Just get it over with and make it illegal.

JOEJOEJOE

I can see how the company wants to reduce healthcare costs, but this could open the floodgates for other weird terminations.

Perhaps a middle-ground would be to offer a monthly allowance for healthcare, and if someone's medical coverage is high because they smoke, let the smoker pay the additional costs. The same will go for all others whose coverage is higher then normal.

norm

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

Wrong. When the company has to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to take care of thier employees poor health habits whether they are at home or at work, the company should have a say. Hey if this guy really wants to smoke he should tell the company he will take his job minus any health care benefits. Let him pay for his disgusting habit, by paying for the insurance premiums out of his own pocket. I wonder how long it would take him to quit.

Reading the article, it sounds as if he wasn't told of the "new policy" regarding smoking. If and I say if this is true then they cannot fire him. They didn't even give him a chance to participate in the smoking cessation program.

norm

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

I can see how the company wants to reduce healthcare costs, but this could open the floodgates for other weird terminations.

Perhaps a middle-ground would be to offer a monthly allowance for healthcare, and if someone's medical coverage is high because they smoke, let the smoker pay the additional costs. The same will go for all others whose coverage is higher then normal.

That sounds like a good idea.

The Illinoisemakers

cutback wrote:

Reading the article, it sounds as if he wasn't told of the "new policy" regarding smoking. If and I say if this is true then they cannot fire him. They didn't even give him a chance to participate in the smoking cessation program.

Your right about that. It probably is the companies responsibility to make their anti-smoking policy known before canning someone.

stuckinline

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

Your right about that. It probably is the companies responsibility to make their anti-smoking policy known before canning someone.

this policy has been in place for a year:



The Scotts Company, an international lawn and garden products and services company based in Marysville, Ohio, wanted to create a high-performance company culture while strengthening its financial performance. Scotts has introduced a variety of wellness initiatives as part of its Project Excellence program to empower employees to take control over their lives, including offering healthier food in its cafeteria, and opening a $5 million fitness gym, complete with a health clinic staffed with a physician, nurse practitioners and diet and fitness experts.
Last year, Scotts decided to strongly encourage employees to stop smoking (on and off the job) in an attempt to control escalating health care costs and improve the health of its workers. Scotts provided counseling and smoking-cessation programs to employees. The company has about 5,300 employees in the U.S. and, in about 20 states where Scotts has jurisdiction, it is no longer hiring employees who smoke. Scotts is also evaluating a policy to release employees who continue to smoke.

Note: Studies show that healthy workers are not only more productive, but also less expensive. Employees who smoke cost the average company an extra $3,856/year, according to the National Business Group on Health.



http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_lh&id=68199

The Illinoisemakers

gluten919 wrote:

this policy has been in place for a year:



The Scotts Company, an international lawn and garden products and services company based in Marysville, Ohio, wanted to create a high-performance company culture while strengthening its financial performance. Scotts has introduced a variety of wellness initiatives as part of its Project Excellence program to empower employees to take control over their lives, including offering healthier food in its cafeteria, and opening a $5 million fitness gym, complete with a health clinic staffed with a physician, nurse practitioners and diet and fitness experts.
Last year, Scotts decided to strongly encourage employees to stop smoking (on and off the job) in an attempt to control escalating health care costs and improve the health of its workers. Scotts provided counseling and smoking-cessation programs to employees. The company has about 5,300 employees in the U.S. and, in about 20 states where Scotts has jurisdiction, it is no longer hiring employees who smoke. Scotts is also evaluating a policy to release employees who continue to smoke.

Note: Studies show that healthy workers are not only more productive, but also less expensive. Employees who smoke cost the average company an extra $3,856/year, according to the National Business Group on Health.



http://www.insurancenewsnet.com/article.asp?a=top_lh&id=68199

Then the company has every right to fire this guy. Good for them.

norm

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

Then the company has every right to fire this guy. Good for them.

Yeah but did they offer the smoking cessation program to him? There's got to be more to this story. If they told him about the policy and he continued to smoke (which it now sounds likely) then he should be fired.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

I didn't say anyone should be fired for any of these things. I said employers should be able to fire people for these things.

Let me ask you this: should you be able to quit your job for any reason?

In your campaign to rid the world of government, you'll simply be replacing them with businesses - who will then make the "laws" and force you to comply simply for employment. Only in that case, they'll be no more vote.


Pass laws to restrict the rights of companies. Otherwise, companies will "pass" laws by proxy to restrict the rights of citizens.

farfromglorified

Hello RainDog, it's nice to see someone who will hijack threads for me, rather than forcing me do it myself

RainDog wrote:

In your campaign to rid the world of government, you'll simply be replacing them with businesses - who will then make the "laws" and force you to comply simply for employment. Only in that case, they'll be no more vote.

My campaign is not to "rid the world of government". My campaign is to rid the world of unearned authority. So no, I would not support a world where corporations could force you to comply to anything for employment since such a world would prohibit entrepreneurship. However, a world where a business may determine the standards of conduct required for employment at their firm is very much a world I support, since that world also allows an employee to choose an employer based on their own standards as well. If I forbid a company from being able to choose me based on their standards, how could I expect a world wherein I was allowed to choose them based on my standards?

Furthermore, the "vote" is still very much in play here (government or no government). If those employed by this company do not like this policy, they are free to quit their jobs.

Pass laws to restrict the rights of companies. Otherwise, companies will "pass" laws by proxy to restrict the rights of citizens.

This man has every right to smoke. He has no right to smoke and continue to extract a paycheck, however, against the wishes of those who sign that paycheck.

angelica

RainDog wrote:

In your campaign to rid the world of government, you'll simply be replacing them with businesses - who will then make the "laws" and force you to comply simply for employment. Only in that case, they'll be no more vote.


