smoke-free hiring

[happythoughts 0]

news

Quote

Escambia County says no to hiring smokers
Posted on Fri, Jul. 25, 2008
Pensacola News Journal

If you smoke or use tobacco, don't bother applying for a job with Escambia County government.

Starting Oct. 1, the county will have a tobacco-free hiring policy. All applicants for county jobs are currently required to take a drug test, which will be expanded to include testing for tobacco use. Any applicant testing positive for tobacco will not be eligible.

This isn't just at work. If you use tobacco anywhere, not just at work, no job.

The "rationalization" is that it is to lower medical costs.
(Or something).

So, extending that rule to... being obese? Exercise?
Obesity is the biggest health problem in the US.
So, where do we go from here?
Percentage of body fat limits?
No more donuts for you.

Alcohol is next. The costs are social and medical and a lot larger. No more drinking at home.

Say goodbye to skydiving... you peeps is just crazy.
Something will need to be done about reckless endangerment also.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

news

Quote

Escambia County says no to hiring smokers
Posted on Fri, Jul. 25, 2008
Pensacola News Journal

If you smoke or use tobacco, don't bother applying for a job with Escambia County government.

Starting Oct. 1, the county will have a tobacco-free hiring policy. All applicants for county jobs are currently required to take a drug test, which will be expanded to include testing for tobacco use. Any applicant testing positive for tobacco will not be eligible.

This isn't just at work. If you use tobacco anywhere, not just at work, no job.

The "rationalization" is that it is to lower medical costs.
(Or something).

So, extending that rule to... being obese? Exercise?
Obesity is the biggest health problem in the US.
So, where do we go from here?
Percentage of body fat limits?
No more donuts for you.

Alcohol is next. The costs are social and medical and a lot larger. No more drinking at home.

Say goodbye to skydiving... you peeps is just crazy.
Something will need to be done about reckless endangerment also.

Buy a base rig, grow your own smoke of choice, build a still and make sure you have plenty of ammo.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Say goodbye to skydiving... you peeps is just crazy.
Something will need to be done about reckless endangerment also.

Nah. My last startup CEO was a mountain climber (Himilayas with Sherpas and stuff) and we had other management driving Porsche Cup cars. Only risk takers win big with billion dollar market caps.

[jcd11235 0]

Does anyone know if employers are allowed to charge different insurance rates to smokers compared to non-smokers in Florida? If not, I can easily see the motivation of employers wanting to hire non-smokers.

It's not uncommon for some employers to not knowingly hire smokers already. Usually it's not hard to identify them. At least Escambia County is being up front about it. It doesn't look like they are doing anything to keep current employees from smoking on their own time, only screening smokers from new hires.

While it would be better to be able to pass on to smokers the extra costs smokers cause employers and other employees to incur, if that's not allowed due to legislation currently in place, then employers aren't left with many options.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[MikeForsythe 0]

Bill, addressing obesity is just around the corner. Look at what JAPAN is doing already.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[sfc 0]

Quote

news

Quote

Escambia County says no to hiring smokers
Posted on Fri, Jul. 25, 2008
Pensacola News Journal

If you smoke or use tobacco, don't bother applying for a job with Escambia County government.

Starting Oct. 1, the county will have a tobacco-free hiring policy. All applicants for county jobs are currently required to take a drug test, which will be expanded to include testing for tobacco use. Any applicant testing positive for tobacco will not be eligible.

This isn't just at work. If you use tobacco anywhere, not just at work, no job.

The "rationalization" is that it is to lower medical costs.
(Or something).

So, extending that rule to... being obese? Exercise?
Obesity is the biggest health problem in the US.
So, where do we go from here?
Percentage of body fat limits?
No more donuts for you.

Alcohol is next. The costs are social and medical and a lot larger. No more drinking at home.

Say goodbye to skydiving... you peeps is just crazy.
Something will need to be done about reckless endangerment also.

