Sheriff Won't Hire Smokers

San Mateo Daily Journal ^ | March 1, 2004 | Dana Yates

[at bay]

Rising worker’s compensation and health care cost is prompting San Mateo County Sheriff Don Horsley to put a ban on hiring smokers.

“If your lifestyle contributes to a disability, I’m sorry about that. But I don’t think the taxpayers should pay.” said Horsley.

Since smoking is known to cause numerous health problems, Horsley said the decision to not hire smokers is an economical move that could save the county a lot of money in workers’ compensation costs each year.

The idea came to him after the Sheriff’s Department had to settle a $90,000 workers’ compensation claim with a retired employee. The retiree developed lung cancer…..

[Mears]

Oops,"both of them" in post 200.

[dallasgop]

CSM, that's the beauty of the internet, you shall never know who I am or the name of my firm. Unless you own or manage a large petro\chemical plant you will never be the recipient of our services. Our customer base includes most of the top 10 players in the business.
What really does matter is not the rantings of some tobacco addicted internet surfer but the satisfaction of our customers and our employees. Both groups are very happy and they express it through continued patronage of our firm by our customers and through hard work and dedicated focus and zeal by our highly productive and equally highly rewarded employees ( my lowest paid employee is our admin, her 2003 salary with bonus was a little over 70K. Not bad for a 26yr old 4 years out of collage). As I said in an earlier post, we are a tight knit group of folks, smokers do not fit in here, nor due illegal drug users. Get over it and move on CSM, but not too fast, I wouldn't want you to be out of breath.!!!

[dallasgop]

CSM stated in post #181 "I informed them that their potential PO's would reflect their "zero" tolerance policy!". I cannot let this one pass by, CSM, if I understand your post you would abdicate your fiduciary responsibility to your employer and base your purchasing decisions on your ability to get high inside of a supplier's facilities. As part of that group calling anti-smoking employers "nico-nazi's" I find that humorous, sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. I have some reservations as to whether your story is actually true, if the story is true then it refelects poorly on your character.

[realpatriot71]

By your same logic, we should ensure that they not hire people with wives or children.

No - wives and children are not bad habits - not a vice.

Now do you advocate price dictation by the government?

That's not my position. Prices are dictated by the whatever the market will bear.

Where do we give them the authority to "control" the prices of products they deem to be "not good behaviour"?

There's no "price control," only a sales tax.

You are either very simple minded or you are purposefully ignoring the oft quoted writing. I excerpted it. If you need the full text I will search for it and provide it. It is often used when discussing the, "it doesn't affect me so why should I care?" crowd of which you are a member.

Actually, I was asking about your point with the quote to make sure you weren't simple. It's not about "this doesn't affect me, so I don't care" - It's a about a nasty addiction that causes more health problems by itself than any other known substance and when I have to pay for the expensive health care associated with smoking, then it does directly affect me. Your quote is irrelevant to my point.

[lockjaw02]

"Alcohol is not good for you, and being drunk is a sin, "beef" isn't bad for you, it's too much beef that's unhealthy, and there is nothing I can personally do about SUVs. ... Smoking is NOT healthy, belief and faith have nothing do with that objective point. I was merely pointing out that smoking is immoral, a sin."

You obviously never heard of hormesis. It's the dose that makes the poison.

[lockjaw02]

""I said that tobacco users are LESS productive and there is a mountain of evidence to back that up. I have yet to see any study that says they are MORE productive. If you can find such a study please post it. By your own admission you spend about 15 minutes a day getting high, that is 1.25hrs per week or 62.5hrs( 50 work weeks per annum, this allows for 2 weeks vacation) per year of productivity down the drain because of your drug cravings and lack of concern for your own health and well being. I guess it depends on the job and your work environment. If you refuse to hire smokers, you would have not hired Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin, Sigmond Freud, Alexander Bell, Sir Isaac Newton, Carl Sagan, Bob Hope, George Burns, John Wayne, Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain), Donald Trump, Davey Crockett, Neil Armstrong, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Martin Van Buren, William Harrison, Ulysses Grant, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Fiorella LaGuardia, Douglas MacArthur, George Patton, John Pershing, and Antonin Scalia, to name a few unproductive people.

