Skip to comments.Smoking employees cost $6,000 a year more, study finds
Posted on 06/04/2013 7:40:07 AM PDT by LonelyCon
Smokers cost their employers nearly $6,000 a year more than staff who dont smoke, researchers said on Monday in what they say is the first comprehensive look at the issue. And in what some might see as a dark twist, theyve taken into account any savings that might come because smokers tend to die younger than non-smokers, drawing less in pension costs. The findings support a growing trend among employers to not only ban smoking in the workplace, but to refuse to hire smokers in the first place, argues Micah Berman of Ohio State University, who led the study.
(Excerpt) Read more at vitals.nbcnews.com ...
I’m still waiting for MSNBC to report on the added cost of employing gay men. Is it okay in the MSNBC world to refuse to hire gay men because of their much higher medical expenses (ignoring the ick factor)?
How much more a year do jerkball liberals cost an employer; who have to constantly remind each other that everything is George Bush’s fault, who have to discuss how the puddles in the gutter after it rains are signs of climate change, and how we must be sensitive to the lesbian, gay, and transgendered illegal single mothers who are only looking to better themselves; and think they are entitled to spend their employer’s time & resources tweeting each other to make sure they catch ShaLayLay doing the Harlem shuffle on their smartphones while Kim Kardashian pulls small, endangered birds out of her asscrack? How about that study?
i call BS.
“It’s only only wrong when you discriminate against people who are different through no fault of their own like their race or a disability.”
So Hooters should be forced to hire me to wait tables? Not my fault I have a penis and no breasts...
Our whole traffic department smokes. There are four of them I think they blow about 6 man hours a day, between them standing out in the parking lot.
Plus their section of the office smells like an ashtray.
I call BS on this study. How the heck can one calculate 6,000 dollars more anyway. I grab recklessly grab a smoke every so often and I’ve never cost an employer any more money in twenty years. Unless smokers are taking breaks they shouldn’t be for 30 minutes to an hour a day to smoke when they should be productive I don’t get it. However, people slack off in all kinds of ways.
How does that cost compare with those who engage in high risk homosexual sex that can lead to HIV and AIDS?
If a business or the government is going to be selective based on personal choices that are harmful or detrimental to a person’s health isn’t it discriminatory to consider certain conduct but ignore other, more politically correct, conduct?
Also, since the major factor was lost productivity, couldn't you just solve that by letting smokers smoke at their desk?
if they’re gonna bemoan a smoke break or two each day for smokers, hows about bathroom breaks? water cooler brakes? or hows about surfing the web brakes?
if ya really don’t wanna have to carp about 2 fifteen minute breaks, let the smoker smoke at his desk.
that’s half the expense right there. bogus, cherry picking of data.
and what if ya don’t smoke at work?
and did you see the diff in pensions? no way those figures are credible.
“I’ll have your double cheeseburger, chili fries....and a Diet Coke”
And that problem was caused by tbe anti smokers who banned smoking in the office while you work.
Total crap. Pretty soon you’ll see “gun ownership among employees costs employers $1000000000000 more to ensure”
Anymore this is not an employee/employer problem. Since Obamacare has been dumped on us, this is now the Government’s problem.
And we should expect the gubmint to target smokers and over-eaters any minute.
Meanwhile the queers with their unhealthy and dangerous lifestyle... They get a pass.
It sounds like you are very respectful of your employer however many others are not. Beside there standard break smokers take additional breaks for smoking.
There must be a cheaper way to smoke employees. Mesquite wood, perhaps?
I’m sure they’d be content to sit at their desks and smoke while they work, but they’ve been forced to go outside by the nanny staters.
Posted from my Verizon phone from the company smoke break area...
The skinny ones smoke ok.
What’s funny is I use to smoke 2-3 packs a day of Marlboros and never called in sick once in 15 years. Then I quit smoking, boom...Flu, stomach virus, you name it. My theory is the smoke killed the germs lol.
I once worked with a retired Navy chief that smoked a lot. By a lot I mean almost every minute he was awake, sometimes he’d have one it his mouth and another one still lit in the ash tray. Then they banned indoor smoking and he was running outside every 15 minutes. People complained about all the breaks he got but I didn’t, actually stuck up for him. He was the most tech savvy guy we had and still worked circles around most.
If an employee does what you require there’s no reason to bitch. BTW I absolutely hate the smell of cigarette smoke.
What about those who practice sodomy? Alcoholics? Multiple sex partners of the opposite sex?
The problem really is we are now FORCED to be "friendly and kind" and all that stuff reserved for "normal" people.
The government owns our feelings, our morals and our minds....way off base from what our forefathers intended.
More agenda driven junk science. Guess it depends on what you call a cost and what you don’t.
Pray for America to Wake Up
I worked for a public agency that promoted a heavy smoker to a management position. He was outside smoking at least 25% of his work day. After receiving part of the mandatory training for management level, he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He had to be replaced when he took emergency leave for surgery.
After recovering from surgery, he tried to come back, but he was so fragile it was sad to watch. He died soon afterwards.
If you can overlook the human tragedy in an instance like this, look at the cost to taxpayers. The manager wasn’t as productive as his non-smoking peers; the cost of management training was wasted when he had to be unexpectedly replaced; the associated health costs in the last months of his life skyrocketed.
The only grim cost-saving was with the retirement system. He and his agency contributed for years into the system, but the retirement fund only had to pay his widow the survivor’s benefits.
When my husband was sick with cancer, I had him in four different placements - 3 different hospitals, one physical therapy/retirement facility. Each one had NO SMOKING ON CAMPUS signs everywhere. At the physical therapy place, a patient caught smoking would be expelled.
It was all lies. All those places had a location for their employees to smoke. I would become a friend to an employee, then ask where I could go smoke and that person would tell me where it was or take me there. At that point, I was “in”, I was one of them and I was the only outsider in those smoking areas.
The physical therapy smoking area where patients would get thrown out if they smoked, was the nicest.
In one of the hospitals, a nurse told me where they went to hide out and smoke - no one could see them there. In another hospital, the nurse told me where a spot was that was considered “off campus” and I could smoke there.
Those places issue no smoking orders to people coming in, but they don't go by that rule themselves. I infiltrated every smoking clandestine place in every hospital and that physical therapy place. After I did the first one, I made it a personal goal to find these hidden smoking places.
Casting stones? As if everyone doesn’t have a vise or is somehow different from the person next to them. Next it’ll be eye color or left handedness or outie belly buttons.
My question is: how much does a gay employee cost the employer?
Actually if the person the owner doesn't want is Muslim or gay I am sure it must be discrimination...
Is it your job to watch them? If not, then you wasted your
employer’s time, just like you claim they do.
There are smokers that waste time getting a smoke but I know several smokers that people would not know they are smokers- they don’t smoke at all at work, take no smoke breaks during the day. Of course they would not be hired by those that ask the question about smoking and would be included in this study as part of the “wasting time smoking” group.
I also know people that spend so much time in the bathroom avoiding work that if they are not slacking they must have major medical issues. How much do those employees cost the owner and should “how often do you go to the bathroom” be an interview question?
Truth is if people want to waste time at work they will find a way- smokers or not.
If the health issues of smokers are an issue to the employer then overweight people and gays must be a concern as well- right?
They first came for the smokers; but I was not a smoker...
I remember traveling in South America and noticing that the bank teller was smoking when we transacted business there, and the waiter often as not had a cigarette hanging out of his mouth while he took our order.
“Freedom!” we said.
I am their employer. I pay their salary. I own the company.
how much does employing a homosexual cost?
or a liar?
or a druggie?
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.