Posted on 01/25/2005 5:22:54 AM PST by beaureguard
This morning on CNN Jack Cafferty was a bit exercised over reports that more and more companies are not only refusing to hire smokers, they're firing them. They're getting fired not for smoking on the job .. but for just being smokers. Bad? No ... Good!
In Michigan Weyco, Inc. has a new policy. They won't hire smokers. They're also requiring all current employees undergo testing to see if they are currently smokers. Presumably this will be a step toward firing all smokers. Employment lawyers says this reeks of discrimination. Well, duh! Of course it's discrimination! It's discrimination against people with unhealthy lifestyles who are going to send your health insurance costs even higher. It's discrimination against people who have been shown to have poor work habits and higher absences from the job. Oh .. and it's discrimination against the stupid and ignorant ... and people who stink. Now don't you think that these are all perfectly good reasons to discriminate?
First of all, don't give me that discrimination nonsense. We all discriminate every day, and nobody thinks anything of it. The simple chore of making a decision between Mexican or Chinese food for lunch is an act of discrimination. To say that someone has "discriminating tastes" is a compliment, not a slam. Smoking isn't a race or a gender, nor is it a religious belief. It's a pathetic, sickening, stupid, self-destructive behavior. It's an act of self-hatred. Discriminate away.
Just consider health insurance. Unfortunately we have come to the point in this country where it is expected that employers will take care of most of the health care for their employees. This unfortunate situation is the primary reason health care costs are seemingly out of control in this country .. but that's another subject for another sermon from the Church of the Painful Truth. If you, as the employer, are going to be responsible for the cost of your employee's health care then you should be allowed to select employees, and get rid of employees based on any aspects of their lifestyle that would be unhealthy and, therefore, would cost you money.
Nobody would suggest that someone who hires people to drive company vehicles should not be able to discriminate against people with bad driving records. An accident could cost you money, so why not keep the accident-prone dangerous drivers off your payroll? Similarly, a smoker is going to drive up the cost of your health insurance, so why not keep that smoker off your payroll? And higher insurance premiums isn't the only cost you'll have to pay for having smokers on your payroll. Generally speaking, smokers simply aren't as productive in the workplace as are non-smokers. They take more frequent breaks (to do drugs,) and they're absent from work more often due to illness.
And ... to cap it all off ... smokers just aren't all that bright. In repeated trials smokers have scored lower on intelligence tests than non-smokers. Smoking, then, is an excellent way for you to get an immediate indication of who has common sense, and who doesn't . OK .. I know that there are exceptions, but across the board the rule holds. An employer who has a policy of simply not hiring smokers, and getting rid of employees who do smoke, is going to have a smarter, more capable workforce than will an employer who hires these pathetic drug addicts.
So there. If you're a smoker, don't direct your anger at me. I'm not your problem. YOU are your problem. You need to figure out why you hate yourself and why you're so bent on self-destruction. I don't know the answer to that question. You do. Start figuring it out.
Next ... lard asses.
I'm not a smoker, but don't agree with Neal on this one. What next - fire employees for drinking? That can cause health problems also.
For discussion...
I have a guy that works here that smokes; I'll bet he spends at least 15% of his time walking down the driveway puffing on a cigarette. And yes, when he comes back in, he does stink.
And that stinks!
I think this may be a bad road to go down regardless how one feels about smoking.
Hey Neal, I think they should fire all bald men who wear glasses. The glare from their shiny pates cane be very distracting, and the cost of replacing glasses and eye examinations is driving up the cost of optical insurance. From now on only men with a full scalp and 20/20 vision need apply.
We're way down that road already. Urine testing is as American as apple pie.
I smoked 50+years...I agree with Neal...The job belongs to the employer and not the employee..!
Tripe! Never saw a test that didn't show smokers as MORE productive (a duh here since nicotine's a stimulant), more capable of retaining old and learning new skills/knowledge. Neal probably also believes the scam about second-hand smoke!
Frankly, I agree. Employers should be allowed to terminate employees if they have an unpleasant personal habit which negatively affects other workers.
In moderation, yes. But like anything else, when abused, alcohol can cause problems. Guess I should have been more clear.
Then, the employer need only be focused upon the productivity of the employed worker. And that's exactly what employers should be focused upon.
Personally, I do get tired of my insurance premiums going up to pay for someone elses unhealthy habits. Now they need to address people who are overwieght and the resulting higher healthcare costs associated with that. I lost 75 lbs and have never gotten sick since.
