Costs Make Employers See Smokers as a Drag

La Times ^ | Fri Jan 28, 7:55 AM ET | By Daniel Costello Times Staff Writer

[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.

[ichabod1]

Very true and very tragic but remember that your experience isn't necessarily borne out by statistical analysis. I've not known anyone with it except a 90 year old man (God Save Us!) but my father died of liver cancer and mother of COPD.

[ichabod1]

oh, blah, blah, blah. KMA, loser. Cover my tasks.

[TexanToTheCore]

As the shortage of emplyees grows, and it will, this will disappear.

Just a bunch of liberals getting there way for a short time.

I'm a smoker...

2 days off for removal of 4 wisdom teeth (1979)
1/2 day for a massive knee injury. (1984)

No personal days taken.

[ichabod1]

Maybe YOUR mother couldn't keep her knickers up, but I was a planned baby.

[edcoil]

That same poor logic would go to firng fat people.

That OK by you?

[Raycpa]

Posting this before reading responses

I cannot wait to hear all the smokers advocating for the employers private property rights.

[Raycpa]

I'd humbly suggest that employers are going to end up getting the bad end of the baseball bat here. Firing employees is a right if they are not doing something protected by law. Smoking at home is not protected by law. But organizing a union at work, on company time, IS protected by law.

Why would this be a threat ? The employers want to fire the smokers. If all the smokers of company A joined a union and demanded smoking rights, the Company would simply fire them. no biggie.

[Raycpa]

would that not benefit the pension plans

No.

[untrained skeptic]

"This is all just another phase in the turd-worldization of America. By that I mean socializm, of course. And many who otherwise hate socializm get sucked into this one because they don't like smoking."

Which is socialism? Employers invading employee privacy by restricting what they do outside the workplace when it does effect their costs indirectly? Or is the socialism the government creating new laws to protect workers rights to privacy at a cost to the employer?

There's a conflict in rights between the employer trying to keep their costs down and not pass on the expenses of those who smoke onto their employees that don't smoke, and the rights of the employees that do smoke to their privacy.

Either way it works out, someone is getting their freedom restricted.

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

All that sitting is making you into an envious, self-righteous prig.

All that nicotine must be shorting the oxygen to your brain.

[oldcomputerguy]

"but why stop at smokers?"

Exactly. I think they should restrict or fire all women of child bearing age having sex at home. They stand the possibility of getting pregnant and raising insurance rates.