County ban on hiring smokers draws notice (BARF Alert!)

The Desert Sun ^ | 1-7-4 | Darrell Smith

[SheLion]

Riverside County will no longer hire prospective sheriff’s deputies who smoke, saying insurance costs have grown too steep to risk hiring smokers.

Though it’s unclear when the ban will go into effect, the decision could eventually include all of the county’s future hires, experts say.

[SheLion]

This is just WRONG! Tobacco and cigarettes are LEGAL! What will they do next? Not hire or fire anyone who enjoys an alcohol beverage off hours??????

The BIG LIE That Smoking is an Economic Burden To Society

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
7	Maryland	800.00	17	47.06	334	2.40	293.00	14

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[SheLion]

[Terridan]

What about homosexuals participating in unhealthy and risky behaviors??? I do believe this is costing the insurance companies a helluva lot more for aids related illness that lung cancer ever would... where is the damned ACLU???

[SheLion]

What about homosexuals participating in unhealthy and risky behaviors??? I do believe this is costing the insurance companies a helluva lot more for aids related illness that lung cancer ever would... where is the damned ACLU???

Oh YES! But by Gawd, you better not SMOKE! heh!

Sickening, isn't it? It's just about control, IMHO!

[templar]

This is just WRONG!

Can't agree. If someone is paying your way (health care) they have the right to look out for their own interests by controlling your health habits. Same would go for obesity or ohter risky habits.

OTOH, if smokers are willing to pay their own way they shouldn't be cut out. Maybe they could just charge the smokers for the additional costs they cause as a compromise?

[SheLion]

Can't agree. If someone is paying your way (health care) they have the right to look out for their own interests by controlling your health habits. Same would go for obesity or ohter risky habits.

Smokers pay MORE then their fair share through their taxes alone!

The BIG LIE That Smoking is an Economic Burden To Society

Most of us have our OWN insurance. I know if "I" get sick from smoking or anything else, NO one has to pay MY way! I will pay my OWN way!

[waterstraat]

insurance costs have grown too steep to risk hiring smokers.

If the goal is to lower medical insurance costs, the county needs to require genetic testing and family medical history of any and ALL!! potential employees. Anyone with a family history of breast cancer, alcoholism, heart attacks, obesity, arthritis, MS, diabeties, etc, should be excluded.

NOt hiring smokers to become deputies, is a very very small piece of the pie, and relatively inconsequential in the larger scheme of what maladies we can now screen for when interviewing any potential employee candidate.

To really improve medical costs, current employees should also be screened, and if any current employee is found to have a family medical problem history, if he smokes, if he is over weight, then fire them.

Why should healthy people with no defective genes be made to pay higher medical costs by keeping fattees or diabetics on the payroll?

By eliminating all government employees who are more likely to have medical problems, the taxpayers would save a bunch on health care costs.

[jimtorr]

If someone is paying your way (health care) they have the right to look out for their own interests by controlling your health habits.

No. They do not.

This is the reasoning that "they" will use to to jail you for being a "conservative". A national mental health professionals organization has already called conservatism a disease.

[SheLion]

Like this?

This guy works at the local hospital as a physical therapist!

Do you think THIS IS HEALTHY????

Also, from the Rand Report:

OBESITY LINKED TO HIGHER RATES OF CHRONIC ILLNESS AND WORSE PHYSICAL
QUALITY OF LIFE THAN SMOKING, DRINKING OR POVERTY
THREE OF FIVE ADULT AMERICANS ARE OVERWEIGHT OR OBESE

[boop]

Exactly HOW do smokers cause workman's comp costs? I understand how someone who is high on crank could, but since when do smokers cause accidents? Also, you are more "healthy" to be a thin smoker than a fat non-smoker.

[waterstraat]

In my opinion, obesity is much worse than smoking. There is strain on lots of organs(heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, blood, etc) when someone is overweight. You will find many more 80 year old smokers, than you will find obese 80 year olds. Not only that, but obese people are not known to be agile, or full of energy.

For my money, I would hire a thin smoker any day instead of an obese person for nearly any job.

If the county thinks its ok to hire and fire people based on potential health problems, then they should not do it in a half hearted way and discriminate only against smokers, but they should do full genetic testing, and require all current government employees to provide complete medical histories of themselves and all family members - those with higher probabilities to have future health risks, should be fired.

I am not saying that I agree with the concept, but the county is saying that they agree with it. I just say if you are going to do it, then do it all the way, dont just look at smokers and ignore diabetics, people whos parents died young, and fatties, etc.

[SheLion]

Also, you are more "healthy" to be a thin smoker than a fat non-smoker.

Your so right!

And how about THIS fat azz:

But I don't know if they smoke or not, but my Gawd......the FAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

(I bet Fat Ted enjoys those STOGIES behind closed doors, though. heh!)

[metesky]

Nearly 60 percent of the $34.9 million per year Riverside County spends in workers’ compensation claims is spent on the county’s public safety employees, said Ron Komers, the county’s director of human resources.

With the county’s workers’ comp costs expected to rise to $39.9 million in 2007-08, Komers said the time has come to act and makes no apologies for the hiring ban. He asserts research shows smokers have higher accident rates and take more sick leave than nonsmokers. Both, he said, come out of county coffers.

