Company fires 7 for smoking outside of work...

[keVinScIon]

Hey, business is business. If it's costing a business more money in health care for employees who smoke, then why should they have to pay more? They dont have to keep them if they are costing them more. If you were a business owner and you had to pay more for health care because your employees smoked, you think thats fair? I sure dont. A business should make money any way it can (as long as its legal) and if it made a policy about emplyees not smoking, and some chose not to folow the policy, then they dont have to keep them. They can just hire new people. Simple as that.

[Sluttypatton]

Just because I thought it was interesting, I'll mention the fact that a couple of studies have been done that show smokers actually save money by dieing early in life. I'll see if I can dig them up. I'm not saying I agree with the findings, but it would certainly put a crimp in some of your arguments.

[keVinScIon]

Originally Posted by Sluttypatton

Just because I thought it was interesting, I'll mention the fact that a couple of studies have been done that show smokers actually save money by dieing early in life. I'll see if I can dig them up. I'm not saying I agree with the findings, but it would certainly put a crimp in some of your arguments.

Whats the point of saving money when youre gonna be dead?

[Oz]

Just look at it logically - you put money away in super your whole life then cark it shortly after leaving work. Not hard to figure out.

[keVinScIon]

Originally Posted by Sluttypatton

Just because I thought it was interesting, I'll mention the fact that a couple of studies have been done that show smokers actually save money by dieing early in life. I'll see if I can dig them up. I'm not saying I agree with the findings, but it would certainly put a crimp in some of your arguments.

and also what about buying those exprensive ass cigarette packs every other day?? theyre like what $5 now? how the hell would you save money if youre buying a pack of cigarettes every other day?

[Sluttypatton]

For health care...the studies showed that the early death offset the cost of healthcare for smokers, actually producing a profit.

[Gotti]

Originally Posted by Porsche

The only thing I'm going to say about this is that Smoking KILLS well into the thousands, if nto hundred thousands each year.

Drag racing, spirited driving, Mcdonald's and other such pitiful comparisons do not. Give me a break with the whole 'where are they going to draw the line' bit, If you are doing something that countless studies have proven can kill you any number of ways when you work for a health company, it looks really bad on their part.

It is a proven FACT that obesity is much worse for your health than smoking. Eating McDonalds everyday = obesity = worse health than smoking.

and whoever said fat people dont take "fat breaks" or buy "fat packs" is wrong too... what do you call a bag of chips? For a fat person thats a "fat break" cause he can munch out on his "fat pack" lol

I dont want to argue about this tho, cause non-smokers always seem to be prejudice against smokers like they're the root of all evil or something I'm gunna do what i want to do, and you dont have to do it. So stop trying to convice me not to... i dont go around hating on fat people and telling them to eat healthy.

['97ventureowner]

One way I look at the whole situation is this. When our forefathers wrote the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, giving us rights and liberties, did they ever think this matter would be a problem in the future? Yes, smoking has been around for centuries, and has been proven to cause health problems, it just boils down to a person's rights, and liberties. If you start controlling something like this now, where will it end? You give these people (in this case the employer,) an inch and the next thing you know they've taken a foot...or even a mile. This could cause a firestorm across the country down the road where employers could dictate what you can and cannot do on your own time or in your own home. And I don't know, but didn't we go to war in the 1700's to get away from something like this? And the last time I checked , this country was still a democracy. Pretty soon we will all live in a society similar to George Orwell's "1984".

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by Sluttypatton

For health care...the studies showed that the early death offset the cost of healthcare for smokers, actually producing a profit.

You have a link or information from a reliable source on that?

Because it's your opinion until then.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by '97ventureowner

One way I look at the whole situation is this. When our forefathers wrote the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, giving us rights and liberties, did they ever think this matter would be a problem in the future? Yes, smoking has been around for centuries, and has been proven to cause health problems, it just boils down to a person's rights, and liberties. If you start controlling something like this now, where will it end? You give these people (in this case the employer,) an inch and the next thing you know they've taken a foot...or even a mile. This could cause a firestorm across the country down the road where employers could dictate what you can and cannot do on your own time or in your own home. And I don't know, but didn't we go to war in the 1700's to get away from something like this? And the last time I checked , this country was still a democracy. Pretty soon we will all live in a society similar to George Orwell's "1984".

You HAVE the "RIGHT" to smoke. That's not being taken away from you.

Employers have the RIGHT to fire employees for not following company policy.

In some states, the law says that a business can release (fire, terminate, choose your word) an employee for any reason.

['97ventureowner]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

You HAVE the "RIGHT" to smoke. That's not being taken away from you.

Employers have the RIGHT to fire employees for not following company policy.

In some states, the law says that a business can release (fire, terminate, choose your word) an employee for any reason.

