Quit smoking or quit your job!!!

[Cancooni]

Four workers in the US have just lost their jobs for refusing to take a test to determine if they smoke. The owner cites the cost of healthcare as a result of this "filthy habit". His next target is obesity which has now become the number 1 health risk over smoking in the US. And this isn't just at work but outside work as well.

If this does not effect the work performance of employees, is it a "violation of workers' rights to indulge whatever habits they choose to when they are off-duty, particularly as smoking is legal and does not impair people's ability to do their jobs"?

My opinion... Weyco President Howard Weyers has a responsibility to make his business cost effective (I doubt he cares about the health of his employees rather the cost of treating smoking related illnesses) but I think that trampling over worker's rights might be a bit too much. However the initiative itself is encouraging.

Note this maybe a bigger issue in the US where (I believe) company health plans & private citizens have to fund medical care rather than the state (feel free to correct me if I am wrong).

 

[///M-Spec]

MSNBC Article
BBC News Article
Far better LA Times Article

What about an employer's rights to hire/fire at his/her discretion? What about the public's right to be free from having to pay for someone else's dangerous and self-destructive habits?

The effects of smoking are well documented and have been for a long, long time. Smoking is harmful not only to the individual's health, but impacts their families, their environment and cost taxpayers and insurance companies millions, probably billions of dollars every year.

Why should I pay because someone lacks the self-control to refrain from doing something stupid to themselves?


M

 

[emad]

So why not hire them but not provide them with insurance coverage for the reason that they smoke?

 

[///M-Spec]

Because there are federal and state laws requiring companies of a certain size to provide health care coverage to all full time employees.


M

 

[Cancooni]

So why not hire them but not provide them with insurance coverage for the reason that they smoke?

I here what M is saying but E has a pretty good suggestion. You have or are applying for a job and are tested for smoking. If you smoke you qualify for an insurance poilcy that takes into account your habit so that you don't qualify for certain benefits (illnesses/conditions related to your habit). This eliminates the cost concern for the employer and levels the field.

 

[Carl.]

It's a bit hard to remain objective on a topic like this for me...

I've learned this week that my father has a tumor the size of a fist in his lungs, and has most likely 4 to 6 months left to live. 2 days later, my girlfriend receives a call from Spain to learn that her mother will die in the next days because of complications following an emphysema... still want to light another one?

Now, I don't advocate any law forbidding the "freedom'' someone has to **** up their own health ... and wreak havoc in their families with this incredibly stupid and stinky habit, but as M-Spec said, it is absolutely right for a company - or a government - to refuse to pay for it.

So I hope more companies will follow this example, that will only make another incentive to stop it. Up until now, the only incentive (apart from good judgement) to stop smoking here has been high taxes on tobacco products to cover the additional cost on the public health system, and (rather useless) advertising campaigns.

We're also about to ban smoking in all public places, including restaurants and bars. 👍

 

[PublicSecrecy]

Smoking has been proven to cause many cancers, but my uncle smoked since he was 5 and hes now 50 something and is still a star athlete. My point is, cigarettes are always a common factor, not a cause. That, and everyone's different of course.

[edit] Smoking in public places is banned all over Ontario, nothing new. [edit]

 

[s13drifting]

[edit] Smoking in public places is banned all over Ontario, nothing new. [edit][/QUOTE]

not in public....yet. i think this is an invasion of peoples privacy. i was listening to this on the new yesterday, and they are thinking about firing obese people if the do not loose weight. now this anti smoking stuff hads gone to far. the smokers know the risk but dont care and like smoking, its their choice let them do as they please.

 

[Max Powers]

Smoking has been proven to cause many cancers, but my uncle smoked since he was 5 and hes now 50 something and is still a star athlete. My point is, cigarettes are always a common factor, not a cause. That, and everyone's different of course.

[edit] Smoking in public places is banned all over Ontario, nothing new. [edit]

Is your uncle a professional bowler?

I smoke and I find it hard to believe that anybody could do that. After a year of smoking, my mile time fell from 4:45 to 5:05. Anybody who plays a sport that involves a lot of physical activity is definitely affected by smoking. Cigarettes will kill your lungs no matter who you are, so they are a cause...you really need to back up what you say instead of making ridiculous claims like these.

 

[Cancooni]

Sad as it may seem (in some instances), people in a free society should be able to smoke or eat 100 Big Macs as long as it does not impact anyone else. However, this is a point of contention as the bi-products of this self-destructive behaviour put a strain on healthcare, friends & family (to name a few). It's hard to enact self-destructive behaviour in a vacuum... unless you are Marlon Brando and live on a remote island smoking and eating cheeseburgers.

