Scary Stuff.

[tuold]

I know I'm dreaming, but I would rather be seen as an individual rather than a actuarial table statistic. I've paid health insurance premiums all my adult life and only used my benefits one time. (I've been a pipe smoker for 43 years) Insurance companies have made a lot of money off of me.

 

[warren]

Damn the luck! Being healthy I mean, the insurance companies gains.
Health standards v religious beliefs. Come on Jay! If someone denies employment or fires a current employee purely for religious affiliation well, that person isn't smart enough to be in business. There is always a valid, legal reason for termination or denial of employment to be found.

 

[disinformatique]

It's staggering how compliant and supportive Americans are for this kind of exploitation and harassment. Try to do this here and company may end up in court or on a government blacklist. Atleast in my field of work.

 

[aldecaker]

Health standards, eh? Try telling a gay man you won't hire him because statistically, he's more likely to contract HIV, and that's just too damn risky for the bottom line. Is it true? You're damned right it's true, but we've not tried to address the problem of employment discrimination, we've just set rules regarding who can be discriminated against, and who can not.
You're right, Warren. There is always a valid reason for termination. If "smokers" take more time off than lazy slackers, then terminate them for missing too damn much work. I'm sorry that companies find themselves in thrall to insurance companies, I really am. It is not a burden they should be stuck with, but denial of employment is a serious matter, IMHO.

 

[gloucesterman]

There are protected categories, that is you may not refuse employment on those grounds. Unfortunately smoking isn't one of them and given the current anti-smoking sentiments of the public at large, it isn't likely it will become one. Is it an intrusion on individual freedom? I think so but even if you don't want to, they make you wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle in most states. In that case the only risk is to myself but the "Nanny" state imposes itself anyway. There are a lot of examples of the state governing behaviors that constitute an intrusion on individual liberty and always justified by the "It's for your own good" mentality. Orwell's 1984 is upon us. The state hasn't been able to legislate a tobacco prohibition so instead they allow conditions to exist that discourage people from doing it. Brace yourself, it's only going to get worse.

 

[warren]

I wonder how many people sit down and, as objectively and harshly as possible, evaluate themselves after being denied employment. Many people sincerely believe they are under paid, they over-value their skills and abilities. They do this without assessing the employment market. MBAs are a dime a dozen. I can find a decent truck driver most anywhere without paying too much money. Insurance companies simply provide employers another screen for evaluation, the incentive being a better bottom line. Risky behaviors are simply another tool for getting to what the employer wants, an asset for the company. That's the employee's purpose, to be worth the salary. Who wants a "hard Keeper" or "high maintenance" employee if there is an alternative.
If you choose to smoke, drink, etc. as an employee, you are a demonstrably a higher risk. Companies do not like risk unless there is a high probability of a good return on investment of time and moneys. Smokers bring baggage, much as forty years ago it was thought women were not worth the risk because of marriage, pregnancy, etc. If you are a smoker you must realize you have, by choice, substantially reduced your employment opportunities. Not much different than accepting you are now going to be standing outside the pub, in the snow for a bowl. While your compatriots will be inside, warm and toasty, enjoying a beverage and hitting on the ladies.
If I am tasked with screening applicants for three openings on a production line or say, in accounting, and I have 400 applications, I immediately look for ways to reduce the number of applications. With the assistance of insurance industry numbers I am able to immediately reduce the number applicants. Might I miss an applicant who otherwise might be the perfect hire? MBAs are a dime a dozen. Line employees can be quickly trained into productive workers. My employer gives veterans preferences so, another bunch of applications can go into the discard pile. Six jobs in ten years? Out it goes. In a couple of hours I have reduced the applicants to a manageable handful. Now I can start looking at what the applicant might bring to the company. Bilingual? May be a good thing. Experience? Might or might not be valuable. Was the experience gained at a company which operates very differently from my employer? Rejected out of hand? Possibly.
Now that I have the pile of applications down to 15 or 20 I can start on interviews, physicals, background checks, social media scans, etc. Now I'm into the subjective parts of the screening process. Here is where I need to be very careful as this is where the law suits lurk. So, smoking is in fact a handy screening tool, legal and socially acceptable to all but some smokers, hurt feelings and bewilderment aside. It's not a burden to the company, it is a helpful tool. The discarded applicant may think the company missed a great, well qualified employee. I, sitting in HR, figure I've made my job easier without adversely impacting the company.
For the record, when I found myself doing "pre-employment screening" rejecting applicants was often very tough. Some of those kids were applying for a career they'd aspired to for many years. Once they'd cleared the basic written examination I always tried to spend a bit of time with a rejected applicant if there was something they could change about themselves which might improve their chances in the future cycle. Crushing career aspirations was indeed tough at times.

