| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=78332 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Scorehead [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Warning: Smoking Is Hazardous to Your Employment By Leslie Kwoh | The Wall Street Journal – 1 hour 59 minutes ago http://finance.yahoo.com/news/warning--smoking-is-hazardous-to-your-employment-173111627.html Companies aren't just singling out overweight employees. Staffers who smoke are under fire too. In small but growing numbers, employers in recent years have been refusing to hire smokers, arguing that coaxing tobacco users to quit with free cessation programs or cash incentives hasn't worked. Some medical experts back the bans, saying the end result of reducing smoking is worth it. But other health-care experts say the policy crosses an ethical line by singling out poorer and less educated groups who, federal data shows, smoke more often. In all, about four out of 10 employers reward or penalize employees based on tobacco use. But hiring bans, which are legal in 21 states, are gaining traction, with about 4% adopting the policy and an additional 2% planning to do so next year, according to a recent study by the National Business Group on Health and consulting firm Towers Watson (TW). Most firms simply ask job candidates if they smoke, but a few require candidates to take urine tests to be screened for nicotine, as part of a broader drug test. To date, along with some casinos, the bans have been most commonly followed by health-care employers, including Danville, Pa.-based Geisinger Health System and Baylor Health Care System, based in Dallas. Not surprisingly, that has prompted a debate within the medical community. Two groups of health researchers, for example, wrote dueling articles on the topic that were recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine after the University of Pennsylvania Health System recently said it would no longer hire smokers starting this July. Ezekiel Emanuel, who co-wrote one of the papers, argues that the practice discriminates against poorer and less-educated populations, where smoking is more prevalent. Rates are also higher for those who live below the federal poverty line and who have received less than a high school education. "It's unethical," says Mr. Emanuel, chair of medical ethics and health policy at UPenn's Perelman School of Medicine. Employers' main motivation isn't employee health, he says, but "to get the smoker off their health bill and pass on the costs to someone else." (A spokeswoman for the school says the new policy isn't intended to be "discriminatory in any way" and is just aimed at reducing smoking.) But proponents say employers have given other methods a fair shake and need a tougher approach. David Asch, who co-wrote the academic paper in support of the ban, says that with hiring bans, smokers face a social consequence that is potentially more painful than nicotine withdrawal. "We've tried a lot of things to quit smoking," says Mr. Asch, a professor of health care management at UPenn's Wharton business school. To be sure, employers say they have tried gentler measures, only to have poor results. At Cleveland Clinic, which imposed a hiring ban on smokers in 2007, CEO Delos "Toby" Cosgrove says he first tried banning smoking on the property and offering free cessation treatment—but that as long as the company continued to hire smokers, it was like "a doctor smoking a cigarette and telling you to stop smoking," he says. After the initial skepticism, he says, "I've gotten a lot of thanks for this, actually." |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
I like it. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: I like it. More opportunities for me! |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Im not sure how i feel about this. I guess its ok. Slippery slope though. Who's next? Drinkers? |
|
| Author: | Rod [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
I refuse to hire anyone except blonde blue-eyed Aryans in peak physical condition with less than 8% body fat who don't drink, smoke, or do drugs or take part in any high risk activities in their spare time. In fact, my employees are not allowed to have any spare time. It's a buyer's market. I own your soon to be unemployed ass. |
|
| Author: | Scorehead [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
As a Cigar smoker, I'm not really sure how I feel about this, but I do believe that companies can hire who they want. We know they don't want to hire pot heads & drug users & now smokers, but what about drinkers, or overweight people? |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: I refuse to hire anyone except blonde blue-eyed Aryans in peak physical condition with less than 8% body fat who don't drink, smoke, or do drugs or take part in any high risk activities in their spare time. In fact, my employees are not allowed to have any spare time. It's a buyer's market. I own your soon to be unemployed ass.  Seriously, the would be worker is lucky you are even considering him |
|