Why should local taxes go to subsidize the health care of smokers. Insurance cost more if you smoke.
I'd be OK with a different health care package for smokers, maybe a bigger deductible or something.

[birdlike 0]

Quote

news

Quote

Escambia County says no to hiring smokers
Posted on Fri, Jul. 25, 2008
Pensacola News Journal

If you smoke or use tobacco, don't bother applying for a job with Escambia County government.

Starting Oct. 1, the county will have a tobacco-free hiring policy. All applicants for county jobs are currently required to take a drug test, which will be expanded to include testing for tobacco use. Any applicant testing positive for tobacco will not be eligible.

This isn't just at work. If you use tobacco anywhere, not just at work, no job.

The "rationalization" is that it is to lower medical costs.
(Or something).

So, extending that rule to... being obese? Exercise?
Obesity is the biggest health problem in the US.
So, where do we go from here?
Percentage of body fat limits?
No more donuts for you.

Alcohol is next. The costs are social and medical and a lot larger. No more drinking at home.

Say goodbye to skydiving... you peeps is just crazy.
Something will need to be done about reckless endangerment also.

This is the insanity that those who cheer government intrusion bring us. It can come from the right or the left, but generally I see it promulgated by the left, who are always looking out for what's best for us, don't you know.

If this is OK with you, you're a fascist wannabe, too shortsighted to see and understand the far-reaching implications. How long before something you like to do will make the list of "things we just can't allow you to do"?

What about putting surveillance equipment into your car that records the forces of your starts and stops, and records your speeds? Speed kills, car crashes kill. What about breathalyzer ignition switches for everyone?! Why use them only for drunks? Anyone can have a "first time" when he gets behind the wheel drunk, and this would prevent even that first time.

The idea of regulation for your own safety is anathema to liberty. It's worse when the reason is camouflaged as a cost-saving measure, as though that's a better reason to force people to give up liberty.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[MikeForsythe 0]

Quote

What about putting surveillance equipment into your car that records the forces of your starts and stops, and records your speeds? Speed kills, car crashes kill.

This has already been in place in every car since 1996 and has been used by law enforcement and investigators for years. It is accessed by your OBD-II connector under you steering wheel.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[birdlike 0]

Mike, I guess I let myself believe that it was not a standard thing. I thought only Cadillac had begun installing devices that record the speed and other driving conditions prior to crashes or something.

I haven't heard a lot of reporting about car data being retrieved after crashes reported on the news. Or any, really. But plenty of times I have read, "Police suspect speed may have been a factor." Why would they say that if they were able to know exactly what the speed had been? I mean, I have to believe that a large percentage of crashes are bound to involve cars manufactured since 1996.

I have read stories of people being surcharged (essentially fined) by car rental agencies that used data from the rental cars' GPS devices to determine that they had been speeding in the rental cars, which is specifically circumscribed in the rental agreement.

One side can argue that well, technically, they can certainly forbid you from using their car to break the law; the other side (justifiably, in my opinion) can argue, "Come on, dude, what the fuck?!"

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[MikeForsythe 0]

There are several factors involved. Not all law enforcement has the equipment/training to retrieve the data and some just use it for fatal accidents etc.

There is also the ongoing debate of invasion of privacy and the inability of the owner to have the option of disengaging the function. The issues crops up every so often and people get up in arms about it then it dies off.

I have one of THESE plugged into my OBD-II connector.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

What about putting surveillance equipment into your car that records the forces of your starts and stops, and records your speeds? Speed kills, car crashes kill.

This has already been in place in every car since 1996 and has been used by law enforcement and investigators for years. It is accessed by your OBD-II connector under you steering wheel.

Why I have a 82 truck and a 88 bmw. And I fix them myself.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why should local taxes go to subsidize the health care of smokers. Insurance cost more if you smoke.
I'd be OK with a different health care package for smokers, maybe a bigger deductible or something.

