Posted on 01/25/2005 5:22:54 AM PST by beaureguard
This morning on CNN Jack Cafferty was a bit exercised over reports that more and more companies are not only refusing to hire smokers, they're firing them. They're getting fired not for smoking on the job .. but for just being smokers. Bad? No ... Good!
In Michigan Weyco, Inc. has a new policy. They won't hire smokers. They're also requiring all current employees undergo testing to see if they are currently smokers. Presumably this will be a step toward firing all smokers. Employment lawyers says this reeks of discrimination. Well, duh! Of course it's discrimination! It's discrimination against people with unhealthy lifestyles who are going to send your health insurance costs even higher. It's discrimination against people who have been shown to have poor work habits and higher absences from the job. Oh .. and it's discrimination against the stupid and ignorant ... and people who stink. Now don't you think that these are all perfectly good reasons to discriminate?
First of all, don't give me that discrimination nonsense. We all discriminate every day, and nobody thinks anything of it. The simple chore of making a decision between Mexican or Chinese food for lunch is an act of discrimination. To say that someone has "discriminating tastes" is a compliment, not a slam. Smoking isn't a race or a gender, nor is it a religious belief. It's a pathetic, sickening, stupid, self-destructive behavior. It's an act of self-hatred. Discriminate away.
Just consider health insurance. Unfortunately we have come to the point in this country where it is expected that employers will take care of most of the health care for their employees. This unfortunate situation is the primary reason health care costs are seemingly out of control in this country .. but that's another subject for another sermon from the Church of the Painful Truth. If you, as the employer, are going to be responsible for the cost of your employee's health care then you should be allowed to select employees, and get rid of employees based on any aspects of their lifestyle that would be unhealthy and, therefore, would cost you money.
Nobody would suggest that someone who hires people to drive company vehicles should not be able to discriminate against people with bad driving records. An accident could cost you money, so why not keep the accident-prone dangerous drivers off your payroll? Similarly, a smoker is going to drive up the cost of your health insurance, so why not keep that smoker off your payroll? And higher insurance premiums isn't the only cost you'll have to pay for having smokers on your payroll. Generally speaking, smokers simply aren't as productive in the workplace as are non-smokers. They take more frequent breaks (to do drugs,) and they're absent from work more often due to illness.
And ... to cap it all off ... smokers just aren't all that bright. In repeated trials smokers have scored lower on intelligence tests than non-smokers. Smoking, then, is an excellent way for you to get an immediate indication of who has common sense, and who doesn't . OK .. I know that there are exceptions, but across the board the rule holds. An employer who has a policy of simply not hiring smokers, and getting rid of employees who do smoke, is going to have a smarter, more capable workforce than will an employer who hires these pathetic drug addicts.
So there. If you're a smoker, don't direct your anger at me. I'm not your problem. YOU are your problem. You need to figure out why you hate yourself and why you're so bent on self-destruction. I don't know the answer to that question. You do. Start figuring it out.
Next ... lard asses.
I'm not a smoker, but don't agree with Neal on this one. What next - fire employees for drinking? That can cause health problems also.
For discussion...
I have a guy that works here that smokes; I'll bet he spends at least 15% of his time walking down the driveway puffing on a cigarette. And yes, when he comes back in, he does stink.
And that stinks!
I think this may be a bad road to go down regardless how one feels about smoking.
Hey Neal, I think they should fire all bald men who wear glasses. The glare from their shiny pates cane be very distracting, and the cost of replacing glasses and eye examinations is driving up the cost of optical insurance. From now on only men with a full scalp and 20/20 vision need apply.
We're way down that road already. Urine testing is as American as apple pie.
I smoked 50+years...I agree with Neal...The job belongs to the employer and not the employee..!
Tripe! Never saw a test that didn't show smokers as MORE productive (a duh here since nicotine's a stimulant), more capable of retaining old and learning new skills/knowledge. Neal probably also believes the scam about second-hand smoke!
Frankly, I agree. Employers should be allowed to terminate employees if they have an unpleasant personal habit which negatively affects other workers.
In moderation, yes. But like anything else, when abused, alcohol can cause problems. Guess I should have been more clear.
Then, the employer need only be focused upon the productivity of the employed worker. And that's exactly what employers should be focused upon.
Personally, I do get tired of my insurance premiums going up to pay for someone elses unhealthy habits. Now they need to address people who are overwieght and the resulting higher healthcare costs associated with that. I lost 75 lbs and have never gotten sick since.
Neal blew it on this one! Maybe he will get fired for mouthing off on using a legal substance. I just don't understand why people go off on smokers. I wonder if Neal is fat or if Neal likes chocolate, or if Neal drinks wine or if Neal goes to McDonalds, or if Neal likes popcorn........I could go on and on.
What about people that own a firearm? Don't want someone to go postal on the job.
They'll go after people who are overweight, too. Then it's DNA genetic tests to see if you've got a predisposition for any expensive disease, like cancer.
A company I used to work at had a two-tier fee system for their health insurance premium. Smokers were charged a higher rate than non-smokers. If someone claimed that they didn't smoke when they signed up for coverage but were later found to be a smoker then they got fired. But that's the only instance I've heard of a company firing someone for smoking.
I like it.
Some people will respond with anecdotal evidence ("I know a guy who smokes with a 145 IQ and hasn't missed a day of work in 20 years") but, facts is facts. :-)
Here is why: Most large companies cannot fire someone for using illegal drugs unless they offer some kind of rehab deal..Then, if they blow that, they are gone.
But in the above, I said, "Illegal" drugs.
Here are LEGAL activites which can be shown to make people health, employment, or security risks:
Smoking.
Overeating
Too many casino losses
Credit Card abuses
Incorrect Thinking (Wrong jokes, etc.)
Looking at people wrong.
Poor driving habits.
We live in a time where the old reciprocal loyalty between employer and employee no longer exists. If the CEO needs a bigger bonus, your job is gone or is offshored.
Employees likewise hop from an offer to an better one, as was witnessed in the Dot.Bomb scams. Given this, the relationship is nearly adversarial. And because it is, and because slavery was outlawed, the employer does NOT own the hours you spend at home. They RENT the hours you agree to give them.
So I believe the correct response to such an intrusion is the question "Who do you think you are, and what rate of compensation are you offering for the other 16 hours you intend to control?"
This is NOT about smoking. Smoking is an unpopular activity, and an easy sell, so a "Camel's nose in the tent".
So,they come for the smokers....and by the time they come for the fat people, there is no one left to speak.
I don't know any smokers who fit Neil's profile.
But I can think of several examples where top-notch employees in terms of productivity and competence were also smokers (e.g. our top sales guy, top engineers).
And then I know lots of employees who are constantly running their kids to doctors; taking off early for baseball practice; bringing their kids' germs into the office (flu, cold, etc); etc. Cuts across the spectrum from CEO right down to the secretaries.
Companies (and insurance companies) ought to take a look at no-kids policies as well. Children are a definite burden on group insurance rates and the health care system.
It's that way here.
Of course, health insurance is only part of Boortz's beef. ;^)
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.