It's not a black & white societal issue.

I think it is a black & white issue in the workplace because there is choice on either end... the employer's choice of policies and the employee's choice of employment.

 

[Carl.]

Smoking has been proven to cause many cancers, but my uncle smoked since he was 5 and hes now 50 something and is still a star athlete. My point is, cigarettes are always a common factor, not a cause. That, and everyone's different of course.

Looking at yearly estimates for Canada:

- Lung cancer is the #1 form of cancer with 21 700 cases out of 145 500.

- People with lung cancer diagnosics have about 87% chance to die from it. (18 900 out of 21700 ), making it by far the most leathal form of Cancer. 363 Canadians on average die from it every week.

- At least 85% cases of lung cancer are directly linked to smoking, making it the most easily avoidable form of Cancer. That also means that at least 308 Canadians die from a disease caused by their smoking habit each week.

Now ask me if I care about exceptions, or about the freedom to smoke in public places .

[edit] Smoking in public places is banned all over Ontario, nothing new. [edit]

I know, but not here yet, in Quebec.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Is your uncle a professional bowler?

I smoke and I find it hard to believe that anybody could do that. After a year of smoking, my mile time fell from 4:45 to 5:05. Anybody who plays a sport that involves a lot of physical activity is definitely affected by smoking. Cigarettes will kill your lungs no matter who you are, so they are a cause...you really need to back up what you say instead of making ridiculous claims like these.

I've seen both sides of the story first hand.

My mates father is nearing 60 and has smoked since 14. He can still keep up with a 7yr old child.

On the other hand a guy in school used to be one of the fastest and fittest boys in school. At about 13 (maybe earlier) he started smoking and now he's absolutely crap.

Smoking has different effecst on different people. Not to mention some people inhale deeply, others only shallowly.

 

[Anderton Prime]

I don't know how it is in the US, but here in Canada an employer can hire you at his discretion, but he sure as hell can't fire you at his diescretion. Hell, I worked for Blockbuster for a few years and our manager was a major alcoholic. He used to leave the store to go to the nearby bar and frequently spiked a thermos filled with pop. When I later became a manager myself, I discussed his case with a superior of mine, who explained that they couldn't fire him simply because of his drinking, but rather had to try to get him help for his addiction.

And alcohol can impede the quality of an employee's work! Smoking has no immediate effect on most kinds of work, except very physical labour I suppose.

Here in Ontario, you canstill smoke in casinos, your car, or your house. You can't smoke in ANY bars that don't have designated sealed-off smoking areas, and I believe the government is implementing a province-wide ban of smoking in all "public places." I am all for this smoking ban, but you can't cut smoking out entirely; it is a person's right to smoke in privacy if they want to. This firing stuff is a big ol' pile of bull ka-ka.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

Let me fill you in:

-He lives in a high altitude climate (Elkford BC)
-he routinely golfs, skiis, jogs, and swims
-he has lived there for many years
- they have pure drinking water and unpolluted air (and you wonder why noone in that town has had cancer for a 100 years, oh lets go to Detroit for a week guys!)

Although his teeth are screwed now (he has false ones now), the smoking really hasn't effected him in any way. And no I don't need to see you stupid facts, statistics lie and you know that. Who know what other factors have been taking a toll on them. Did you happen to mention that a very high percentage of the people with lung cancer live in or near cities and valleys? I'm sure that the small amounts of Carbon Monoxide, cyanide (commonly found in exhaust fumes) and many other hydrocarbons and waste gasses have had a significant impact on them. the smoking was probably what set it off. I'm not making any statements here because I havent researched it, but it'a hardly proof that smoking is the cause of all lung cancer.

...with 21 700 cases out of 145 500.

Um...pretty much that same percentage of Canadian's live in or around major cities.


...- At least 85% cases of lung cancer are directly linked to smoking, making it the most easily avoidable form of Cancer. That also means that at least 308 Canadians die from a disease caused by their smoking habit each week.

Some moderator, or Famine, said themselves that linked is the same as saying "could possibly maybe sorta kinda have an effect". I'm not saying smoking isn't horribly bad for your lungs, but those are only numbers, and they don't look at all the other aspects of those peoples lives. And 85% of people die form the cancer? Ahh duh. Does that mean that cigarette smoking lung cancer is more liekly to kill you than another more of lung cancer? huh? huh? Thought so.

