[vyper]

https://freeinternetpress.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2806

[Primus]

Jeez!  "...even if the smoking takes place after-hours, or at home." Free world, eh?

[Black Wolf]

Though the idea of companies paying for their workers health care seems... odd... it strikes me as a reasonable policy if they are, in fact, doing that.

[Flipside]

You could always givbe them the option of choosing to leave the companies Healthcare system and paying for your own Healthcare, by all rights, sacking them for it is a bit vicious.

[Clave]

It's getting out of control now. So :thepimp: :thepimp: :thepimp:

[Moonsword]

I'm with Flip.  This is moronic.  Yes, the company has a right to, I don't know, limit the amount they pay for insurance, but to fire someone over smoking?  If this was American, there's an anti-discrimination suit coming their way, I'd bet.

[redmenace]

There would be no discrimination suit because this would not fall under a protected class under ADA. If these were alcholics, and they were recovering they, would be protected under ADA. But in the case of alcholism, if they relapse they are no longer protected.

[Clave]

Pretty soon, everything will be banned everywhere, then I emigrate to Mars...

[Grey Wolf]

No, emigration will be banned

[Fineus]

The concept makes sense to me... smoking does harm you. Why would companies want to pay more than they could get away with on their health insurance? Don't like that idea.. well stop smoking then!

[Flipside]

The concept is sound, yes, but the execution is cut-throat. If the company is losing money on paying extra healthcare for smokers, and the chances are they pay a block amount per employee, regardless of whether they smoke or not, I mean, if they need to test their employees, then how would the Medical Insurers know if they smoked or not?

If it is on an individual basis, then the last option should be to drive you employee away. As I say, maybe add a clause to the contract that the company is not obliged to pay Healthcare for employees who refuse to take a smoking test, or who smoke..

Remember, these people were sacked for refusing to take a test, not for being smokers. Some of them may have been non-smokers who simply felt the company had no right to pry.

However, by adding the option of paying your own healthcare, you leave the worker some degree of freedom of choice, rather than 'Do it or We'll sack you', which is not a form of management I'd like to see return.

Edit : It also adds the incentive to quit smoking, because the company will start paying your medical fees for you again

[Rictor]

Thunder, I love you and everything, but you're talking out of your ass. Lets weigh the priorities here. On one hand, you have the right of corporations to save a rather negligible amount of money by denying healthcare to the workers who's sweat and blood (figuratively of course) sustains the company, and on the other you have people's freedom to do whatsoever they please to their own body. Hmm, I wonder which one takes priority, its so hard to decide...oh wait, it isn't.

A less extreme, though still rather evil policy would be to simply not cover medical costs for any smoking related dieseses in those employees who do smoke. For example, a broken hip would still be covered, but lung cancer (if there is proof that it is a result of smoking and not something else) would not be. And to be honest, who is more evil? The man who costs the company money through smoking, or the company that refuses to cover a man dying of lung cancer (worst case scenario)??

[redmenace]

Do you know how annoying it is for fellow employees to take damn smoking breaks? It is unfair and ridiculous. I don't smoke, but don't get "smoke breaks." Frankly, employees that smoke don't give it their all either, because they are constantly trying to control their self imposed cravings.

[Flipside]

These people may only restrict their smoking to being at home, that's what the problem is.

If smoke breaks were banned, then fair enough, but to tell people that they cannot smoke in their own time is another matter.

[Rictor]

Yes, we should rid the world of all vice and unhealthy products, then everyone will be happy. And if people don't like it? Though ****, legislate. Such a lovely place to live it will be. And since when is "giving it your all" a thing to strive for?

[redmenace]

We wouldn't be free if we banned unhealthy living; we wouldn't be free either if companies were not allowed to fire employees. Additionally, a person doesn't have a right to a job and an employer doesn't have an obligation to hire.

As for giving it your all, you made these "poor victimized" smokers look like really hard workers and was pointing it out they could not really give it their all.

However, giving it your all is something known as a work ethic which, last I check is supposed to be a positive thing.

[Clave]

Yeah, they can cut my health insurance because I smoke, as long as they pay me for the unpaid overtime I gave them over the last 15+ years....

[Grey Wolf]

Assuming I've grasped the basic concept, the company does not have their premium increased directly for the medical expenses of the smoker, but due to the higher rate of going to hospitals and doctors, it would decrease the profit margin of the insurer. To compensate, the insurer would increase the premium payed by its users, leading to an indirect cost increase for the company.

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by Rictor
On one hand, you have the right of corporations to save a rather negligible amount of money by denying healthcare to the workers who's sweat and blood (figuratively of course) sustains the company, and on the other you have people's freedom to do whatsoever they please to their own body. Hmm, I wonder which one takes priority, its so hard to decide...oh wait, it isn't.

What you have to realise is that while one does and should have the right to do whatever they wish to their own bodies, another right that everyone does and should have is the freedom to have their own response to that behaviour. If somebody is allowed to smoke, then I don't see it as being all that different from allowing someone to have an opinion (namely, smoking sucks and I don't want it in my workplace what I own).

Freedom of behaviour is all good and well, but so is freedom of opinion and the freedom to act on that opinion, when such actions do not impinge on the freedoms of others.

(Which, by the way, in case you were thinking it: no. Denying people employment because you don't like them isn't impinging on their freedom to smoke or indeed have a job. The freedom remains even if the circumstance does not. If you get that already - well, just... covering my tracks, you understand.)

(Not that I agree with the companies' view or anything, I don't mind smoking... just discussing things, is all.)

[Clave]

It's the little things now, but give it a few years....

Think about the following in terms of insurance risk:

Gay men

Single mothers

Single fathers

Heavy drinkers

Depressives

People who sky-dive at weekends

Single clubber who drives a Porsche

Black men living in a White neighbourhood

Reservists

Hospital volunteers

People who drive

People who ride the train

etc. etc.