Any why should local taxes go to subsidize the health care of you if you femur in? Or the 3 months of disability afterwards?

It's not just the health care premiums that have companies/counties targeting smokers. It's the extra sick days and lower vitality as well. Of course, this would be true for alcoholics as well. May not be true for those with high BMI - but usually these discussions are light on facts and thinking and more about punishing those that aren't us.

[birdlike 0]

You should see some of the fatties that work in my building. OMG it's disgusting. I can just imagine how much more money there would be for for salaries if we weren't paying to keep them from keeling over.

Spirits fly on dangerous missions
Imaginations on fire

[Gawain 0]

This is a bad policy, for the reasons you stated.

I'm curious about the policy, and current employees that smoke. There are other ways to contain employer sponsored health costs.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[ryoder 1,400]

Extending the drug testing to include alcohol & tobacco would actually make more sense than what we have now, which is drug testing for Politically Correct reasons, and has nothing to do with economics nor safety.

About 10 years ago Ted Koppel hosted an ABC special about the drug laws. He pointed out that using the governments own data, for every death from all illegal drugs combined, there are 20 deaths from alcohol, and 50 deaths from tobacco.

When I was at a large, well-known high-tech employer, they introduced a "random" drug-testing program with the lame excuse that it was "to save money" on employee health care. Of course this included only illegal drugs. It also wasn't "random". Put in your two weeks notice, and magically your number would get called for a "random" drug test. It happened to me after going for 3 years w/o a test, and it happened to my best friend who also worked there. Ironically, this same company also introduced an "Individual Dignity Entitlement" program at the same time as the mandatory-pee-in-a-cup program.

That said, I oppose drug-testing unless there is probable cause to suspect the employee is intoxicated at work, AND his job is one in which he could present a danger to others.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[west33freefall 0]

I still can't believe that our Gov't can justify random drug screenings for anything. To get a job I can kinda understand especially if your job can put other lives at risk, but I can't believe that we can justify this crap. I am not a drug user (minus alchol and cigars sometimes) and I still find drug testing very offensive and unconstitutional. This country is proud of our freedoms but we sacrifice so much of our freedoms for safety and the greater good. I rather be free than safe. Even our judicial system is set-up to be "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!" not "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT." Just like random stops at airports or profiling by the TSA which has specific employees that try and pick up on people show signs of stress, nervousness, or suspicious behavior and pull them aside to do a more thorough screening. If someone wants to blow up a plane they are going to do no mater what the security. Once again I rather stick to freedom. Not saying that metal detectors and scanning luggage is a bad thing but it seems to me we have lost our way and are going a little over board with all this crap!

[sfc 0]

Quote

Quote

Why should local taxes go to subsidize the health care of smokers. Insurance cost more if you smoke.
I'd be OK with a different health care package for smokers, maybe a bigger deductible or something.

Any why should local taxes go to subsidize the health care of you if you femur in? Or the 3 months of disability afterwards?

It's not just the health care premiums that have companies/counties targeting smokers. It's the extra sick days and lower vitality as well. Of course, this would be true for alcoholics as well. May not be true for those with high BMI - but usually these discussions are light on facts and thinking and more about punishing those that aren't us.

They don't have to, some policies exclude extreme sports.

[Pendejo 0]

What I find irritating most about things like this is that the employer is telling the employee what they can or cannot do when not at work. I could care less if they have a policy that a person cannot use tobacco, eat, drink, or even talk at work. But it troubles me that they feel they can intrude into a persons home life.

Please note that what they are keeping someone from doing is a legal activity. Where exactly (as some have also pointed out) does that end? Are we really going to justify allowing an employer this power over its work force in the name of “feeling its better for the people” as our reasoning?

To me, this isn’t about a person being able to use tobacco products or not. Its about making my own choices. Yes I realize that a person does not have to work there, but that isn’t the point. The point is the precedent that is set by something like this being allowed, and, in come cases, promoted.