 

[deathmetal]

If you choose to smoke, drink, etc. as an employee, you are a demonstrably a higher risk.

True, and also irrelevant. Sane managers hire intelligent and stable people; idiots hire warm bodies.
If those happen to smoke or drink, so what? They are still at less risk than people with genetic predispositions to certain diseases are.
If someone has no cancer in their family, and several smokers in the family line, it is stupid and corrupt to discriminate against them for smoking.
If someone has lots of cancer in the family with no smokers, it is a guarantee that they will be the most expensive person on the health care plan.
We need to stop treating people as cogs and start treating them like people. Intelligent managers already do this, but they are a minority.

 

[warren]

I can find stable, intelligent people who do not engage in what is deemed "risky behavior." Economics dictate that I do so.
It's tough to screen out people without opening up for a law suit, frivolous or not. The insurance industry simply provides a nearly suit proof pre-employment screening tool with a monetary incentive to use it. It helps to streamline the process and makes economic sense. It's much easier and safer to deny employment to an old guy who smokes for smoking, not age. That will get you sued in a heartbeat. Risky behavior screening is simply a tool, nothing more, for denying employment in a legal manner. Employees are simply cogs, as is the owner/director and they need to mesh so the gears turn smoothly. How one treats one's employees is one thing but, not really germane to pre-employment status. I owe nothing to the applicant. To my employees, I strive for humane treatment, a safe workplace, a decent wage and benefits package. I give loyalty and expect it in return. Further, I expect a good return from them for what I invest in them
Of course, what we are debating so happily here is not really open for debate. It's simply the way things are and we should anticipate no change. I do enjoy reading different perspectives and sometimes experiencing a "that makes sense" moment.

 

[gloucesterman]

There is a big difference about what I "feel" should be done and what the law requires. Currently under law smokers are not a protected category so no matter what I might feel, employers are not obliged to conduct their business accordingly. Every choice has its consequences. If I choose to smoke knowing there are business reasons that make me less employable if I do then I own those consequences. I chose the behavior knowing the possible adverse impacts. As an employer I'm free to hire whom I please as long as the reason for not hiring isn't prohibited. That's reality with plenty of case law to support it. There are people in the highest levels of government that have the avowed goal of making the USA a smoke free nation by 2050. They will just keep tightening the noose in pursuit of that objective every time the opportunity presents itself. When you choose your representation you should know where they stand on the issue and vote accordingly. This kind of forced or coerced conformity is what you get when you vote for big government and the Nanny state concept.

 

[aldecaker]

The debate is, true enough, largely academic. What is legal for an employer to do, and what I feel is ethical to do, are occasionally very different things. Fortunately, law that we take to be carved in stone "that's just the way it is", is often found to be ridiculous horseshit and thrown out. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, admittedly.
@Warren- I never realized, until you explained it, what a boon paying for medical insurance is to an employer. Employers should not only not bitch about the cost, but should pay the insurance company MORE for assisting so handily in the hiring process. Truly an eye opener.
Back in the frontier days, horse thieves were commonly hung. Was it because hardy pioneer folk were intelligent and forward-looking, and had the good sense to know that overpopulation was looming? That if you need to thin the herd anyway, you might as well start with the lawless shitbags? Of course it was; those people were damned smart! But it was also because in those days, depriving a person of their horse was an issue of survival. You could die without it.
That's why I get heated up over hiring discrimination that has nothing to do with a person's ability to do the job. In today's society, employment is a matter of survival.
BTW, good discussion, gents! We have some damned smart people here, able to illuminate many sides of an issue, whether I agree with them or not.

 

[warren]

Employers do not pay for insurance, they are merely a conduit for that part of your wage/benefit package. Employees tend to forget that. The ones who buy what you make or the service you provide pay for your insurance. All of us should always remember that business can only use what moneys you and I provide. All the cost of doing business and any profit comes solely from the consumer, you and I.

In today's society, employment is a matter of survival.

The obverse is equally true. The quality of the employee determines the survival of a company. This is true from the top down, president/owner to lowest on the totem pole. Success is always easier to achieve with good people in place. Believe it or not!
But, I could also argue that in today's society a job is not so necessary. What with unlimited unemployment, free medical treatment at any hospital emergency room (quality not guaranteed), food banks, homeless shelters and etc. for many a job would only hinder their lifestyle. Do not get the impression that I am condoning or advocating not assisting those truly in need. It's just lucky for some that I am not the determiner of who is truly in need and who is simply sponging from the rest. But, that's a discussion which would certainly deteriorate quickly. Rightly so I suppose.

