smoke-free hiring

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I think that all people deserve the same protection regardless of how I feel about those people. It is immaterial how I feel about people who use tobacco, what does matter is that they deserve the same protection as everyone else.

If you get outside of that, you then have to decide who gets to decide who deserves the protection and who doesn’t. Sound familiar?

Smoking is a choice.
Eating 30 donuts is a choice.

However, obese people are getting disability classifications because their size prevents them from doing certain physical activities.

Obesity has been identified as the driver for a myriad of health problems.

Some day, someone will say, we want to reduce our health insurance premiums by not hiring obese people.
There will be a cholesterol and BMI limit.

Let's face it, people over 40 use up more health plan benefits and have more health issues than 20 year olds.

Everyone is ok with hiring practices that don't affect them... until they are changed again and it does.

(edited to add:)
Alcohol. As far as social and personal impacts, nothing beats drinking.

What is the cost of DUI car wrecks? Domestic violence?
Public violence?

Health issues? Organ damage/failure of all kinds. Weight gain.

The social costs of alcohol are immense.

So, what about those beers? The most obvious next step after tobacco is alcohol.

Also, smoking is not allowed within 50 ft of any county building, as of Oct 1, 2008. In two years, a total ban on smoking on county property.

A foot in the door, then the door is wide open.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You certainly did - 'decreasing their initial salary by a small amount and letting them get it back if they're good' is taking money away.

Now, go back and read what I wrote. Did you intentionally misquote me, or was it simply poor reading comprehension?

Quote

That you dispute this makes me think about yesterday's claims about surpluses.

That you would misquote me rather than simply utilizing copy and paste makes me wonder whether you're actually trying to engage in meaningful discussion or are just trying to build straw men so you can tear them down.

Cut N Pasting from a prior posting entails backing up, copying, hitting forward again, pasting, then inserting the hyper language.

But since you insist on digging your own grave:
"Again, I think positive incentives would be more effective, such as decreasing initial salaries by a small percentage, and giving employees the opportunity to earn that money back by demonstrating a healthy lifestyle"

Next, look up the fucking English books and review the difference between single and double quotes before making ridiculous claims of misquoting you. Then show me how my summation actually differed from your scheme which clearly involves taking money away from people.

BTW, your scheme is illegal, and at best would result in a lot of litigation costs.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Cut N Pasting from a prior posting entails backing up, copying, hitting forward again, pasting, then inserting the hyper language.

Sorry. Sometimes it takes a bit of effort to be intellectually honest.

Quote

But since you insist on digging your own grave:
"Again, I think positive incentives would be more effective, such as decreasing initial salaries by a small percentage, and giving employees the opportunity to earn that money back by demonstrating a healthy lifestyle"

Notice how I didn't advocate taking anything away. I advocated lowering the starting salary of new employees, and then using the salary difference to fund incentives. That doesn't take anything away from anyone. You can't take away something that someone doesn't have.

Quote

Next, look up the fucking English books and review the difference between single and double quotes before making ridiculous claims of misquoting you.

Do you mean how single quotes are used for quotes within quotes, and double quotes are used for quoting the person who is quoting someone (or not)? Paraphrasing does not get quotation marks, single or double. I already knew that, but, just to make you happy, I double checked in here, a copy of which always sits on my desk. Perhaps you should consider a similar practice.

Quote

Then show me how my summation actually differed from your scheme which clearly involves taking money away from people.

Like paraphrasing, summations do not merit quotation marks.

However, your summation implied lowering the salary of current employees. The word their implied ownership by the employee. Lowering contractual salaries would indeed be negative incentives, but that isn't what I suggested.

Quote

BTW, your scheme is illegal, and at best would result in a lot of litigation costs.

It's only illegal as it was misrepresented by you, not as I suggested it. Of course there may be union contracts that require a standard starting salary for a given job, but that's outside the scope of our discussion.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

BTW, your scheme is illegal, and at best would result in a lot of litigation costs.

It's only illegal as it was misrepresented by you, not as I suggested it. Of course there may be union contracts that require a standard starting salary for a given job, but that's outside the scope of our discussion.

A question on this - IS it legal to tie salary to lifestyle choices like that?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

• Quote

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

A question on this - IS it legal to tie salary to lifestyle choices like that?

For bonuses? I would think so, but I'm not a lawyer. I'm pretty sure I've read about some companies doing something like that, giving bonuses for healthy lifestyles. They justified it with lower labor costs of healthy employees.

Negative incentives (i.e. reducing existing employee's salary) for unhealthy lifestyle? That's probably illegal in most scenarios, but, again, I'm not a lawyer.

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

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?

Why should vegetarians have to pay more for their health insurance because their co-worker eats red meat & bratwurst and is more likely to have heart disease?

