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 ...
Again, as I see it, benefits offered by employers are enticements, not entitlements.
Where I work there are so few smokers that it is easy to forget about smoking. What is this, the 99-1 rule? They are going to expend effort and interefere with personal matters to deal with what has become a receding habit of a miniscule percentage of people? Liberal idiocy has infected corporate thinking way beyond what I would have ever imagined.
You know, although we read these stories where employers claim that smokers are costing their health care plans so much, where's the proof? I can't help but suspect that these plans to force smokers to quit or out of the company may be nothing more than mere busy-bodyism on the part of company owners, execs and HR people. You know how much some people feel it is their duty - natch, their right - to save us from ourselves.
I guess I don't understand the American health system good enough. In Norway, we off course have a state provided health care system. The state is the boss, and we are at its mercy. If this is only about the cost of health insurance(which I don't believe) it should be fairly easy to solve.
Be a free man (or woman ;-) and pay for your own health insurance.
But, I guess it isn't that simple :-)
the fact is, the cost of care has increased soley due to government regulations, costs, fees and taxes. In California if you go to the doctor, you pay for 10 illegals that visit for free.
Government should not be in the health care business, remove the government, remove the burden and this would not be an issue.
True. The employer, if they're paying your insurance premiums, could as equally state you may only seek medical attention covered under their policy during the eight or so hours you are under their employ. What you do beyond the clock is none of their business, right?
Yes, philosophically you may be correct. But this is still liberal idiocy. The number of smokers is now so low, that this definitely falls into the category of wasted effort in pursuit of diminishing returns. Someone has way too much time on their hands - let me turn it around and say that whichever Sigma Black Belt or bean counter thought this one up should be fired for incompetence. There is so much low hanging fruit in terms of cost reduction - this is mouse nuts.
But, the thing is...
I don't think it really is only about the health insurance......
The employer, if they're paying your insurance premiums, could as equally state you may only seek medical attention covered under their policy during the eight or so hours you are under their employ.OK... I'll sit in the waiting room on HIS time instead of on my day off.
I like the idea of 'lifestyle' options. It seems as if everytime a major union goes on strike it's over health insurance. You're right they can get rid of health insurance too.
NC's headed down the same path, no doubt. But, I don't see the gov'mt in this, it seems to be a company's decision restricting participation in a benefit it pays for.
Now if I paid the premiums, I would take a hike, leave, quit, go to the house - just after the employer heard a piece of my mind.
I guess this isn't really relevant, but I used to live in Denver and remember reading about John Elway.
He is a huge fan of skiing. Who can blame in living on the doorsteps of the rockies. However, the Broncos put it into his contract that he could not ski in order to avoid the risk of injury.
Just a little anecdote ;-)
Please tell me you are not comparing the miracle of birth and life itself to smoking filthy cigarettes that bring only death and misery to everyone that has the misfortune of becoming addicted to them.
Boy I've heard it all now...
If the employment agreement is between both parties, I see no problem.
Neither party is being coerced to make an arrangement.
It is a complete cannard in pursuit of a liberal agenda having nothing to do with health insurance costs. Most corporations are now utterly infested with hippie do gooders who have been coached by outside hippie dippy / commie orgs they belong to, to become "change agents" and to "sail under the radar screen" so they can use corporate policy to drive social engineering extragovernmentally. No joke, there is an org right near here at Stanford U who explicitly state this as their goal, and, a little bird told me that some of my fellow managers are part of that org.
In days of old, we used to call this "the property of ones person". In other words you have a property interest in the manner you rule youself.
How much can an employeer extend its time into the entire property of the person? If they are going to mandate 24 control of my property, then they will have to compensate for said property.
This property of your own person also includes the issues of indentured servitute and sale of humans. A bit archaic but if we are going to have a thinking debate on this issue then we should get to the roots of the concepts we are discussing.
We don't allow the selling of people (no matter how much they yell, mom and dad can not sell any child to the gypsies) So can an individual, as a matter of public policy, sell a piece of their property of their person in the form of legal off work activity? How about as a matter of public policy?
Are there even contracts that should be forbidden?
(just for the record, I don't smoke but this subject does bring up important issues beyond smoking.)
Oh, I agree. I just think it's a great way of calling them out for the health nuts that they really are, not the bottom line minded folks they pretend to be.
If they mean it, they'll do the smart thing, not the PC thing, imo.
sure my employer has every right to tell me what I can cand cant do on my own time in my own home as long as they pay me a minimum of 5.25 per hour for evry hour that i am away from work. if they arent going to do that then they need to STFU
True.
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.