 

[Carl.]

...with 21 700 cases out of 145 500.

Um...pretty much that same percentage of Canadian's live in or around major cities.

Here... try 79% (urban areas) or 64% (metropolitans areas) - quite different from 14.9%.

Some moderator, or Famine, said themselves that linked is the same as saying "could possibly maybe sorta kinda have an effect". I'm not saying smoking isn't horribly bad for your lungs, but those are only numbers, and they don't look at all the other aspects of those peoples lives.

Some moderator, or Famine were talking about this in a thread about second hand smoke, if I recall. But you're right: inhaling high concentrations of carcinogens many times a day for years has absolutely nothing to do with the statistics that directly link it with Lung Cancer cases. And the studies that demonstrate even higher risks for heavier smokers, and smokers that inhale more deeply are "statistical lies"... probably invented by someone because he's jealous of Tobacco companies.

And 85% of people die form the cancer? Ahh duh. Does that mean that cigarette smoking lung cancer is more liekly to kill you than another more of lung cancer? huh? huh? Thought so.

"another more?" what the heck are you talking about?... I said that 87% of lung cancer diagnosis results in death, which is a lot higher than other common forms of cancer.

Perhaps this might help you to understand?

But all of this is made-up lies. All we have to know is that your uncle Joe's doing fine with smoking... this is all a conspiracy to hurt tobacco industry.

As I said once, we should be allowed to drive at 100 mph in school zones if someone manage to do so for 40 years without hitting one kid...

 

[ledhed]

This all boils down to if you believe an employer has the right to restrict what his employees do outside of work. The workers in question (from what I can see from the article) refused to be tested , to see if they smoked. On that basis its an invasion of privacy. No doubt about that. Very soon we will be able to test easily for genetic susceptibility to disease or even longevity. Should an employer be able to demand that you be tested so that he can choose who will potentialy cost him less ? Are you willing to give up your rights to privacy ?
You cant only limit it to one group for one thing . Once you open pandoras box you cant close it. You are too willing to give other people controll over your individuality (judging by the post I have read) . Smoking is not unlawfull . the employer can restrict his work place to non smokers . What they do at home or away from work is out of his controll, unless he is willing to pay them for 24 hours out of the day .

 

[blargonator]

Once you open pandoras box you cant close it.QUOTE]
pandora seemed to close it.....i HOPE im right <8- P anyways yeah im definetly against taking away the rights of smokers. its like TV if you don't like it don't watch it. if you don't want to be in someone's smoke, move.
personally i hate smoking but im not going to cry about it. althought it is stupid and foolish to believe you can smoke and not pay for it. it might not cause cancer for every user but it does greatly increase the risk of getting lung cancer. just like not being active will increase the risk of becoming obese and unhealthy. oh and someone said something like lets go to detroit!....you don't need the pollution to kill you.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

Looking at yearly estimates for Canada:

- Lung cancer is the #1 form of cancer with 21 700 cases out of 145 500.

- People with lung cancer diagnosics have about 87% chance to die from it. (18 900 out of 21700 ), making it by far the most leathal form of Cancer. 363 Canadians on average die from it every week.

- At least 85% cases of lung cancer are directly linked to smoking, making it the most easily avoidable form of Cancer. That also means that at least 308 Canadians die from a disease caused by their smoking habit each week.

Now ask me if I care about exceptions, or about the freedom to smoke in public places .




I know, but not here yet, in Quebec.

I'm not even going to bother going through all of that trying to clarify whatever whatever statement I made that was misconstrued. So...
What kind of a point do you think I'm trying to make?

 

[Delirious]

smoking...3 dollars per pack of cigarettes...

if you a buy one pack (conservative number) of cigarettes for a year

thats 1095 dollars

if you do the same for 10 years

thats 10950 dollars

for 30 years

32850 dollars

for someone who buys only one pack of cigarettes a week for 30 years...that person with all that money after 30 years has a choice of buying a Nissan 350Z or bad health

and remember, thats only for someone who buys one pack of cigarettes a week

now lets compare, sorry for the graphic image...but it's only truth

or

350Z or lung cancer (i know that it would be a very rare case someone who doesnt decide to smoke would buy a 350Z...but only used as a possible illustration)

it doesnt take a brain surgeon to tell you that smoking only puts a hole in your pocket, a hole in your lungs, and just plain unpleasant to be around sometimes (second hand smoke)

 

[Danoff]

People often cite rising health care costs as a reason that other people should not smoke or get fat. They forget that the smoking and the eating are not the problems. The problem is that our social climate suggests that if someone is sick, that's society's problem and something that all of society has a moral obligation to solve.