I don't see any thing that specifically says that Riverside County's smoking employees take more sick leave, which, if true, should be easy enought to prove. The part about smokers having more accidents is just plain nonsense, IMO.

[LisaMalia]

Yes, it is wrong, and I don't see how they can get away with it.

[SheLion]

I don't see any thing that specifically says that Riverside County's smoking employees take more sick leave, which, if true, should be easy enought to prove. The part about smokers having more accidents is just plain nonsense, IMO.

That's RIGHT, metesky. It's like "SHOW ME THE MONEY!"

It's just about control. YOU know and "I" know it.

[templar]

I will pay my OWN way!

IF that were the case here, I don't think this would be an issue. I believe the county is paying the premiums in this case.

[SheLion]

IF that were the case here, I don't think this would be an issue. I believe the county is paying the premiums in this case.

Well, I bet there is no documentation of any of them being off sick because they smoke in order to collect worker's comp. Most smokers do not get sick until they are in their retirement years, so I am really skeptical about all of this.

[BriarBey]

UNREAL!!! Talk about discrimination and profiling!!

[SheLion]

UNREAL!!! Talk about discrimination and profiling!!

You got it! What will they do next? Ban after duty drinking???? This is all about control. You and I both know this!

The Health Coalition must have greased the Sheriff's psalms or SOMETHING is going on under the table for this to happen. What a crock!

[Madame Dufarge]

They blame a workers’ compensation system that takes into account lifestyle factors like smoking or alcohol consumption when determining job-related claims.

The article doesn't say that lifestyle factors are taken into account when determining premiums.

They're taken into account when determining claims. Are they asserting that smokers and drinkers take longer to recover from a back injury, etc. than non-smokers?

Be interesting to know where they get their statistics from.

[BriarBey]

One of these days a few smokers are going to challenge this in court and win and that will be the start of the end of it. Gays get ,don't ask ,don't tell why should smokers be any different. First time its pulled with me I will be sitting in an attorneys office raising h*ll. I have just as many rights as some of these other people. Pi**es me off!!

[DefCon]

"...He asserts research shows smokers have higher accident rates
and take more sick leave than nonsmokers...."
- - -
I want to see this research.

[2nd amendment mama]

By your standards....

They should charge homosexuals more because they are more predisposed to aids.....

They should charge black men more beacaus they are at a higher risk of heart attack....

And on and on and on........

Where does it end?????

This is pure BS! All about control!

[Leisler]

Hey, most of these dolts voted for bigger gooberment/budgets, so now they get a taste of their own rules. Which reminds me, how come, what's his name, the mayor of New York, the geek necked twirp? How come he hasn't done this to NYcity employees? You know, really make friends?

[Leisler]

"Ban after duty drinking.."

Frankly, I'd love it if all the gooberment security types were non-smoking, non-drinking, fitness freak uber Nazis.

I think the only way to stop this crap is take it to the not too far extreme. The fast, the better. Otherwise we will just continue along the warm water frog cooking rate, were each ten years we have but a dim memory of the liberties lost.

[CSM]

Not charge them more, per the article they should exclude them from employment.

[CSM]

Ah, another collective society's health policy! And I was foolish enought to think we were allowed individual liberty.

[FreedomPoster]

We didn't hire smokers 20 years ago. Didn't want the breaks outside (we didn't want the smell, so had a non-smoking office environment), considered it might have a long-term impact on our health insurance costs.

Nasty habit, legal or not.

[CSM]

You need to change your moniker! It is the opposite of your actual actions.

[SheLion]

One of these days a few smokers are going to challenge this in court and win and that will be the start of the end of it. Gays get ,don't ask ,don't tell why should smokers be any different. First time its pulled with me I will be sitting in an attorneys office raising h*ll. I have just as many rights as some of these other people. Pi**es me off!!

They have already taken this to court in Florida.  Hopefully, Florida will set an example.  All we have to do is find a good lawyer that believes in the rights of the people

[Publius6961]

Not hire or fire anyone who enjoys an alcohol beverage off hours??????

Why not?
Lost in the rhetorical cloud is the question: what is the impact on government finances of AIDS? Skiiers? Rock climbers? Scuba divers? Motorcycle riders? Surfers? Skateboarders? Sky divers?

Inquiring minds, etc.

[SheLion]

Be interesting to know where they get their statistics from.

The spin the statistics around and around and pretty sure the general public believe them.

But there are those of us that question it.  We don't fall for that garbage, Madame Dufarge. We have been working with the truth too long.

[SheLion]

We didn't hire smokers 20 years ago. Didn't want the breaks outside (we didn't want the smell, so had a non-smoking office environment), considered it might have a long-term impact on our health insurance costs.

Nasty habit, legal or not.

20 years ago?  Surely, you jest.

Anyway, why are you being so nasty this morning? And why are you just posting to ME when you can clearly see how the rest of the posters feel. Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed wanting to beat someone and you choose ME?