Don't stop there. Blood sugar too high? Beat it! Cholesterol? Fuck off! Blood pressure? You're outta here! Come to think of it, let's genetically test all job candidates. Only the pure shall survive (and their mistresses).

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Why should vegetarians have to pay more for their health insurance because their co-worker eats red meat & bratwurst and is more likely to have heart disease?

Touché. Like I said, I don't think the new hiring rule is perfect, by any means. However, current laws may have left the county's hands tied with respect to what options were available to them to help keep costs down for employees and taxpayers.

Personally, I would prefer to see universal healthcare with tax incentives for healthy lifestyles.

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

[Lindsey 0]

I hired a fat chick with some health problems to work for me....because she's good at her job. She's so good that I was willing to absorb some extra cost. My other employees are going to absorb some extra cost too. But she's good enough at what she does to make it worthwhile, I believe.

I'd much rather make sure people who work for me have adequate healthcare than to wish for "universal" healthcare. I'm guessing that's a government-run healthcare system. Ugh.

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I hired a fat chick with some health problems to work for me....because she's good at her job. She's so good that I was willing to absorb some extra cost. My other employees are going to absorb some extra cost too. But she's good enough at what she does to make it worthwhile, I believe.

The extra cost of best qualified employees is often justified.

I'd much rather make sure people who work for me have adequate healthcare than to wish for "universal" healthcare. I'm guessing that's a government-run healthcare system. Ugh.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I hired a fat chick with some health problems to work for me....because she's good at her job. She's so good that I was willing to absorb some extra cost. My other employees are going to absorb some extra cost too. But she's good enough at what she does to make it worthwhile, I believe.

The extra cost of best qualified employees is often justified.

I'd much rather make sure people who work for me have adequate healthcare than to wish for "universal" healthcare. I'm guessing that's a government-run healthcare system. Ugh.

One only needs to compare the cost:benefit ratio of the United States' healthcare system to that of the rest of the developed western world to recognize that socialized healthcare is not the bogeyman it's so often made out to be. Having said that, I think Hillary's proposed system is the best and most cost effective healthcare reform proposal by any of the candidates.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Why should vegetarians have to pay more for their health insurance because their co-worker eats red meat & bratwurst and is more likely to have heart disease?

I think you got that one backwards - why should the meat eaters pay more to make up for the pasty anemic vegans who have lower energy levels?

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I hired a fat chick with some health problems to work for me....because she's good at her job. She's so good that I was willing to absorb some extra cost. My other employees are going to absorb some extra cost too. But she's good enough at what she does to make it worthwhile, I believe.

The extra cost of best qualified employees is often justified.

I'd much rather make sure people who work for me have adequate healthcare than to wish for "universal" healthcare. I'm guessing that's a government-run healthcare system. Ugh.

One only needs to compare the cost:benefit ratio of the United States' healthcare system to that of the rest of the developed western world to recognize that socialized healthcare is not the bogeyman it's so often made out to be. Having said that, I think Hillary's proposed system is the best and most cost effective healthcare reform proposal by any of the candidates.

What's the cost/benefit ratio of the people dying while they wait for a dialysis or angioplasty slot in those socialized healthcare countries...how's that work out for them?

Nutshell: If someone ELSE is paying for your groceries, you're not going to buy ground chuck, you're going to buy T-bones.

If you think the government ISN'T going to ration the supply of steak, you're living in a dream world.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

But since you insist on digging your own grave:
"Again, I think positive incentives would be more effective, such as decreasing initial salaries by a small percentage, and giving employees the opportunity to earn that money back by demonstrating a healthy lifestyle"

Notice how I didn't advocate taking anything away. I advocated lowering the starting salary of new employees, and then using the salary difference to fund incentives. That doesn't take anything away from anyone. You can't take away something that someone doesn't have.

Anyone else buying this horseshit?

Maybe you can explain how giving people a lower starting salary isn't taking away from them.

They used to do this sort of thing with women and blacks. "You can't take away something that someone doesn't have." HA!

I'll retract on the illegal thought- smokers, fatties, motorcyclists, and skydivers aren't protected classes. However, I foresee a day where the courts or the Feds finally have to step in and ban arbitrary penalties against employees engaging in legal activities. Maybe it will happen when companies try to do genetic screening of potential employees.

[Lindsey 0]

Personal note where universal healthcare is involved. I'm getting to have knee replacement, and I'm only 42. But at 42 I can't go hiking with my son anymore. Can only ride my bicycle once or twice a week due to all the inflammation. I give myself knee joint injections that last 1 month. I wait another month until I can at least get into a window of acceptance for another steroid injection.