[at bay]

"I am a buyer of about a half billion dollars of "product".

What do you buy, baloney? I don't (buy it).

Oh, BTW, I am the master of the universe. Yeah, that's the ticket. Master of any and all. You all can't see me now, so who's to say?

[at bay]

"If you refuse to hire smokers, you would have not hired... Alexander Bell..."

Who actually said, "Mr. Watson, I am out of smokes, be a dear and run down to the 7-11 and get me some Chestefields" THEN come here."

[dallasgop]

Lockjaw, your post is just a little silly, I noticed quite a few of your examples are smokers who wised up and quite, like Ronald Reagan. But yes you are correct, if they are active smokers I will not hire them. The partnership is mine and my fellow partners to manage and set policy as we please. Do you have a problem with that concept? If we miss an "Albert Einstein" here or there then it will be our loss not yours. Is that ok with you? So far we have been very successful, you seem to miss the concept that in a tight knot group everyone must be a "good fit". With 15 healthy. physically active nonsmokers a smoker just does not fit in. Likewise if the opposite were true and we had 15 smokers, it is likely the nonsmoker would not fit in as well. Among our 10 partners the policy is supported unanimously, we do not hire smokers. It's our business not yours, it's our right, unless you nico-addicted nazi's would like to take it away. The problem you have is that it is an unwritten policy, tobacco heads never know why they never get the 2nd interview. Smoke all you want and enjoy your tobacco abbreviated life as you please, but you will not smoke inside of my business, my automobile nor inside my home around my children. We like the clean smell and we cherish our God given health.

[CSM]

"CSM, that's the beauty of the internet, you shall never know who I am or the name of my firm. Unless you own or manage a large petro\chemical plant you will never be the recipient of our services."

Chicken answer! I have been the customer of many large petrochemical plants, I have decided which of them to award large contracts too. Try $40M contracts to 3M, Henkel, Dupont, Coat-It, Essex, Loctite, Dow Automotive, Rieter, PPG, C&A, Grow, Morton, Orbseal, Eftec, L&L, Preform, Dexter, BASF, HB Fuller, Red Spot, Bostik, Uniseal, Signature, etc.

With the pride that you seem to have regarding your personal activities monitoring behaviour, step up and let us know the name of your firm. I will ensure that your customers are aware of your policies. I will however, not influence their decisions accordingly.

[CSM]

"if I understand your post you would abdicate your fiduciary responsibility to your employer and base your purchasing decisions on your ability to get high inside of a supplier's facilities."

Your a dolt. When it comes to awarding business in a competitive industry, fractions of a penny is what will seperate the suppliers. Most are very competitive with regards to quality, delivery and cost. Therefore it is up to the buyer to define the difference and create the purchasing strategy for the commodity. The buyer manages the totality of the business for that commodity and has the authority to make these decisions.

[CSM]

"No - wives and children are not bad habits - not a vice."

Who decides that? The health insurance policy of the Sherrif dept. has higher premiums for employees with spouses and children. Why do you support hiring those individuals? Their personal choices are costing the taxpayers money.

"That's not my position. Prices are dictated by the whatever the market will bear."

Your indifference to "consumption tax" shows this statement to be false. The government is influencing the price of commodities they consider to be a "sin" commodity, the government is dictating the market price. Take the price of gas as an example, in California the government has dictating regulations that drive the cost of gas to be over the $0.50 over the national average.

"There's no "price control," only a sales tax."

Yep, when I read the statements of Governors, Senators and Reps that they hope to decrease a behaviour by increasint the cost of that behavior, I guess that has nothing to do with price control.

"Actually, I was asking about your point with the quote to make sure you weren't simple. It's not about "this doesn't affect me, so I don't care" - It's a about a nasty addiction that causes more health problems by itself than any other known substance and when I have to pay for the expensive health care associated with smoking, then it does directly affect me. Your quote is irrelevant to my point."

When we start to advocate personal liberty limitations based on health problems we open the door for any behaviour to be monitored. How about increasing the cost of red meat, how about taxes on coffee, how about liscensing people to allow them to have children? If you take the stance that "those things will never happen" think about the current state of the homosexual marriage agenda. Things will move forward while you sit on your hands.