If what you say is true, then that's fine.  YOU made the decision, NOT the government.  All business owners SHOULD have the choice to be smoking or non-smoking.  But when the GOVERNMENT goes in and FORCES a smoke-free policy, then this is just wrong.

Nasty habit?  That is just your opinion. Many Many of us find it a WONDERFUL habit.  The world doesn't rotate on your azz, my friend.  You know the old saying: What's good for me isn't good for you and what's good for you isn't good for me."  Well, that still holds true today.

If you loved liver and onions, I would NEVER have the nerve to announce it in a public forum that I think you STINK from the LIVER AND ONIONS.  You just have a hard-** for me, and you just want to beat me up.  Sorry..........it won't work.

[FreedomPoster]

I have the freedom to make the decision to do that. At the time, I was one of the business owners, and that's how we chose to exercise our freedom.

Implying that I am somehow restricting your freedom by exercising mine is absurd. Your complaint is analogous to that of the Leftie entertainers, like the Dixie Chicks, who scream "Censorship! First Amendment violation!" when Conservatives organize a boycott to protest their political actions. That situation is not a First Amendment infringement, just as my choosing to not hire smokers is not an infringement of your freedom to smoke.

If you don't like it, you are free to start a competing business that hires smokers.

[FreedomPoster]

Who peed in your Corn Flakes? I posted to you as a general response to the article. That's generally what a response to Post#1 means. Get over yourself, and read my previous post.

Yes, everything I wrote is my opinion. That's pretty typical.

I'd fire an employee for frequent loud farting in the office, too. Or alcoholism. Or any of several other bad habits.

I'm done, no need to take abuse from those defending an ugly habit.

[MEGoody]

"Can't agree. If someone is paying your way (health care) they have the right to look out for their own interests by controlling your health habits."

I would agree. . .for a PRIVATE employer. This is a government institution. They should not be able to discriminate against an individual who participates in a legal activity.

[SheLion]

You need to change your moniker! It is the opposite of your actual actions.

Thank you! That's what "I" was thinking

[TankerKC]

Nearly 60 percent of the $34.9 million per year Riverside County spends in workers’ compensation claims is spent on the county’s public safety employees, said Ron Komers, the county’s director of human resources.

Well, duh! That's because the only risk the weenies in the welfare department have is tripping over an opened file cabinet or choking on a bagel.

Cops and Firefighters are another story. Is Ronnie really surprised that they used workers’ comp more that office workers?

[SheLion]

I'm done, no need to take abuse from those defending an ugly habit.

And I guess your chit don't stink. Lucky you to be such a perfect example of society. You go boy!

[A. Pole]

What about homosexuals participating in unhealthy and risky behaviors??? I do believe this is costing the insurance companies a helluva lot more for aids related illness that lung cancer ever would... where is the damned ACLU???

What about? Well, homosexuals live about 20 years shorter as they get various diseases related to their "lifestyle". Smokers live about 7 years shorter than non-smokers.

[templar]

By your standards....

I should not be asked to subsidize your bad habits. Pay your own way.

BTW, Genetic predispositons are not habits. Smoking, etc. is a personal choice. Face up to the responsibility for your own actions and don't inflict the results on others.

[SheLion]

Cops and Firefighters are another story. Is Ronnie really surprised that they used workers’ comp more that office workers?

Your right!  And I'm surprised we have ANY cops or firefighters, what with the low pay and the hazardous duty.  You make sense.  I'm sure a lot of them have to use worker's comp, considering the work that they do!!!

[Wolfie]

What will they do next?

Start urine testing for nicotine, I suppose.

[SheLion]

Ah, another collective society's health policy! And I was foolish enought to think we were allowed individual liberty.

Think again. "They" don't WANT us to have individual liberty. "They" want us all to be puppets depending on their control. Neat, eh?

[A. Pole]

Genetic predispositons are not habits.

Homosexuality is not genetic - if it were, such genes would be quickly eliminated as being harder to reproduce. Also the increased frequency of homosexuality in prisons or some cultures (like among ancient Greek and Roman upper class) points to the social/cultural/moral/psychological roots of this vice.

[SheLion]

Start urine testing for nicotine, I suppose.

Then why don't they just ban the damn stuff and be done with it!

[Doctor Stochastic]

Auto insurance companies have been giving discounts on liability, medical benefits, and collision since the 1950s. When I inquiried about this in the 1970s, the insurance guys pointed that it was just like the male-under-25; this group has more accidents. No reasons why, just a statistical collection (as is all insurance.)

[DumpsterDiver]

OBESITY LINKED TO HIGHER RATES OF CHRONIC ILLNESS AND WORSE PHYSICAL QUALITY OF LIFE THAN SMOKING, DRINKING OR POVERTY
THREE OF FIVE ADULT AMERICANS ARE OVERWEIGHT OR OBESE

It's rather ironic that the Rand study funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. ;^)

[templar]

Homosexuality is not genetic -

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply that it is. I was referring to things like Black mean and heart disease or sickle cell anemia. IMO, homosexuality is a choice and should be considered the same way that alcohol abuse, smoking, drug use, etc. should be considered.

I see no reason that the taxpayers (me) should be required to pay for the bad choices of those who are irresponsible in their health habits. Do you?