Thiebear Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Now Scotts home and lawn care is going to do the same thing: Quit smoking or be fired: Based on health care costs: They say ITS THEIR RIGHT since they PAY 70%.. Based on that i guess the following people will be fired shortly: Rank1 Causes of death All persons Causes of death Male Causes of death Female All causes 2,443,387 All causes 1,199,264 All causes 1,244,123 1. Diseases of heart 696,947 Diseases of heart 340,933 Diseases of heart 356,014 2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer) 557,271 Malignant neoplasms (cancer) 288,768 Malignant neoplasms (cancer) 268,503 3. Cerebrovascular diseases 162,672 Unintentional injuries 69,257 Cerebrovascular diseases 100,050 4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases 124,816 Cerebrovascular diseases 62,622 Chronic lower respiratory diseases 64,103 5. Unintentional injuries 106,742 Chronic lower respiratory diseases 60,713 Alzheimer's disease 41,877 6. Diabetes mellitus 73,249 Diabetes mellitus 34,301 Diabetes mellitus 38,948 7. Influenza and pneumonia 65,681 Influenza and pneumonia 28,918 Unintentional injuries 37,485 8. Alzheimer's disease 58,866 Suicide 25,409 Influenza and pneumonia 36,763 9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 40,974 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 19,695 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis 21,279 10. Septicemia 33,865 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 17,401 Septicemia 18,918 Don't be surprised if they bring out the calipers and tell you to lose 18 pounds in the next 3 months or be fired. I smoke Cigar's during the Reskins game and golfing.. I drink coffee AT work. Decaf coffee is now showing that it causes high cholesterol.. no more coffee at work.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 holy dead thread batman! although i do see where they're coming from, i still don't agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 holy dead thread batman!although i do see where they're coming from, i still don't agree. No reason to start a new thread on the same issue: Company To Workers: Light Up And You're Fired POSTED: 3:55 pm EST December 10, 2005 MARYSVILLE, Ohio -- Quit smoking, or you're fired. That's what Scotts Miracle-Gro is telling its employees. If they don't quit smoking by October, they'll lose their jobs. The lawn and garden company is trying to keep health insurance costs down by promoting healthy lifestyles for its employees. Its chairman and chief executive, James Hagedorn, said the company shouldn't have to shoulder health risks for employees who smoke. It pays for 75 percent of employees' health insurance. The Ohio-based company has 6,000 employees. It said it can fire smokers legally in 21 states. Workers who smoke can get free counseling, nicotine patches and classes on quitting. A spokesman said the company hasn't yet decided how it will enforce the smoking ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Skins Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Companies have a right to do that, if the cig smokers were good workers the company will reverse its policy. That's an ignorant comment.. I smoke and work circles around most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 That's an ignorant comment.. I smoke and work circles around most. And you also drive up the cost of the emploers portion of health care (if they provide it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 And you also drive up the cost of the emploers portion of health care (if they provide it) Which of course reduces the same employers ability to hire more employees, increase salaries, pay bonuses -- just so that smokers can continue to light up. It's a free country. If smoking is such an integral portion of your being, you can certainly continue the habit. Just don't expect others to pay for the filthy habit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 And you also drive up the cost of the emploers portion of health care (if they provide it) so if you get depression you get fired? Dow Chemical Company helped take the analysis a step further by looking at "impaired presenteeism," or the impact of sickness on the productivity of those who come to work while ill. Dow asked about presenteeism issues in a massive survey on worker health issues during 2002, in which the company found that 64% of employees reported having one or more chronic conditions. The survey generated a startling finding. While chronic ailments such as diabetes, arthritis and circulatory disorders were responsible for the most direct medical costs among employees, the costliest condition per worker overall -- after factoring the costs of presenteeism -- was depression/anxiety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 If an employer wants to go that route, sure. I'd argue though, that depression is an illness, smoking is a choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Skins Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Its a simple fix, If you smoke like me just charge me more for my health care (Even though I am healthy and have never been to the doctors in 20 years and smoked for 18 years). Do not blame the smokers, put the blame where it belongs.. on the system. Just like any insurance company, they will find ways to jack up the cost and find some lame reason to hike rates. Tell me why my credit report has anything to do with my insurance rate (car) ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Its a simple fix, If you smoke like me just charge me more for my health care (Even though I am healthy and have never been to the doctors in 20 years and smoked for 18 years).Do not blame the smokers, put the blame where it belongs.. on the system. Just like any insurance company, they will find ways to jack up the cost and find some lame reason to hike rates. Tell me why my credit report has anything to do with my insurance rate (car) ????? 