Posted on 04/08/2013 11:41:44 AM PDT by OKRA2012
Companies aren't just singling out overweight employees. Staffers who smoke are under fire too.
In small but growing numbers, employers in recent years have been refusing to hire smokers, arguing that coaxing tobacco users to quit with free cessation programs or cash incentives hasn't worked. Some medical experts back the bans, saying the end result of reducing smoking is worth it. But other health-care experts say the policy crosses an ethical line by singling out poorer and less educated groups who, federal data shows, smoke more often.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
Well... who's fault is that? Sounds like they have a choice.. either quit smoking and improve your job prospects or don't.
Remember when all of Hollywood made it so cool to smoke? Hardly a movie was made then that didn’t show stars - at least the “cool ones” - constantly smoking.
Yep. And now the "cool ones" are all (or nearly all) dead.
And those of the same vintage who didn’t smoke? Also dead.
Well, true enough but likely of causes less agonizing than those who did.
Ain’t it amazing that we made it through WWI and WWII without busy-bodies in “Human Resource” bugging us about, “Do you beat your wife?” “Do you smoke?” “Do you drink alcohol?”
We had factories turning out amazing amounts of products to kill the kaizer and wipe out Hitler, and we did it without the 4-year HR degree of some little chippie bugging us with these irritating question. They used to ask, “Can you operate __________ machine?” “Can you lift _______ pounds?” “Can you drive a towmoter?”
Not no more. I remember putting my cigarette out on the factory floor.
I have a modest proposal.
I suggest we make smoking compulsory at the age of 13. The revenue generated with everyone over the age of 13 smoking in the United States would have to be in the billions, easily.
The positive results are also people not living so long to collect Social Security - of course, the health issues wouldn’t be covered at any level by either private or public health insurance. If we go lower the age of death to under 70, the savings would be astronomical.
For those who don’t want wish to do their patriotic duty, a $25,000 per annum fine until they start smoking.
Oh, and elimination of all this “no smoking” nonsense.
This is going to be fun until they start firing anybody who owns a gun. Welcome to the ObamaNation!
Yep. And now the “cool ones” are all (or nearly all) dead.
But they’d all be over 90 years old whether they smoked or not.
I remember when Despot Mike Bloomberg of New York city caught a city worker taking a cigarette break he immediately fired him. Yet for the past 5 years he’s refused to fire a woman named Janette Sadik-Khan who has made life hell on earth for millions of people because Bloomberg made her transportation commissioner even though her qualifications are she has a law degree and a degree in political science. In those 5 years she’s proven to be beyond an unmitigated disaster, traffic is beyond a living hell, ambulances, firetrucks, cop cars get stuck in traffic every single day (in which the Despot criticized them for their slow response time).
So let’s compare: City worker takes cigarette break. People harmed: Zero except maybe the smokers health.
Traffic commissioner makes life hell for millions, no doubt has cost lives by delaying emergency response times: She keeps her job.
Conclusion: This is not about smoking but about power trips.
Why single out smokers and fat people? Let’s deny coverage to homosexuals, the promiscuous (and by all means, let’s have spies to peek into bedrooms to see what’s going on), people who ride motorcycles, take too many prescription drugs, go skydiving, farmers, heavy equipment operators, construction workers, anyone else who is in a hazardous occupation or has a risky hobby, and the group that uses the most health care - the elderly! Oh wait, we’re cutting medical care to the elderly now. Never mind.
In fact, let’s only give health insurance and medical care to the young and healthy who eat what the government says they should eat and live in safe, padded rooms that only contain exercise equipment. Then we’ll save lots of money!
How about a better idea? A free market in insurance and health care that allows providers and customers to make their own decisions without government mandates and price controls.
And now the “cool ones” are all (or nearly all) dead.”
As are most of the not so cool ones who were the same age. It’s really strange how so many people seem to die when they are in their 70’s and 80’s. The government should really do something about this.
Company that fires smokers = good.
Company that refuses to support abortion = bad.
So it’s better to stick scissors into the skull of an infant and suck the brain out than it is to have a smoke afterwards.
Makes sense to me! /sarc
Don't forget the guy who smoked a joint three weeks ago - under no circumstances should he ever be hired for any job.
That’s quite a leap you’ve made there. I merely made the point that choices have to be made by those who smoke.
I seem to recall a CDC study from the late 70’s/early 80’s which demonstrated that homosexual males had a much higher disease rate, and suffered from many more types of diseases, than heterosexual males of comparable age and SES.
I never obtained the document, and I’m sure it’s been completely scrubbed from CDC files at this point. If someone could come up with a copy, it would be interesting to see what happened if those data were used to deny employment to male homosexuals.
These people wouldn’t recognize a slippery slope if they were on skis.
why eveyone has the option not to take the company ins policy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.