[CSM]

"What do you buy, baloney? I don't (buy it).

Oh, BTW, I am the master of the universe. Yeah, that's the ticket. Master of any and all. You all can't see me now, so who's to say?"

I buy parts for a fortune 5 company. We have about 300 buyers for $70 Billion in supplied parts. Currently I purchase parts that are optional and therefore generate revenue for my company. Historically I have purchased petrochemical products, sheet metal stampings and non production products.

Once again you show your judgemental attitude by claiming you're the master of the universe. By the attitude of your posts, I can only conclude that you support fascism. Dictation of personal behaviour has always been a favorite of Fascists!

[CSM]

"Likewise if the opposite were true and we had 15 smokers, it is likely the nonsmoker would not fit in as well. Among our 10 partners the policy is supported unanimously..."

15 employees and 10 "partners". Must be a hugh and series company! Sounds like the price of the product to their customer is inflated and someone needs to do some negotiation. A $70K admin is indicative of a cost structure that drives uncompetitive pricing of products.

[dallasgop]

And by your own admission you decisions are drug influenced. To be honest CSM, after reviewing some of your other boastings you really do have a serious credibility issue. As far as this thread goes, it's dead. It has turned into a forum for vindictive nico-crazed junkies like yourself having hissy fit's because there are business out there that will not hire them because of their drug habits. My advice, Get a life, a healthy one at that.
And by the way, My firm does not sell a "product", we sell a service. My 70K admin does not have a 70K salary, she had a salary and a bonus that went a little over 70K last year. Why? Because our service priced competitively and we are tops in our field, our customers like us and send us repeat business. That along with our smooth working efficient team make us very profitable and with no debt to boot.

As I said earlier, this thread is dead along with a few thousand smokers who will die today. I will no longer respond to this thread.

[CSM]

"And by your own admission you decisions are drug influenced."

Yep, I am drinking coffee right now. I am under the influence of caffiene!

"To be honest CSM, after reviewing some of your other boastings you really do have a serious credibility issue."

Exactly how do I have a credibility issue? I have provided a pretty good explanation of my job and I provided a list of companies that I dealt with in the past. You on the other hand have provided nothing. Instead, opting to pull the DU tact of stating I have the credibility issue.

"It has turned into a forum for vindictive nico-crazed junkies like yourself having hissy fit's because there are business out there that will not hire them because of their drug habits. My advice, Get a life, a healthy one at that."

It has turned into a forum for vindictive fascist nanny staters junkies like yourself having hissy fit's becuase there are customers our there that will not purchase services or products from a business because of their anti-personal freedom habits. My advice, get a life, a non controlling one at that!

"And by the way, My firm does not sell a "product", we sell a service. My 70K admin does not have a 70K salary, she had a salary and a bonus that went a little over 70K last year. Why?"

So your firm isn't part of the costs in the supply chain? Even the cost of a service is built in the part cost passed on to the customers of the petrochemical companies. Personally, I could care less what you pay an admin (yes, pay is total compensation), however when I evaluate the supply chain for the suppliers I work with, it would become evident in a heart beat that $70K admins would drive the final price of the product to an uncompetitive level.

"Because our service priced competitively and we are tops in our field, our customers like us and send us repeat business. That along with our smooth working efficient team make us very profitable and with no debt to boot."

Congratulations on a successful business. I don't begrudge your success, just the extremes that you live by. Your ability to sanctimonously dictate the personal behavior of people is very telling. If you can't see the anti liberty message you carry, then so be it.

"As I said earlier, this thread is dead along with a few thousand smokers who will die today. I will no longer respond to this thread."

Ha, ha. Few thousand smokers will die today......Let's see, smoking causes what, according to the kool aide drinkers, 300,000 deaths a year. Even by the fake data, a few thousand isn't valid. As a matter of fact, not even ONE THOUSAND is a valid number.

Leave the thread, I don't blame you. Using junk science and making judgemental statements is a good reason to leave. If you can't take being called on the carpet then go ahead and run. I submit that you should start using logic and actual facts.