Neal blew it on this one! Maybe he will get fired for mouthing off on using a legal substance. I just don't understand why people go off on smokers. I wonder if Neal is fat or if Neal likes chocolate, or if Neal drinks wine or if Neal goes to McDonalds, or if Neal likes popcorn........I could go on and on.
What about people that own a firearm? Don't want someone to go postal on the job.
They'll go after people who are overweight, too. Then it's DNA genetic tests to see if you've got a predisposition for any expensive disease, like cancer.
A company I used to work at had a two-tier fee system for their health insurance premium. Smokers were charged a higher rate than non-smokers. If someone claimed that they didn't smoke when they signed up for coverage but were later found to be a smoker then they got fired. But that's the only instance I've heard of a company firing someone for smoking.
I like it.
Some people will respond with anecdotal evidence ("I know a guy who smokes with a 145 IQ and hasn't missed a day of work in 20 years") but, facts is facts. :-)
Here is why: Most large companies cannot fire someone for using illegal drugs unless they offer some kind of rehab deal..Then, if they blow that, they are gone.
But in the above, I said, "Illegal" drugs.
Here are LEGAL activites which can be shown to make people health, employment, or security risks:
Smoking.
Overeating
Too many casino losses
Credit Card abuses
Incorrect Thinking (Wrong jokes, etc.)
Looking at people wrong.
Poor driving habits.
We live in a time where the old reciprocal loyalty between employer and employee no longer exists. If the CEO needs a bigger bonus, your job is gone or is offshored.
Employees likewise hop from an offer to an better one, as was witnessed in the Dot.Bomb scams. Given this, the relationship is nearly adversarial. And because it is, and because slavery was outlawed, the employer does NOT own the hours you spend at home. They RENT the hours you agree to give them.
So I believe the correct response to such an intrusion is the question "Who do you think you are, and what rate of compensation are you offering for the other 16 hours you intend to control?"
This is NOT about smoking. Smoking is an unpopular activity, and an easy sell, so a "Camel's nose in the tent".
So,they come for the smokers....and by the time they come for the fat people, there is no one left to speak.
I don't know any smokers who fit Neil's profile.
But I can think of several examples where top-notch employees in terms of productivity and competence were also smokers (e.g. our top sales guy, top engineers).
And then I know lots of employees who are constantly running their kids to doctors; taking off early for baseball practice; bringing their kids' germs into the office (flu, cold, etc); etc. Cuts across the spectrum from CEO right down to the secretaries.
Companies (and insurance companies) ought to take a look at no-kids policies as well. Children are a definite burden on group insurance rates and the health care system.
It's that way here.
Of course, health insurance is only part of Boortz's beef. ;^)
FMCDH(BITS)
I could agree with this piece, in particular the inverse relationship between smoking and intelligence, except for the fact that my late father was a smoker and a brilliant physician. But, he may have been an outlier on the IQ scale and a smoker, so who's to say. In general, it's probably safe to say that the prevalence of smoking is higher among people lower in the corporate echelons, supporting the thesis. Further, there is no question that smokers cost more to employ due to more illness and absenteeism; they spend too much time away from the desk to indulge their disgusting habit; plus, they just downright reek, which is very noticeable in today's closed-window environments. A lose-lose situation for everyone involved. However, rather than fire a smoker, perhaps it would be better to help him or her quit, thereby retaining a trained person and maintaining that level of "corporate memory".
They may have been fired for lying on their job application?
Neal Boortz is ridiculous. He claims to be a libertarian, unless the issue is smoking, then he's all for government control of peoples lives. His true colors show in the fact that listeners are FORBIDDEN from discussing abortion on his show.
Thanks - that is what I was thinking. You said it much better.
Slippery slope indeed.
"Frankly, I agree. Employers should be allowed to terminate employees if they have an unpleasant personal habit which negatively affects other workers."
How about strong perfumes and colognes? ...my pet peeve
I attest to 132, smoke, and maybe 5 sick days in 20 years.
Not anecdotal.
Don't forget, some employers discriminate against those who ride motorcycles especially as popular they have become in the past 10 years.
One company I worked for, I was not allowed to drive the rental cars on business trips because I drove a Mustang GT at the time. The executives were the bean counter types and all drove 4 door type of cars. Yes it is discrimination but not a "protected" category like race or sex so there was no recourse.
