Ravenwood - 02/25/05 08:00 AM
More and more companies are refusing to hire smokers, in the name of rising health insurance, reports Newsweek.
Now, citing rising health-insurance costs and concerns about employees' well-being, a growing number of companies are refusing to hire people who smoke, even if they do so on their own time and nowhere near their jobs. An estimated 6,000 employers no longer hire smokers, according to the National Workrights Institute, an affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union.While I enjoy having the competitive advantage over my smoking brethren, I cannot in good conscience support such a policy. For one thing, I don't think it looks out for the best interests of the company. Health insurance costs are rising, but I wonder how much money can really be saved by firing all your smokers. And even if there is significant savings, will companies soon start refusing to hire people who are overweight, or have a history of cancer? I mean, where do you draw the line?
What's more, I think it drums up bad publicity and destroys employee morale. Who wants to work for a company that says you aren't allowed to enjoy a beer on the weekend, or go scuba diving? And of course it limits your talent pool significantly. If a company is so interested in pinching pennies they should just stop offering health care as a benefit altogether, which it appears that many companies are already doing:
There were at least 5 million fewer jobs providing health insurance in 2004 than in 2001, according to the survey, in part because of soaring costs. Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance have been rising at about five times the rate of inflation and workers' earnings.Of course from 2001 to 2004 there were a lot of people out there looking for work. Mass layoffs were daily stories in the newspaper. As the unemployment rate continues to drop, companies are going to have to start offering more perks to prospective employees to attract top talent. And lets face it, making people agree to not smoke or eat donuts (in the privacy of their own home, mind you) isn't the way to attract quality people. And I have no use for companies that don't even make an attempt to hire the best employees they can afford.
I'll repeat something I first said back in October 2002. Under the guise of decreasing insurance premiums, here are some other regulations they should impose:
No skydiving, water-skiing, motorcycling, hang gliding, or bungee jumping.Anyone caught participating in the listed activities should be fired on the spot.
No reading or watching TV in the dark.
No going to loud rock concerts.
No running with scissors.
No burning candles after 9 PM.
Employee's homes must be properly equipped with bath mats.
No electrical outlets without a safety cover.
Employees must always use the handrail on the stairs.
Employees must wash hands, regardless of whether or not they are returning to work.
No frayed extension cords.
No answering the door without knowing who it is.
No talking to strangers
Related articles:
1984: Fired for being a smoker -- 01/26/2005
All your vices are belong to us -- 01/08/2004
The Unprotected Minority -- 08/19/2003
Pleasure Police, literally -- 10/22/2002
Category: Pleasure Police
Comments (5) top link me
I hear you need to add salting your food to the list.
Posted by: MMW at February 25, 2005 11:03 AMAnd you know why food makers salt their products more? Because the health nannies forced them to cut their fat content, so they added more salt to make the products more palatable. The salt thing is a particular pet-peeve of mine. They basically pulled the 2500 mg out of their ass because there is absolutely no science to back it up. The only people who need to be on salt restricted diets are people with high blood pressure or heart problems. But don't take my word for it, look at the French, they eat the saltiest food around and they live forever. Maybe the CSPI needs to look at the high blood pressure that is caused by food nannies endlessly trying to regulate my diet.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam at February 25, 2005 2:54 PMWith Weyco firings of smokers trying to justify them with the claim of healthcosts, one starts to wonder when the lawsuits should begin.
I've been hearing the jabbering about jobs being at will and that if you don't like it you can leave, but when it comes to fair employment in good faith, I don't see that happening in any of these instances.
This has to be a lawyers dream though. Smokers have been winning lawsuits because tobacco is adictive. So if they are addicted, then they can be viewed as disabled, so the firing could be viewed as discriminatory. Come on, a lawyer could make that logic flow.
Personally I agree totally with your statements on how companies will slowly add things you can't do.. Where do they draw the line as to what is your business only and when you can tell them to go to hell. And you can be certain that there are far more people out there that would love to have the power to do a little social engineering to make your life "better."
This is a case where Henry Ford would be thrilled.
Nylarthotep,
Your scenario holds a lot more water considering the FDA is trying to classify nicotine as a drug. One of the things keeping them from going after fat people is that obesity is considered a disease. Add tobacco addiction to that list, and as you point out, you have a trial lawyers wet dream.
Posted by: Ravenwood at February 26, 2005 12:12 AMAlso, no sports cars; give up that 'vette right now, its for your own good.
And the big one........ NO GUNS. Hey, they might mysteriously go off through no known cause, and perforate a burglar.
Fuck these assholes, I dont smoke either, but I'd sooner carve my way through clouds of smoke eight foot thick than give in to these morons.
(c) Ravenwood and Associates, 1990 - 2014