1st point- Group health Ins is rated on the groups health. It would cost even MORE to do it on an indivisual basis. 2nd point- Credit scores are used because they are a direct indicator of claims. IE- bad credit=more likely to file a claim. And please dont use an individual story to refute that. Im sure there are some, but statistically speaking, credit is actually the BEST indicator of claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Seriously. When are fat people not going to be hired because they provide a health care risk? Soon which will adversely affect the Big and Tall stores if the "persons with girth" are forced to not supersize and do more than just drink a diet coke after ordering 5 big macs and 3 apple pies then asking the kids what they want. Interesting though how employers are basically going to force personal responsibilty at the expense of your job before government comes up with a health care mandate for business to foot the bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 If an employer wants to go that route, sure.I'd argue though, that depression is an illness, smoking is a choice. The only problem with that thought process is: The company states its because of how MUCH they paid... Therefore, being a choice isn't a factor (in the slippery slope future). Now gattaca is alive and well in Kilmers' world... A world where he admits he wouldnt have hired himself.. And thus never would have gotten to where he is except for the generosity of his previos bosses... Pay it forward is dead to him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 The only problem with that thought process is:The company states its because of how MUCH they paid... Therefore, being a choice isn't a factor (in the slippery slope future). Now gattaca is alive and well in Kilmers' world... A world where he admits he wouldnt have hired himself.. And thus never would have gotten to where he is except for the generosity of his previos bosses... Pay it forward is dead to him I'd prefer to be able to afford to buy health ins for my employees than hire smokers. That doesnt even address the issue of smoking while trying to sell a product to clients. Employers will eventually stop offering health ins to everyone. This is just a step in that progression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_Skins Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 1st point- Group health Ins is rated on the groups health. It would cost even MORE to do it on an indivisual basis.2nd point- Credit scores are used because they are a direct indicator of claims. IE- bad credit=more likely to file a claim. And please dont use an individual story to refute that. Im sure there are some, but statistically speaking, credit is actually the BEST indicator of claims. OK those are good points, I just think smokers are now a minority ( not many in my building ( about 30 out of 1100 ) why are we affecting the rates that badly.. I need to research how many smoker to non-smokers in the work place.. One thing I know for sure is more are over-weight vs smokers. who do you think are going to have more health issues ? well this is only my opinion and I respect everyone's also, but this sounds like BS to me.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 OK those are good points, I just think smokers are now a minority ( not many in my building ( about 30 out of 1100 ) why are we affecting the rates that badly.. I need to research how many smoker to non-smokers in the work place.. One thing I know for sure is more are over-weight vs smokers. who do you think are going to have more health issues ? well this is only my opinion and I respect everyone's also, but this sounds like BS to me.. My opinion is that they should force people to stop being overweight as well. Or not hire them/fire them if they already work there. And Im not sure on the facts, but I would bet that smokers have more health issues than overweight people (assuming you can differentiate between smoker/overweight, smoker/not overweight, nonsmoker/overweight, nonsmoker/nonoverweight) There's also the issue of defining overweight. Do we use weight alone? Or BMI? And whose charts are used? Too many variables. Defining Smokers is easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Defining Smokers is easy? Pipe smokers Cigar smokers Weed smokers cig smokers = bad... easy definition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted December 12, 2005 Share Posted December 12, 2005 Its a simple fix, If you smoke like me just charge me more for my health care (Even though I am healthy and have never been to the doctors in 20 years and smoked for 18 years).Do not blame the smokers, put the blame where it belongs.. on the system. Just like any insurance company, they will find ways to jack up the cost and find some lame reason to hike rates. Tell me why my credit report has anything to do with my insurance rate (car) ????? If Kilmer is right and smoking drives up the EMPLOYER's (the OWNER of the business or those who owe the owner a fidicurary duty) costs and/or lost revenue by more than the value added by the smoker, his decision is correct for him, for his employees and for society at large (the only loser is the smoker but he/she must value the lifestyle more than the job else he/she would quit smoking). On the other hand, if he's wrong, his marginal loss will be greater or equal than the smoker he chooses not to hire. Meanwhile, the value that the smoker provides is still available to society at large. In any case, you avoid coercion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.