You're absolutely right. Bigger savings could be gained by firing people with children, who add a huge burden to insurance rates.
People with preexisting conditions could also be denied employment, not to mention those who don't attend church on a weekly basis.
No, they were fired for fraud. They claimed to be nonsmokers to get the lower rates and were found to have lied. Sad thing is that in every case I heard about the person got ratted out by their coworkers. That's the kind of corporate environment they fostered.
"Anecdotal" as in anecdotal (even true) evidence of isolated cases which do nothing to invalidate the statistical data.
I see. Thanks.
Fire everyone with high blood presure and high cholesterol, they just drive up health and life insurance rates for the rest of us. Don't forget fat people, and what about pregnant women, they're a huge risk and productivity falls off the further along they get. [end of sarcasim]
So these guys would have fired people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Humprey Bogart, Winston Churchill, FDR, Bing Crosby, Douglas MacAuthor, Bertrand Russell, Mark Twian..............
Maybe they just got tired of always having to rake up all those yucky cigarette butts from the lawns and entranceways.
Yes, but they go by overall statistics.
Does this mean we can now "discriminate" and not be forced to hire them, too?
As a smoker, I actually agree with this. In my humble opinion, we are very near to coming full circle. Discrimination based on behavior is now legal again, and it is just a matter of time before someone uses this law to fire gays for being gay. Tough titty there, gay dude! You are driving up my health costs and therefore have no legal recourse! You're fired!
Of course many lawsuits will follow and one law or the other will go down in flames, and I hope it ISN'T the one on the side of the anti-smoking employer. Just my 2 cents...JFK
Employers should have no right to decide who they employ.
Gawd, I hate the smell of greasy popcorn permeating the workplace. And then when they burn it, oh my stars. Can we please ban popcorn? Or better yet terminate those who create the stink? No? I didn't think so. The sorts of articles are really scaring the crap out of me. If anyone doesn't see how making people who have the temerity to continue to smoke into unpersons or hooligans is naziism of the worst kind... I just doen't get it. If somebody can't quit drinking employers have to help them -- and they're the ones with the absentee problem. This whole issue has gone way too far. Smoking is a legal product and many of those who have struggled to quit using far more destructive products still use tobacco to help keep the emotional wheels on. People like Boortz need to just shut up about it. And to claim that since HE lost 75 lbs that now the government and the employer should crack down on it? Like Krauthammers opinion on the Passion, I'm just going to ignore this and (hopefully) continue to enjoy Boortz' political analysis.
Sorry, you're wrong. First hand accounts are not "anecdotal".
I'd like to see the statistics of the health care use (expense) by smokers versus that of employees with children.
Sure smokers are away from their desks: smoking's been banned from the desk! Just in case you weren't around at the time, college desks contained ash-trays--smoking was considered (even in the 60s) as an aid to concentration. Ask your next commercial pilot if he smokes in the cockpit--chances are he does. While you're at it, ask WHY he's allowed to smoke in the cockpit.
More illness & absenteeism among smokers? Cite the study, if you please. Track the illness & absenteeism of "reformed" smokers--they begin to suffer from allergies they never knew they had; and ON AVERAGE suffer three times more annually from common flu germs. This condition does NOT recede with completion of withdrawal.
What he says is absolutely ridiculous. I know people who smoke at work and do not find their production or work habits any different than people who do not. On the contrary, it is the fat ladies at work who are less productive since they are in the breakroom every half hour stuffing their faces. They take more breaks than the smokers do. Their main concern of the day is not work, but what they will be having for lunch!
This isn't about "the smelly trail." It's about personal behavior far outside the scope of the workplace. It's about the con job that smokers are exclusively responsible for raising group insurance rates (again I assert that employees with children bear that responsibility).
Smokers who use Nicorette during the day don't leave "a smelly trail", nor do they take smoke breaks.
The solution to "non-productive smoke breaks" is to ban smoke breaks. The solution to "the smelly trail" is to use Nicorette. The solution to garlic smells is "don't eat garlic during work hours."
"strong perfumes" try working with 6 women who all wear different perfumes, one smelly cigarette smoker and you choke to death. Commerical air filters can't suck up the mixture fast enough. Finally had to have a "bitch session" because everyone complaining about each other. I sent them to one of our other offices and kept the clean ones ! Difficult to fire people anymore
Whatever. Believe what you will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.