 

[aldecaker]

Success is easier to achieve with good people in place. So why an employer would want to disqualify anyone out of hand for merely smoking is beyond me. The discount they get for guaranteeing a tobacco-free pool of covered employees to the insurance company must make it seem worthwhile, but that's looking at minimizing outlay, not guaranteeing you hire the best applicant.
I take your point about slackers being able to live off of the system. The fact that I am not like that, despise those who are, and strive to be a valuable asset to my employer give me a lot of chafe on this subject, as you can likely tell! Trust me, no one wants me determining who is a hard-working citizen down on their luck and who is a worthless bum, either. The word "draconian" leaps to mind.
EDIT: I almost forgot. You are correct, the employer does not pay your insurance. Nor do they pay your wage; they are simply the conduit between their paying customers and the employee for that, as well.

 

[gloucesterman]

In the private sector employers do pay for the lion's share of the health insurance. Yes it is grouped into the benefits section of labor costs but the employer still has that out of pocket expense. Most plans cost much more that the individual pays. Recent labor issues have often dealt with just that issue, how much of the cost will be paid by the employer and how much by the employee. On this matter I'm just a reality guy. It is what it is, there's little evidence we should expect some change, so the only real choice is to deal with it and make your choices accordingly. Of course I can say that without much concern as I'm retired.

 

[alexnorth]

So an employer that demands your whole extended family's medical history and that you submit to gene-testing to screen for any hereditary genes that might cause sickness in the distant future is right for protecting his investment? How about some human integrity?

 

[warren]

There is always a trade off when it comes to selecting the best possible candidate for a position. Most jobs can be adequately filled with a competent employee, not a great one. Sometimes ya just get lucky, sometimes you settle. If, over the next couple of years positions become hard to fill, requirements will change. But, I doubt the smoking restriction will change. There's a lot more in play than the insurance numbers. Employees enjoy a smoke free work place. Smokers reek. Many employees resent what they see as the unfair accommodation of allowing smoke breaks for co-workers. Society in general just doesn't like smoking and smokers in general. And, most importantly, society makes little if any distinction between cigarettes and pipes. Tobacco bad!
It's no fun being the party which is discriminated against. We just have to learn to live with being society's "Irish" of choice these days. I think I can get away with that being substantially of Irish extraction. Just an analogy and a poor one at that.

 

[alexnorth]

Ofcourse smokers who scam an employer out of an hours work a day smoking is in the wrong. A person who enjoys a pipe once a week in his own spare time not so much. The requirements seem arbitrary to me. There are a lot of behaviors thats potentially harmful. Would an employer that demands that you ride a bike instead of a car to work and stop diving and rock climbing on your vacation be acceptable? Do you see what I'm getting at here..

 

[sgtstinky]

I can understand why an employer would want to check for drug use or past criminal behavior, but I do not see smoking affecting ones job performance to the level that warrants a ban on banning smoking on ones own time. If this has to do with health insurance being an employer responsibility then this is the natural progression of things to come, if you don't own your health insurance you won't own your health. Health is an outcome of behavior so the one who owns the insurance will in turn want to also take responsibility for your behavior. Welcome to the progressive nightmare where individual freedom is trumped by the domain of the collective. Not the country we were suppose to be.

 

[mawnansmiff]

"Who wants a "hard Keeper" or "high maintenance" employee if there is an alternative."
Some years ago, when I was still capable of work I applied for a job at a local wood machining company to make doors, windows, frames etc. I felt obliged to tell them I had a pending Crown Court case (in another county) where I was being charged with 'malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm' for dealing with some low life junkie kicking the hell out of my girlfriend's car due to being denied access to a party by our new neighbours who we never even knew!
Long story short I still got the job and despite getting gaoled when my case finally came to court the company still payed my NI stamp (out of their own pockets) all the time I was inside and held my job open for me upon release. I was released on the Friday and was back at work on the Monday as if nothing had happened. Granted, I was thinner and very angry with the system but had huge respect for my employers.
So folks, not every employer is the same.
Regards,
Jay.

 

[deathmetal]

Employees are simply cogs, as is the owner/director and they need to mesh so the gears turn smoothly.

Not really -- it's an economic choice as to who you hire, rather than just stuffing the place with warm bodies.

 

[warren]

sgtstinky gets the "gold star."
There is a cost for everything, even the mislabeled "free health insurance." Unintended consequences are usually bad, rarely good.
If I'm to buy the kid a car, I'm going to have some say in the type of vehicle. Same as if I'm to provide health insurance for employees. The employees give up some decision making leeway for the "free" stuff. Who saw that coming when labor unions started demanding insurance 50 years or so ago? Who thought the American Cancer Society could become an agent of evil? That the EPA would become the protector of snails? That Japan would sell more vehicles in America than American manufacturers? Tis a wonderfully complicated and interesting world we inhabit for sure!!