I know we as Americans have the "RIGHT" to smoke. What is being brought into question is that "RIGHT" to do it at home or away from work is being infringed upon. There will probably be many lawsuits and court cases brought up because of this , and the challenge will be to prove that the company's policy is an infringement of the personal "RIGHTS" of an individual. We'll probably end up seeing civil liberties groups get involved over this matter,and a lot more debates about the constitutionality of the company's policy towards it's workers. Maybe all the way to the Supreme Court.

[fredjacksonsan]

You're right about that. I think part of the argument will be that nicotine is a drug, and it's a drug-free workplace (which it may then be argued they should also outlaw caffeine) etc etc.

As always, a broad statement can be challenged on many fronts, while a too-narrow statement doesn't cover enough eventualities.

But at the heart of the matter is the intent to reduce the number of smoking-related illnesses that the insurance has to pay for. If people smoke at home, not smoking at work doesn't really matter, since they're exposing themselves to the smoke while away from work (and arguably, reducing somewhat their exposure since not smoking @ work)


-edit- I'm definitely on the side of "what you do in your own home is your business and no one else's". But if the employer said you can't come to work under the influence of cocaine or alcohol, and the employees had 18 months to either quit or be fired, then I think it would be accepted. And it has. I know I know nicotine isn't the same, it doesn't affect your judgement, etc etc; which is true unless you DON'T get the drug, in which case, well, we all know how smokers are when they can't smoke.....

[Sluttypatton]

Here are two of the links. I can't find any of the others anymore. I realize that the first one doesn't hold as much weight since it was funded by Phillip Morris, so don't go nagging about it.

http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Ph...zech-Study.htm
http://www.cato.org/dailys/1-16-98.html

I will post the other links as I come across them, but it has been a while since I saw them.

Now, other than the fact that everyone just knows that smoking costs the country money, do you have any sources to prove it...any at all? I'm not saying that I don't believe it to be true, but when I think about it, I have never seen any proof of this...it just seems to be a generally accepted fact for no reason whatsoever.

[chacal]

Originally Posted by Sluttypatton

Just because I thought it was interesting, I'll mention the fact that a couple of studies have been done that show smokers actually save money by dieing early in life. I'll see if I can dig them up. I'm not saying I agree with the findings, but it would certainly put a crimp in some of your arguments.

I've seen that study too. I read abut it in the newspaper some years ago.

Originally Posted by keVinScIon

Hey, business is business.

So, it is ok to fire a woman because she is pregnant? Or a father because he has a sick son and couldn't go to work for a couple of days? Would it be fair to fire you if you had an accident and couldn't work for a month? Is business and profit a good reason for everything?

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

we all know how smokers are when they can't smoke...

I don't agree. I'm a smoker. Sometimes I have to spend 8 hours without smoking. It doesn't affect me. I simply wait and I have a good smoke when I can.

I think this story sucks. Nobody has the right to tell you what you can or can't do in your free time (unless you try to do something illegal, of couse). Smoking isn't illegal, nobody can stop you from smoking.

[RickwithaTbird]

Originally Posted by chacal

So, it is ok to fire a woman because she is pregnant? Or a father because he has a sick son and couldn't go to work for a couple of days? Would it be fair to fire you if you had an accident and couldn't work for a month? Is business and profit a good reason for everything?

A woman being pregnant is part of life. Thats why we aren't extinct. A father's son being sick is not caused by the fathers choice to smoke cancer sticks (hopefully). Having an accident and not being able to work for a month: workmans comp. You can't compare childbirth to smoking cigarettes. You can't compare having a sick kid, to getting lung cancer because of your choice to smoke. You can't compare an accident to smoking cigarettes. Seriously. Stop the ridiculous comparisons. When they fire people for being pregnant, or taking care of their child, or for an injury that wasnt their fault, then I will be mad. But smoking cigarettes is your own right that you choose to exercise everyday. But do you think you have the RIGHT to work for anybody you choose? Hell no. Your job is a priviledge. And if you want to smoke a drug, like cigarettes, you go right on ahead, because you are allowed to do so on your own free time, in your home, in your car, in a restaurant, etc. But if you wanna work here.... NOPE. Take your health problems, and your drug habits somewhere else. Just because you don't care about your health, doesn't mean they don't. You do not have the right to work wherever you chose. Its called "At Will Employment" and most employers now days use it. They can fire you for parting your hair wrong if they want, but that's not the case. They have a fair argument. Which is : We don't want to employ cigarette smokers. That is their right.


I am all for the legalization of marijuana, but do you think I will complain that a business won't hire weed smokers if it is legalized? Hell no. It makes sense. Consider yourself lucky that cigarettes are even legal. Stop bitching about it, you chose to start smoking despite the health consequences, now deal with it, or quit.



and about this, said by "MY3rd skyline" :
for something like this I can...
If you think we should all be allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies, then that means you think all drugs should be legal.

I clearly said after that, that I obviously knew you don't mean that, and you were only referring to cigarettes. Which makes you bias.