The bottom line is this. The fact that people smoke, or people eat to much, or otherwise engage in unhealthy activity is exactly why society can't (and shouldn't) fund other people's health care. As soon as you try to do that you have everyone trying to regulate how other people live. It doesn't work.

So keep in mind that if you're concerned about paying for someone else's smoking that it isn't the fact that they're smoking that's the problem, it's the fact that you're paying for it.

Businesses should be allowed to hire or fire anyone for any reason. Whether that be race, religion, or health care needs.

 

[PublicSecrecy]

Businesses should be allowed to hire or fire anyone for any reason. Whether that be race, religion, or health care needs.

I see your point, but I think that's a little border-line. Fired because you're black, or asian? sheesh/

 

[Danoff]

I see your point, but I think that's a little border-line. Fired because you're black, or asian? sheesh/

Yup, it's border-line. But I think it's fair if you own your business and the land it sits on.

 

[Delirious]

why not just save money instead of kill your lungs?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

smoking...3 dollars per pack of cigarettes...

if you a buy one pack (conservative number) of cigarettes for a year

thats 1095 dollars

.....

and remember, thats only for someone who buys one pack of cigarettes a week

That would make $156 per year???

 

[Delirious]

minor miscalculation, thats if they buy a pack a day

number should be 4680 for a pack a week for 30 years

 

[Gonutz]

MSNBC Article
BBC News Article
Far better LA Times Article

What about an employer's rights to hire/fire at his/her discretion? What about the public's right to be free from having to pay for someone else's dangerous and self-destructive habits?

The effects of smoking are well documented and have been for a long, long time. Smoking is harmful not only to the individual's health, but impacts their families, their environment and cost taxpayers and insurance companies millions, probably billions of dollars every year.

Why should I pay because someone lacks the self-control to refrain from doing something stupid to themselves?


M

Obviously you have a valid point. This subject will go on for decades in the future. Fact of the matter is, the government does not want to make cigarettes illegal because they continue to rake in the tax dollars. On the other side of the coin, people are dying and affecting others with their smoking habit. Nontheless, it is their choice to smoke. I believe that the case with the workers quitting/being terminated whatever, is just another example of how our great country is taking away individuals' rights one by one.

Smoking is just one thing people are concentrating their efforts on this point in time. What about the intelligent people who like to read, put on their makeup, talk on their cellphones while driving? This has been statistically researched in playing a part in many automobile accidents. I don't see anyone trying to legislate the sale of alcohol recently either. Why? Tax dollars. It's been proven for decades that people who drink are going to get behind the wheel at some point in their life. God forbid they injure themselves or someone else. Even my very own brother had an accident with a woman where she died. He was under the influence. If anything, alcohol should be addressed before cigarettes. One thing at a time.

B

 

[87chevy]

man, i've forgotten how extreme some of you are.....

Since when should a business owner be able to just hire/fire whoever they want?? I clearly missed something. I thought racism, and prejudice are bad? isn't that why we have laws against that stuff?

As to smoking, and being fired for it...I can see both sides here. Since the business is required to provide the insurance, the the business has an investment in the whole person. Therefore, I can see where they (business) should be able to not be forced to make bad investments in employees who are going to cost them a lot of money.

But I also see the other side where Why should it matter what the employee does outside the office as long as they do their job? As long as they perform the job they are paid to do, then how can you fire them?

 

[PublicSecrecy]

Must be a liability thing. But I'm pretty sure that that doesn't happen very often so don't worry.

 

[Danoff]

Since when should a business owner be able to just hire/fire whoever they want?? I clearly missed something.

A business owner should always be able to just hire/fire whoever he wants. Why should he be forced to do otherwise? It's his business. If it's publicly owned that's one thing, but if not, the business owner should be able to do basically whatever they want.

I thought racism, and prejudice are bad? isn't that why we have laws against that stuff?

They are bad, but they aren't illegal. Nor should they be.

 

[Pupik]

Smoking has no immediate effect on most kinds of work, except very physical labour I suppose.

Take away the five 10-minute smoke breaks, and a smoker is just as productive as a non-smoker. Smokers also tend to congregate around each other, and productivity declines when a few of them taking a 5 minute break turns into a 15-minute nic-fit party.

I don't care who or what someone does in the privacy in thier own home or their private time, but bringing your poor health habits into the workplace is something that ought to be discriminated upon.