| Author: | Rod [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Scorehead wrote: As a Cigar smoker, I'm not really sure how I feel about this. Cigars are okay. There is also an exception for single malt Scotch and wines costing more than $75 per bottle. |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Scorehead wrote: As a Cigar smoker, I'm not really sure how I feel about this, but I do believe that companies can hire who they want. We know they don't want to hire pot heads & drug users & now smokers, but what about drinkers, or overweight people? I like how you've separated the vices there. |
|
| Author: | Scorehead [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Scorehead wrote: As a Cigar smoker, I'm not really sure how I feel about this. Cigars are okay. There is also an exception for single malt Scotch and wines costing more than $75 per bottle. I'm not a brown liquor drinker. If good Vodka is included, then I'm good! |
|
| Author: | Rod [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Scorehead wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Scorehead wrote: As a Cigar smoker, I'm not really sure how I feel about this. Cigars are okay. There is also an exception for single malt Scotch and wines costing more than $75 per bottle. I'm not a brown liquor drinker. If good Vodka is included, then I'm good! No. Vodka is a vice for Russian peasants. However, I do allow my C level executives to enjoy a Pimm's Cup. But only when they are attending a polo match. |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Scorehead wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Scorehead wrote: As a Cigar smoker, I'm not really sure how I feel about this. Cigars are okay. There is also an exception for single malt Scotch and wines costing more than $75 per bottle. I'm not a brown liquor drinker. If good Vodka is included, then I'm good! You may drink high end vodka on the third wednesday of the odd numbered months. Welcome aboard! |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
My guess is they'd only care if you were smoking at work. You probably can't drink at work either. |
|
| Author: | Regular Reader [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 2:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: No. Vodka is a vice for Russian peasants. However, I do allow my C level executives to enjoy a Pimm's Cup. But only when they are attending a polo match. Agreed on vodka. But where do you come down on the decidedly peasant, but lethal caipirinha? |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: My guess is they'd only care if you were smoking at work. You probably can't drink at work either. Im not sure about that. Its interesting that you seem to favor all kinds of limitations until it gets to drinking, where you come to a screeching halt You believed every word of the D.A.R.E. program didnt you? |
|
| Author: | Dr. Kenneth Noisewater [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Scorehead wrote: As a Cigar smoker, I'm not really sure how I feel about this. Cigars are okay. There is also an exception for single malt Scotch and wines costing more than $75 per bottle. Well, I've made it through the first interview. Buy me lunch and beg me to work for you and I'll consider it. Someplace good, though. I need a steak. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
rogers park bryan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: My guess is they'd only care if you were smoking at work. You probably can't drink at work either. Im not sure about that. Its interesting that you seem to favor all kinds of limitations until it gets to drinking, where you come to a screeching halt You believed every word of the D.A.R.E. program didnt you? |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: rogers park bryan wrote: Boilermaker Rick wrote: My guess is they'd only care if you were smoking at work. You probably can't drink at work either. Im not sure about that. Its interesting that you seem to favor all kinds of limitations until it gets to drinking, where you come to a screeching halt You believed every word of the D.A.R.E. program didnt you? Too late in the day to get into this. Let's pick it up here tomorrow. |
|
| Author: | Scorehead [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
rogers park bryan wrote: Scorehead wrote: As a Cigar smoker, I'm not really sure how I feel about this, but I do believe that companies can hire who they want. We know they don't want to hire pot heads & drug users & now smokers, but what about drinkers, or overweight people? I like how you've separated the vices there. Companies & society has separated them. So I'm wondering of alcohol & fat people are next? |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Scorehead wrote: rogers park bryan wrote: Scorehead wrote: As a Cigar smoker, I'm not really sure how I feel about this, but I do believe that companies can hire who they want. We know they don't want to hire pot heads & drug users & now smokers, but what about drinkers, or overweight people? I like how you've separated the vices there. Companies & society has separated them. So I'm wondering of alcohol & fat people are next? Society has separated them? Someone forgot to tell Colorado and Washington |
|
