your plan. The one I have accrues and you don't ever have to touch it if you don't want to.

True also, but the military doesn't turn out enough doctors to meet the needs of the entire country.

But for those for whom cost is THAT much of a factor, its a good option. I think the military has more than enough capacity to train a lot of docs, and they can create additional training facilities if they deem it neccesary.

One of the factors contributing to the high cost of health care is the fact that medical students have to shell out alot of money to become doctors. This prohibits alot of qualified people from becoming doctors, reducing the number of doctors on the market and increasing the demand for the doctors that do graduate. These doctors can then demand high salaries and get them (and they usually need them to cover the costs of their student loans and malpractice liability insurance)

Just about anyone going to a private 4 year school these days is going to graduate with huge debt loads  You are right that malpractice rates contribute to the availability of docs in a lot of the country. I have heard about some of the shortages out there...I recall hearing about one small town that actually paid some guys way through med school because they had NO doctor. Amazing how desperate some areas are for medical treatment.

NO. If you do the job well, the people around you don't have trouble working with you, and are, despite your lifestyle choices (or disabilities), a value-added to the company, they should NOT be allowed to fire you because of that one PERSONAL issue.

Quoted: the main fact for the high cost of health care is not what it costs for medical school.

I'm not claiming that it is the main reason for health care costs being as high as they are, but it is a contributing factor.

it's malpractice insurance costs that have gone through the roof thanks to obscene settlements by trial lawyers. mix that with "free" health care from indigents/illegals that can't/won't pay for their care and you get high costs. Higher costs mean higher negotiated rates for insurance companies <thier legalities is another topic>. higher payouts equal raised rates as they WILL NOT lose money.

I agree. I think that we should limit lawsuits against hospitals and doctors (and then force malpractice insurance companies to lower their premiums accordingly).

Quoted: Quoted: the main fact for the high cost of health care is not what it costs for medical school. I'm not claiming that it is the main reason for health care costs being as high as they are, but it is a contributing factor. it's malpractice insurance costs that have gone through the roof thanks to obscene settlements by trial lawyers. mix that with "free" health care from indigents/illegals that can't/won't pay for their care and you get high costs. Higher costs mean higher negotiated rates for insurance companies <thier legalities is another topic>. higher payouts equal raised rates as they WILL NOT lose money. I agree. I think that we should limit lawsuits against hospitals and doctors (and then force malpractice insurance companies to lower their premiums accordingly).

No price controls please... this is out of the liberal/democratic playbook.   Let the marketplace take care of businesses that are not competitive.  

If an employer is going to tell people how to live thier personal lives, they better pony up the bread to pay employees during off-time hours.

Otherwise, SCREW 'EM!!