I'd NEVER get a knee replacement in Canada. But my orthopod is looking at new procedures to make this less costly to me in the long run. I have private health insurance, and he knows that what it won't cover I will. So I'll get releif since I live here, where my health insurance is a privitized plan. Some places this would be seen as elective because even though I hurt, my knee ain't broke. The wait would be looooong. I'd get fat and debilitated before it was fixed....and then I wouldn't have a choice in which way it was fixed. I'd automatically get the cheaper version. I like the idea of choice and getting fixed quick. But that's just me.

linz

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

[mnealtx 0]

That illustrates my point pretty well, Linz...thanks for posting it and I hope everything works out well for the knee!

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[-Scatter- 0]

As an employer, I will say that I will NEVER hire a smoker again. I used to have three. Now I have two. Soon i suspect it will be one.

I only have a ten person sample, so its not statistically significant, but my smokers take dramatically more sick days than my non-smokers. They take more breaks and they waste significantly more time during the day.

I never cared before, which is why I hired them. I don't much care about the medical costs. Nonsmokers are more productive.

As a private employer, how is it not my right to say that? If its not a protected class, I can restrict my labour pool any way I want. If I ONLY wanted to hire left-handed rockclimbing teetotaling skydivers with long hair, that's my business. If I can't find any, that's my problem.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If someone ELSE is paying for your groceries, you're not going to buy ground chuck, you're going to buy T-bones.

If you think the government ISN'T going to ration the supply of steak, you're living in a dream world.

To use your steak vs. ground chuck analogy, steak is already being rationed in the US by insurance companies and HMO's.

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Anyone else buying this horseshit?

Maybe you can explain how giving people a lower starting salary isn't taking away from them.

If your next employer decided yesterday that effective immediately, all new hires will be hired at a salary 5% less than current employees are being hired at, that is not taking anything from you. It is simply not giving you something. Your sense of entitlement doesn't count.

Did you get that writer's handbook ordered yet, Shakespeare?

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

If someone ELSE is paying for your groceries, you're not going to buy ground chuck, you're going to buy T-bones.

If you think the government ISN'T going to ration the supply of steak, you're living in a dream world.

To use your steak vs. ground chuck analogy, steak is already being rationed in the US by insurance companies and HMO's.

Yes, it is, to a degree. You think that once the government takes over that it's going to be better? There's going to be more steaks? You live in Cali, right? How'd Grey's price-fixing on energy work out for y'all?

MY guess is that the cattle ranchers will find other lines of work, once they realize that they're fucked over even MORE by the gov't fixing the price on steak.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You live in Cali, right?

Nope. I'd probably like it better than Florida, though.

Quote

MY guess is that the cattle ranchers will find other lines of work, once they realize that they're fucked over even MORE by the gov't fixing the price on steak.

Guess all you'd like.

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

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Anyone else buying this horseshit?

Maybe you can explain how giving people a lower starting salary isn't taking away from them.

If your next employer decided yesterday that effective immediately, all new hires will be hired at a salary 5% less than current employees are being hired at, that is not taking anything from you.

But that's not the situation. All new smoking employees are being hired at 95%. The rest are being paid the full rate. Review that note about women and minorities again.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

But that's not the situation. All new smoking employees are being hired at 95%. The rest are being paid the full rate. Review that note about women and minorities again.

Perhaps in your scenario, but not in the one I proposed.

In the one I proposed, all new hires are hired at 95%, and all new hires are eligible receive healthy lifestyle bonuses if they qualify (i.e. meet healthy lifestyle requirements). Employees would be able to choose whether or not to seek those bonuses. It's positive incentive, not negative incentive. Of course, optimumly, the unearned bonus monies would be spent covering extra costs due to unhealthy lifestyles, and, hopefully, meaningful education/opportunities to adopt more healthy lifestyles.

Nice misdirect about women and minorities. Women are born women, transsexuals notwithstanding, and minorities are typically born minorities. That's completely different from choosing to be a smoker, meat eater, etc.

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Why should vegetarians have to pay more for their health insurance because their co-worker eats red meat & bratwurst and is more likely to have heart disease?

I think you got that one backwards - why should the meat eaters pay more to make up for the pasty anemic vegans who have lower energy levels?

Why should sensible flat-worlders have to tolerate people who foolishly think that the world is round? Everyone (who is anyone) knows the world is flat.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Maybe you can explain how giving people a lower starting salary isn't taking away from them.

are you kidding? the words "starting salary" clearly explain it

because they can turn down the job offer and apply elsewhere

"taking away" would be to give a salary, then later reduce it involuntarily

these are completely different things

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SpeedRacer 1]

My personal experience is: many of the vegetarians that I know get ill frequently & have low energy levels compared to the norm. I believe that humans have evolved to be omnivores, not strict herbivores. Just my experience.

Sorry for the thread hijack.

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