[realpatriot71]

Why do you support hiring those individuals? Their personal choices are costing the taxpayers money.

A family is NOT a nasty addictive habit - that's the difference. Having a wife and chidlren is not irresponsible, smoking is.

When we start to advocate personal liberty limitations based on health problems we open the door for any behaviour to be monitored. How about increasing the cost of red meat, how about taxes on coffee, how about liscensing people to allow them to have children? If you take the stance that "those things will never happen" think about the current state of the homosexual marriage agenda. Things will move forward while you sit on your hands.

Once again no one is restricting "liberty" - you can smoke all you want - it's a choice - just don't expect the rest of society to bend in the direction of a nasty habit. So if you want to smoke - your choice - then the consequence is that you cannot be a sherriff - or perhaps another option would be that the smoker pays for the entirety of their own insurance. Liberty is about choices - don't b!tch at me if you don't like the choices given. Furthermore if any comparisans can be made with homosexual marrige - people who do what they want without expecting consequences - then smoking - a selfish habit, where people don't want to deal with the consequences of their choices - would be a great example. BTW - last time I checked conservatives have NOT been sitting on their hand over the "gay marrige issue". Many state amendments have been changed to explicitly state that marrige is between a man and woman, and right now all the "gay marrige" in the news is nothing more than a temper tantrum. Homosexual marrige - will be nipped in the bud, probably sooner, rather than later.

[lockjaw02]

I have absolutely no problem with how you run your company. I do have a problem with folks like you who refuse to hire smokers, if you back all-inclusive smoking bans to deny other business owners the right on how to run their companies. If you can refuse to hire smokers, then there is no reason why a bar owner can refuse to hire non-smokers.

Also, insurance companies drive costs. They typically add premiums to smokers policies. If smokers are willing to pay that premium, then there is no reason for you to discriminate against smokers in government jobs.

[lockjaw02]

"If you can refuse to hire smokers, then there is no reason why a bar owner can refuse to hire non-smokers."

Correction: If you can refuse to hire smokers, then there is no reason why a bar owner can shouldn't have the right to refuse to hire non-smokers.

[CSM]

"A family is NOT a nasty addictive habit - that's the difference. Having a wife and chidlren is not irresponsible, smoking is."

Oh, so now the point isn't the cost to the taxpayers for personal choices, it is the fact that it is a "nasty habit". Now, what department of the government will we allow to determine what is "nasty" and what is appropriate behaviours? The cost to the taxpayer to supplement families for their costs is immense. However, it's for the children so that makes it OK.

"Once again no one is restricting "liberty" - you can smoke all you want - it's a choice - just don't expect the rest of society to bend in the direction of a nasty habit."

Yes, a restriction of liberty is clear in the $1Billion the state of california collected 2002. Behavior control through taxation is a restriction of liberty. The same government reaping the rewards for this revenue collection is now stating that the people paying the tax are not eligible for employment. In other words, the individuals that pay for that $1Billion are not allowed to benefit from that money. That is a restriction in Liberty.

"or perhaps another option would be that the smoker pays for the entirety of their own insurance."

I already stated that they pay for the costs over the non smoker premium. If your statement is that the compensation package should be different for a person that choses to participate in a legal activity, then your behaviour control nanny statist side is showing. If not, then I already addressed it.

"- then smoking - a selfish habit, where people don't want to deal with the consequences of their choices - would be a great example."

That makes absolutely no sense. I say the same thing about having children. If people had to pay for their own children's schools, if they didn't get a tax deduction, etc. My tax rate may actually fall below 50%.

"last time I checked conservatives have NOT been sitting on their hand over the "gay marrige issue"."

Yes, now that the issue is in the spotlight, the conservatives are stepping up to the plate. However, this has been coming for YEARS and for YEARS conservatives have been sitting on their hands. Of course, it is clear that you have a hard time thinking big picture thoughts.

"Homosexual marrige - will be nipped in the bud, probably sooner, rather than later."

Doubtful. The dam is burst and a few fingers in the dike aren't goint to stop the flow! (unintentional pun alert)