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[SpeedRacer 1]

"Pulling down your employees' pants shows them who's boss."

-Abbie Hoffman

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

What I find irritating most about things like this is that the employer is telling the employee what they can or cannot do when not at work. I could care less if they have a policy that a person cannot use tobacco, eat, drink, or even talk at work. But it troubles me that they feel they can intrude into a persons home life.

Please note that what they are keeping someone from doing is a legal activity. Where exactly (as some have also pointed out) does that end? Are we really going to justify allowing an employer this power over its work force in the name of “feeling its better for the people” as our reasoning?

To me, this isn’t about a person being able to use tobacco products or not. Its about making my own choices. Yes I realize that a person does not have to work there, but that isn’t the point. The point is the precedent that is set by something like this being allowed, and, in come cases, promoted.

How would you suggest preventing the costs incurred by smoking from being passed on to the employer or non-smoking employees? I agree that this isn't the most elegant solution, but it may well be the only legal one. Why should non-smokers have to pay more for their health insurance because their co-worker smokes?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[west33freefall 0]

Quote

Why should non-smokers have to pay more for their health insurance because their co-worker smokes?

Tell me again why the non-smokers health innsurance is higher due to the smokers? To the best of my knowledge this is not really a legal or legitimate way to run health innsurance.

[Lindsey 0]

Why should employees pay more for health insurance because one of their coworkers has other health problems that runs the cost of insurance up? The majority of health problems are self-inflicted, so I'm not sure how smoking is all that much different.

In a small office where there are few employees, one person with health problems drives the cost up significantly for everyone. It's just life. People don't always take care of themselves the way they should, and smoking is just one way that folks choose to hurt themselves.

Good thing is, though, that the cost of a group policy can only go up to 149% (I think) of the average individual policy that the insurance company provides...something like that. Age, alone, of one employee in a small office can get us to that ceiling.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Lindsey 0]

Tell me again why the non-smokers health innsurance is higher due to the smokers? To the best of my knowledge this is not really a legal or legitimate way to run health innsurance.

Group health insurance rates are based on the health of all the people covered by the plan. If there are a lot of employees covered by a plan, then the costs don't vary so much with each individual's health. If there are only a few employees, one employee can run the costs up significantly for the others.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[Pendejo 0]

You are deflecting from the point of my post. Its nice to debate that someone should not have to pay for someone else’s poor choices in life, but that was not (as I am sure you are well aware) the point.

It is about preventing someone from telling you that a condition of employment is that you cannot participate in a legal act. Which will become interesting if the bill were to pass allowing pot as legal, don’t you think? You can justify it with the “I don’t want to pay for your mistakes” argument, but that does not change the fact that this is an employer dictating what an employee can or cannot do when not at work.

I believe your example about non-smokers paying for smokers health issues, is as ridiculous as someone with no children saying that their tax money should not go to pay for public schools. I mean really, if I have no kids why should I pay for something like that? Silly isn’t it.... A person can say that about almost any situation where insurance is concerned.

I remember a time when an employer of mine banned smoking on the company grounds completely. His reasoning was that his insurance was cheaper in doing so. Interesting thing is, now (with smoking still banned) he is paying the same as the quotes he received recently with smoking allowed on site. The moral of the story is that thinking that the employee’s or the employer will save money from this long term is unlikely. The people who will save money long term is the insurance companies.

But heck, thats just my opinion.

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[west33freefall 0]

Yes I have figured this out now. Am actually having very indepth conversation now at my current place of employment. As I am still a college student learn the details of corprate America I find more and more startiling things about this country. Yes I don't think that is right that non-smokers have to pay more for innsurance but the same can be said about lots of things. Something better needs to be done to this then infringing on peoples freedoms and personal life. Even though our country is currently involved so much over seas once we are done with this war we really need a leader that is going to focus on the countries inner issues. Healthcare, business practices, and many other issues.