I am definitely for not smoking, but I do have to agree that this is too far. I can see not allowing employees to smoke in the office building, but you cannot control this outside the office. Smoking is not illegal, so whether you smoke or not outside the office is seriously not any of their business.
Now here is something else. At our company, smokers now have to pay more for their health insurance if they smoke. If an employee is found to have stated that they do not smoke, but actually do, they can be fired. Kicky, what is your opinion of that, seeing it does directly affect you being a fellow employee? Did you register correctly?
My compromise would be to have the smokers pay the added cost of health care.
I totally agree littlek. But why do you narrow this only to smokers and don't include all the others, who act health risky?
Linkat wrote:I am definitely for not smoking, but I do have to agree that this is too far. I can see not allowing employees to smoke in the office building, but you cannot control this outside the office. Smoking is not illegal, so whether you smoke or not outside the office is seriously not any of their business.
Now here is something else. At our company, smokers now have to pay more for their health insurance if they smoke. If an employee is found to have stated that they do not smoke, but actually do, they can be fired. Kicky, what is your opinion of that, seeing it does directly affect you being a fellow employee? Did you register correctly?
I can be fired for that? Would I still get unemployment? Interesting...
Walter Hinteler wrote:I totally agree littlek. But why do you narrow this only to smokers and don't include all the others, who act health risky?
I agree. Where does it end? Do they charge people extra for health care if they don't eat right or get enough exercise? Enough is enough already! The next thing you know, people will need to pay for passes to leave their homes
Montana wrote:I agree. Where does it end? Do they charge people extra for health care if they don't eat right or get enough exercise?
That's exactly, what I always think, living in a spa, with lots of recovering patients from heart illnesses and stroke attacks staying here: when they leave the clinics, most will soon forget what they've learnt and start their usual life again, with all the consequence.
I think in a lawsuit between the fired smokers and the company, the company would win. The evidence against smoking is now all too clear. The tobacco companies have had to admit in court that what they sell is a nicotine delivery system and that they know nicotine and other elements associated with smoking are harmful, that what they sell is a danger to health. (That's why they had to pay the 10 and half Billion Dollars to the States, to compensate the States' healthcare costs. USA)
Second, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes for Health recently reported that lung diseases (adieu Johnny Carson) and lung cancers are now the leading cause of death for American men, surpassing heart disease for the first time. Lung disease in women has been in a dead heat (no pun intended) with heart disease and Ovarian cancer for some time, the recent rise in tobacco use amongst women 20-29 should put it over the top in the coming years.
Companies have always had the right to restrict personal activities of employees if those activities might place a financial burden on the company. DeCaprio was not allowed to sky-dive during the production of his latest film. Okay, bad example, because he smokes like a chimney throughout the whole thing, but my point is that companies can and do protect themselves against the unhealthful activities of their workers.
By reducing the risks of lung cancer, the company can get lower health premiums for a better health care plan. At least, the workers should demand that it be a better health care plan. That, of course, is where their union should provide leadership, but with the current state of unions in the US who knows who speaks for the workers?
Joe (I'd say the point is clear, but the smoke is too thick to see.) Nation
What unions, Joe? We work for a large financial company. Funny thing even with this change (and my husband, children and me are all non-smokers) my current health plan option would end up costing me more than double. I ended up changing so that it only increased 60% and with a little less coverage on certain items. We have no one speaking for us.
Kicky, the repercussions are up to being fired. If they really need you, you will probably get something like a written warning and in effect then be ineligible for a raise, bonus or promotion. I envision you as George running through Yankee stadium with a nude suit and can’t even get fired.
Haha! Great Idea! Sometimes I feel like George Costanza.
What's next? Firing fat people? They are a drain on health insurance. So are handicapped people. Oh, and old people. You never know when that life insurance policy is going to kick in.
This is a stupid policy and should be challenged. A company does not own it's employees. As long as the act of smoking does not occur during business hours, the employer should have no say in the recreational activities of it's employees. Especially legal activities.
Studies could probably demonstrate that driving to and from work is a far greater risk than smoking.
I guess now my employer has the right to FORCE me to be healthy.
What's next I must show proof of gym membership?
Soon you won't be able to take concealed firearms into the workplace! Talk about the Nanny State!
Here's a possible solution; remove the bans against smoking in the workplace, but make the product more lethal; some sort of poison added to the tobacco that would kill the smoker, BUT NOT the non-smokers. A fast-acting poison, absorbed in the bloodstream, could eliminate the smoker before he or she has a chance to contract cancer, thus reducing the cost to the health care system, as well as the years of secondhand smoke exposure non-smokers face, while still protecting the American right to choose.
If the improved cigarette is fast-acting enough, many smokers, who tend to start young, might not have time to reproduce; this could in time increase the average intelligence level of the species.
Tobacco companies would have to raise the price on their products in order to make up for lost revenue, but I'm sure their marketing departments will be able to convince the average smoker that the higher price only makes smoking more daring and glamorous.
But to be fair, there should be a label on the package that would provide proper notice of the risks. How about something like this:
Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health.
Note for the record that I'm agreeing with mcGentrix.. that a company doesn't own its employeees.
I mostly don't post my many disagreements with people since I am not interested in convincing anyone to change their minds on most matters... but I have not been all that much in agreement with McG.
Now, yes.
We may not agree with their actions, but I suspect that "private" companies are legally entitled to do anything they want, even change the rules of employment after the fact of hiring. Employees are free to leave if they don't like the rules.
I'm not a lawyer, and I could be wrong, but I think they have the right to be blatently disrespectful and wildly discriminatory, and I don't thing there's anything that can be done about it legally.
Public companies, and government organizations are a different matter however. And public opinion also affect decison making in private organizations.
Greyfan wrote:Here's a possible solution; remove the bans against smoking in the workplace, but make the product more lethal; some sort of poison added to the tobacco that would kill the smoker, BUT NOT the non-smokers. A fast-acting poison, absorbed in the bloodstream, could eliminate the smoker before he or she has a chance to contract cancer, thus reducing the cost to the health care system, as well as the years of secondhand smoke exposure non-smokers face, while still protecting the American right to choose.
If the improved cigarette is fast-acting enough, many smokers, who tend to start young, might not have time to reproduce; this could in time increase the average intelligence level of the species.
Tobacco companies would have to raise the price on their products in order to make up for lost revenue, but I'm sure their marketing departments will be able to convince the average smoker that the higher price only makes smoking more daring and glamorous.
But to be fair, there should be a label on the package that would provide proper notice of the risks. How about something like this:
Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined That Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Health.
Boy that's funny. Do you make fun of fat people too?
Oh, lighten up.
or light up.
Seriously though, it's all about risk, isn't it? If you knew that Greyfan's cigarette existed, would you smoke them?
(BTW Greyfan, if that was original material, it's brilliant and i'm going to steal it.) where was I?
Or yeah... The fat people, me amongst them, have to perform an incredible number of stupid actions to get where they are. So do smokers, the difference is the tobacco companies know that there is no safe amount of smoking and they produce the product anyway. There are healthful ways of eating.
Joe (yes, there is nothing more noxious than a former smoker.) Nation
phoenix:
"If a person does not agree with the "rules", he is not a slave or an indentured servant. He is free to seek employment elsewhere. "
It's ok to say don't smoke where you work, but if I have to reveal facts about my "personal" life before being considered for employment, that is another matter. Suppose the company has a policy against hiring, Blacks, Women, Catholics, or those who wear glasses, etc.
Off time is off time. Them Boss gets me 8-5, then I belong to me.