Pass laws to restrict the rights of companies. Otherwise, companies will "pass" laws by proxy to restrict the rights of citizens.

Good point.

The Illinoisemakers

RainDog wrote:

In your campaign to rid the world of government, you'll simply be replacing them with businesses - who will then make the "laws" and force you to comply simply for employment. Only in that case, they'll be no more vote.


Pass laws to restrict the rights of companies. Otherwise, companies will "pass" laws by proxy to restrict the rights of citizens.

This is probably the only place where our votes actually do count. If you don't like the way a company is run don't work for them or if your a consumer stop spending your money on them. That would silence them pretty quickly.

RainDog

The "vote with your wallet" approach has it's advantages, and currently the man might simply be able to "find another job." However, in the world of conglomeration, a modern day when many corporations have become larger than any other business ventures in history, and can steamroll smaller competetors out of existance, those options become less viable.

And before anyone accuses me of rampant pinko paranoia, I'm not saying this is the case yet. However, if this company wins, others may follow suit. What if it becomes standard American practice that companies do not hire smokers (or whatever the "undesirable of the day" happens to be)? Sure, you'd legally be allowed to smoke, but you wouldn't be able to find work anywhere. Hell, in some cases, no laws would be necessary.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

It's sad that this guy will win his lawsuit. This company should have every right to fire him for smoking, regardless of whether or not it was done on company time.

should companies also be allowed to fire people for being black? obese? gay?

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

should companies also be allowed to fire people for being black? obese? gay?

Certainly.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

The "vote with your wallet" approach has it's advantages, and currently the man might simply be able to "find another job." However, in the world of conglomeration, a modern day when many corporations have become larger than any other business ventures in history, and can steamroll smaller competetors out of existance, those options become less viable.

Yes. Therefore, people should vote with their wallets against congolmeration.

And before anyone accuses me of rampant pinko paranoia, I'm not saying this is the case yet. However, if this company wins, others may follow suit. What if it becomes standard American practice that companies do not hire smokers (or whatever the "undesirable of the day" happens to be)? Sure, you'd legally be allowed to smoke, but you wouldn't be able to find work anywhere. Hell, in some cases, no laws would be necessary.

First, one's only means of employment is not to seek it from someone else. Secondly, as long as there is a diverse set of employers it's unlikely that each one will simply refuse to hire "undesirables" because the cost of someone's habits doesn't necessarily exceed the benefits of the employee. I have an employee that smokes and weighs about 400 lbs. His insurance costs me a small fortune. But he's a great employee, so I have no problems paying the premium for his choices.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Hello RainDog, it's nice to see someone who will hijack threads for me, rather than forcing me do it myself



My campaign is not to "rid the world of government". My campaign is to rid the world of unearned authority.

that is the issue here. certain entities have disproportionate power due solely to money. they did not earn their authority, they strong armed the competition into taking it. a bully who beats up a 3rd grader for lunch money did not "earn" that money, he took it. the purpose of government is to protect its citizens from abuse by others who are in a position to take advantage of them.

know1 is the most spot on answer here. the health insurance system we have is fucking ridiculous. the only person it helps is insurance company. it makes things more expensive for everyone else.

farfromglorified

soulsinging wrote:

that is the issue here. certain entities have disproportionate power due solely to money. they did not earn their authority, they strong armed the competition into taking it.

So they stole that money?

a bully who beats up a 3rd grader for lunch money did not "earn" that money, he took it. the purpose of government is to protect its citizens from abuse by others who are in a position to take advantage of them.

So corporations that largely earn their money from free exchange with citizens and other corporations are the bully, but the government that earns its money from forced taxation is the protector? Interesting logic.

know1 is the most spot on answer here. the health insurance system we have is fucking ridiculous. the only person it helps is insurance company. it makes things more expensive for everyone else.

I can get on board with that as well.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

Certainly.

should we allow slavery? i mean, if they dont like it, they can run away and take their chances right?

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Yes. Therefore, people should vote with their wallets against congolmeration.

There is no way to vote against conglomeration with your wallet. Therefore, it's best to vote for politicians and laws that do not allow conglomeration (within reason, of course). What do you do if you try to boycott a company by going to another - only to find it owned by the same conglomeration?

There's also the simple idea of worker's rights. While smoking bans may seem trite when compared to the labor movement, I'll bring it up anyway. Could early industrial workers have brought about change by voting with their wallets?

farfromglorified wrote:

First, one's only means of employment is not to seek it from someone else.

It is for most people, though - and every company needs employees. An economy where everyone owned their own business wouldn't work.

farfromglorified wrote:

Secondly, as long as there is a diverse set of employers it's unlikely that each one will simply refuse to hire "undesirables" because the cost of someone's habits doesn't necessarily exceed the benefits of the employee.

As long as there is a diverse set of employers. How do you guarantee that this will always be the case?

farfromglorified wrote:

I have an employee that smokes and weighs about 400 lbs. His insurance costs me a small fortune. But he's a great employee, so I have no problems paying the premium for his choices.

Cool.

soulsinging

farfromglorified wrote:

So they stole that money?

So corporations that largely earn their money from free exchange with citizens and other corporations are the bully, but the government that earns its money from forced taxation is the protector? Interesting logic.

I can get on board with that as well.

i see corporations and government as bullies to an equal degree. thus why i believe in checks on both. i dont think government should be allowed to tell you what you can do in your home. i dont think your employer should be able to as well. corporations are not people, they do not enjoy the same rights as individual citizens. they are partnerships, like a government. as such, they are subject to certain restrictions and limitations on the power they can wield over individual, private citizens and their rights.