| Author: | Scorehead [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Scorehead wrote: Joe Orr Road Rod wrote: Scorehead wrote: As a Cigar smoker, I'm not really sure how I feel about this. Cigars are okay. There is also an exception for single malt Scotch and wines costing more than $75 per bottle. I'm not a brown liquor drinker. If good Vodka is included, then I'm good! No. Vodka is a vice for Russian peasants. However, I do allow my C level executives to enjoy a Pimm's Cup. But only when they are attending a polo match. Remember...Lobster was once considered food for peasants too... |
|
| Author: | Scorehead [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
rogers park bryan wrote: Scorehead wrote: rogers park bryan wrote: Scorehead wrote: As a Cigar smoker, I'm not really sure how I feel about this, but I do believe that companies can hire who they want. We know they don't want to hire pot heads & drug users & now smokers, but what about drinkers, or overweight people? I like how you've separated the vices there. Companies & society has separated them. So I'm wondering of alcohol & fat people are next? Society has separated them? Someone forgot to tell Colorado and Washington Cant companies in Colorado & Washington still require potential employees to take a drug test & refuse employment for a positive test for pot? |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Ok, well many companies dont test for marijuana. So I guess those companies are not part of society. |
|
| Author: | Curious Hair [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Scorehead wrote: As a Cigar smoker you don't say |
|
| Author: | TurdFerguson [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
My company tacks on $800 a year to health insurance for smokers. Yet somehow doesn't impose a penalty on cigar smokers. Being a cigar person I am thankful, but there are no tests. I have no clue how they enforce other than the honor system. I can easily see this spreading into obesity and blood pressure screens for employers. |
|
| Author: | Douchebag [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
TurdFerguson wrote: My company tacks on $800 a year to health insurance for smokers. Yet somehow doesn't impose a penalty on cigar smokers. Being a cigar person I am thankful, but there are no tests. I have no clue how they enforce other than the honor system. I can easily see this spreading into obesity and blood pressure screens for employers. All health insurance premiums should be based on preventable things by the insured. You have higher insurance premiums if you are a poor driver, and you should have higher premiums if you live an unhealthy lifestyle. |
|
| Author: | rogers park bryan [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Douchebag wrote: TurdFerguson wrote: My company tacks on $800 a year to health insurance for smokers. Yet somehow doesn't impose a penalty on cigar smokers. Being a cigar person I am thankful, but there are no tests. I have no clue how they enforce other than the honor system. I can easily see this spreading into obesity and blood pressure screens for employers. All health insurance premiums should be based on preventable things by the insured. You have higher insurance premiums if you are a poor driver, and you should have higher premiums if you live an unhealthy lifestyle. How many choices are you willing to let your employer make for you? |
|
| Author: | Douchebag [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
rogers park bryan wrote: Douchebag wrote: TurdFerguson wrote: My company tacks on $800 a year to health insurance for smokers. Yet somehow doesn't impose a penalty on cigar smokers. Being a cigar person I am thankful, but there are no tests. I have no clue how they enforce other than the honor system. I can easily see this spreading into obesity and blood pressure screens for employers. All health insurance premiums should be based on preventable things by the insured. You have higher insurance premiums if you are a poor driver, and you should have higher premiums if you live an unhealthy lifestyle. How many choices are you willing to let your employer make for you? It just doesn't make any sense for someone living a normal healthy life to pay as much for insurance as someone who is over 500 pounds with heart disease and high cholestrol. If I was a reckless driver, I wouldn't expect to pay as little for insurance as someone with no tickets or accidents ever. |
|
| Author: | Regular Reader [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
rogers park bryan wrote: How many choices are you willing to let your employer make for you? As a free market disciple and good R, the employer knows best and his choices should never, ever be impinged. |
|
| Author: | NearWessSideHussra [ Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Some Companies refusing to Hire Smokers |
Smokers are corporate America's dream: they are generally more productive than their non-cancer-dick sucking brethren AND they kick the bucket at a far earlier age--which means the employers save $$$ on health-care and pension benefits. sure, there's that spike in health care costs whilst they undergo quixotic chemo treatments, but the average time from diagnosis to death for lung cancer patients is approx 6 months, the quickest of any of the cancers. 6 months of chemo is cheap compared to 30 years of hard-on pills, xanax scripts, alzheimer's meds, hip replacement surgeries and whatever else old people get hopped up on to go play bingo these days. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|