Has anyone else heard about this?

[Eilan]

This may have been discussed on one of the other boards, but if it was, I missed it.

Scotts Miracle-Gro plan to fire smokers (Sorry, the article's kinda longish. Sue me.)

So, what do you think?

 

[bobsgirl]

I did hear about this the other day on the radio. My first reaction was, they're discriminating against people who engage in a legal activity. Raise the health insurance rates, fine, but firing workers who smoke is going too far.

Next they'll have a scale in the Human Resources office and you'll have to make a certain weight to be hired. The obesity police are almost as obnoxious as the smoking police.

 

[KarenDee]

I'd like to see companies provide some incentives for living a healthy lifestyle. Hard to enforce I know, but perhaps some employees might be inclined to take action if there were monetary advantages to it. Kind of like the way our health care provider gives us a $200 yearly rebate towards a health club membership. I don't smoke, I exercise every day...why should I pay the same rates as someone who abuses the health care system by not taking care of him/herself?

I think the firing thing is a little over-reactive though.

 

[Quoll]

There is a lot of it going around.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/printpage/0,5481,17459464,00.html

 

[SweetErika]

I'd like to see companies provide some incentives for living a healthy lifestyle. Hard to enforce I know, but perhaps some employees might be inclined to take action if there were monetary advantages to it. Kind of like the way our health care provider gives us a $200 yearly rebate towards a health club membership. I don't smoke, I exercise every day...why should I pay the same rates as someone who abuses the health care system by not taking care of him/herself?

I think the firing thing is a little over-reactive though.

Agreed.

I watched the interview with the Weyco CEO who's been firing people for smoking, and obesity was one of the issues raised. He'd like to ban that as well, but it's protected by discrimination laws. I honestly don't understand the difference though...anyone with half a brain knows that bacon, liquor, or bag of chips they eat daily is harmful to their health. Why not fire them, or people who don't exercise (enough)?

The companies who are offering incentives, cessation, fitness, lifestyle, and whole-person health programs are right on track. I can almost go for just straight higher insurance rates for smokers, too, but then the logic of not singling out other high-risk groups gets me.

 

[Guest]

 

[Eilan]

I don't smoke. I exercise. I'm not a high risk for an employer/insurer. And I obviously don't work for this company. But something about this bothers me.

I watched the interview with the Weyco CEO who's been firing people for smoking, and obesity was one of the issues raised. He'd like to ban that as well, but it's protected by discrimination laws. I honestly don't understand the difference though...anyone with half a brain knows that bacon, liquor, or bag of chips they eat daily is harmful to their health. Why not fire them, or people who don't exercise (enough)?

I wonder where an employer can/should draw the line. Obesity's obviously an issue. What about people who drink alcohol? Or people who regularly engage in unprotected, nonmonogamous sex?

Kind of like the way our health care provider gives us a $200 yearly rebate towards a health club membership.

At least you have something like that available. When my hubby was still working, he had to adhere to pretty strict weight/fitness standards. He could have been fired for not meeting these standards (either for being overweight OR underweight), but he never got health club rebates or anything like that.

 

[LadyJeanne]

The only reasons companies care about smoking is because they have to pay part of the tab for health insurance. Insurance companies already discriminate based on risk categories. Many of the payors (Blue Cross, Aetna, etc.) already charge higher rates for people who smoke, just as they charge higher rates for people who engage in high-risky activities, like sky diving. I can see why they'd do it if they can get away with it - it makes sense from a costs perspective.

From a privacy rights perspective, and a human right's perspective, and an employee's rights perspective, it's offensive. Do we really want employers to have the right to fire people because of their lifestyle choices?

And they won't stop with smoking if they can get away with it. How about alcohol? Or...unprotected sex?

 

[Halo_n_horns]

This may have been discussed on one of the other boards, but if it was, I missed it.

Scotts Miracle-Gro plan to fire smokers (Sorry, the article's kinda longish. Sue me.)

So, what do you think?

All they're doing is speeding up a natural process. Those jobs were going come open anyway because of any number of the high risk ailments that smokers create for themselves. Seems to me that firing smokers is just being pro-active.

 

[ewopper]

This may have been discussed on one of the other boards, but if it was, I missed it.

Scotts Miracle-Gro plan to fire smokers (Sorry, the article's kinda longish. Sue me.)

So, what do you think?

all I can say is another freedom taken away, I don't condone smoking, but who gives jobs the right to discriminate against people they hired and are doing them quality work.If they get away with this what next, will they fire you because you eat at any time other than scheduled breaks and lunch. No smoker raised health insurance. This was done by the AMA andinsurance companies. What gets me is they get tax dollars for research from taxpayers and government grants so they want to blame everything on consumers if you get sick your SOL smoker or not.

 

[TBKahuna123]

Not a smoker, never smokes, allergic to cigarette smoke in the worst way, absolutely hate smoking, and I think it should be totally banned and made illegal because it kills people.

That said, it's not illegal. Non-smokign sections, that actually work? Smoke free public places? Yeah I'm all for that. A 50 foot boundary away from the building OUTSIDE that you can't smoke within? Come on, now we're getting ridiculous.

Firing people for smoking? Banning them from positions or activities? Now that's discrimination and a lawsuit waiting to happen. This is just dumb.

Fuck, you'd think they said Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmass or something.

 

[Eilan]

The only reasons companies care about smoking is because they have to pay part of the tab for health insurance. Insurance companies already discriminate based on risk categories. Many of the payors (Blue Cross, Aetna, etc.) already charge higher rates for people who smoke, just as they charge higher rates for people who engage in high-risky activities, like sky diving. I can see why they'd do it if they can get away with it - it makes sense from a costs perspective.

This is completely understandable.

 

[Ezzy]

Have a look at this add on to the thread here .

 

[SweetErika]

That said, it's not illegal. Non-smokign sections, that actually work? Smoke free public places? Yeah I'm all for that. A 50 foot boundary away from the building OUTSIDE that you can't smoke within? Come on, now we're getting ridiculous.

WA just passed a law that prohibits smoking within 25 feet of doors, windows, or vents (anywhere a trace of smoke could get inside). It's $101 ticket if you violate it, though the police refuse to respond to calls regarding violations because they obviously have better things to do with their time and budget. It's costing the state millions each year to educate and investigate violations. I have yet to be in a place where smoke from outside is bothersome, though I understand smoking near a vent could be an issue. But even then, I don't understand why that can't be rectified by people just asking nicely to step away from the opening or posting "No smoking within 25 feet of this window/door/vent" signs.

 

[Eilan]

WA just passed a law that prohibits smoking within 25 feet of doors, windows, or vents (anywhere a trace of smoke could get inside).

Do people walk around with tape measures to make sure that they (or others) are outside of that range?

 

[SweetErika]

Do people walk around with tape measures to make sure that they (or others) are outside of that range?

There have been some calls to the health department and police about people walking by windows and doors smoking. Of course they're promptly dismissed.

The 25 feet is part of the law, but it's really more of a guideline for smokers, I think. The main concern is actually smoking inside. The health department will respond to calls regarding patrons who smoke inside and won't stop when asked and proprietors who don't take action and allow smoking. Only tribal casinos/businesses can allow smoking inside, though they've been asked by the governor to ban it voluntarily (they won't). There's a big uproar because nontribal businesses are losing customers to the tribal casinos.