Posted on 01/28/2005 11:08:33 AM PST by Eurotwit
Employers have recently tried every carrot they can think of — including cash incentives and iPods — to persuade employees to quit smoking. Now some are trying the stick.
Pointing to rising health costs and the oversized proportion of insurance claims attributed to smokers, some employers in California and around the country are refusing to hire applicants who smoke and, sometimes, firing employees who refuse to quit.
"Employers are realizing the majority of health costs are spent on a small minority of workers," says Bill Whitmer, chief executive of the Health Enhancement Research Organization, an employer and healthcare coalition in Birmingham, Ala.
(Excerpt) Read more at story.news.yahoo.com ...
Sorry for pinging you so much.
If employers are going to be paying the health insurance then they have the right to do this. Health insurance used to be a bonus incentive. It's now regarded as an entitlement. Beggars can't be choosers. Flame away.
"Employers are realizing the majority of health costs are spent on a small minority of workers,"Ya, like pregnant women...
True. I just wonder where the line is between a business' self interest and an employee's privacy rights is.
No flame here. As I see it, benefits offered by employers are enticements, not entitlements.
Yes but even the Nazi's did not control people like this.
I also think you get paid for an 8 hour day. What you do on your free time is up to you.
I understand where they're coming from, but why stop at smokers?
How about checking out where you have lunch and make sure you're choosing healthy meals instead of high calorie, high cholesterol choices. If you brown bag it, how about lunch bag inspections each day!
Forget about alcohol while at lunch (is that even done anymore), don't indulge in the evening or on weekends!
That should cover all the bases.
How about not hiring homosexuals who refuse to stop having homosexual sex? NOTE: they are not being denied employement for being "born homosexual", they are being denied employement for recreational sex practices which have a high likelihood for impacting health care.
How about employers who require all employees be sterilized in order to prevent any form of maternity leave? or pregnancy which increases health care costs? How about just saying ALL employees are not allowed to have sex, EVER.
Increasingly, we are seeing that health insurance costs being shifted to the employee. As premiums increase, the costs will be borne by the worker. I believe that many health insurers "factor in" the numerous ills of the employee pool to set their rates. Employees do not have an entitlement to health insurance. Health insurance coverage is a benefit offered by the employer to recruit and keep employees.
Well, isn't that special. At my former employer's, there were 2 cancers (not smoking related), an obesity (massive human being), a devastatingly ill newborn, pregnancies every year...none of the smokers are experiencing health problems. They might some day, but the competition for illnesses is fierce.
Not to mention all those parents who go or take their kids to the doctor over every twitch and sniffle. They're also culprits. They go because the visits are "free". Morons.
Automobiles kill. We should stop driving!
Yes, you can spend free time anyway you want, but that doesn't mean I have to hire you.
Next is to fire coffee drinkers? After all, heart disease has the second highest death rate. Oh, and let's not forget the hikers. I mean what if they fall and break a leg while hiking through rough terrain. What about drinkers? Those execs who like to have power lunches and throw in a martini or two... nope, gotta fire those too. Fatties gotta go too! I mean look at how much THEY cost in health insurance. Maybe employers can have weekly wiegh ins, to guarantee employees haven't started putting on a pound or two.
Ridiculous. People can hire and fire who they want, but they better be prepared to take the good with the bad. I know alot of very capable, intellegent (I don't give a damn what Boortz says) who smoke. Especially in high stress positions. They better be prepared to lose them too.
benefits were originally started to get around wage price controls from the early part of the century.
if your employer paid medical/life insurance coverage STOPS after eight hours, you then have grounds for discomfort.
However, and I feel the same way re: govm't "entitlements"/welfare, those who cast themselves upon the care of government (or an employer) should expect that government (or employer) to care for them the way it sees best fit, and not necessarily to their own liking.
Yes, you can spend free time anyway you want, but that doesn't mean I have to hire you.It also doesn't mean that you as the employer has any right to know what I do when not at work.
At a huge department meeting, before hundreds of employees, a peronnel spokeswoman got up to go over the changes to benefits for 2005.
The major change was this: smokers will be charged an extra $60 a month for health insurance. If you lie about being a smoker, and die, you will not receive your life insurance payout.
She then turned the meeting back over to the department SVP, an English gent in his 50s. His comment: "Well, at least we still have drinking!"
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.