Denying Employment Due To Smoking (1 Viewer)

[James Daulton]

Here in the People's Republic of Maryland a large hospital has announced that they will no longer employee people who smoke. This will be determined by a blood test given pre-employment. Current employees who smoke will not lose their jobs. The hospital claims the change is to help support wellness and health in the community. The truth is that smokers and their families are really expensive to cover for health insurance.

Curious about the FFAs feeling on this topic since cigarettes are legal and they hospital is denying them something legal off company time.

 

[Christo]

Absent an extremely compelling reason, the default position in any relationship should be that both parties are willing participants.

 

[Gianni Verscotchie]

Good.

 

[James Daulton]

Absent an extremely compelling reason, the default position in any relationship should be that both parties are willing participants.

Not questioning the legality nor the ability of employees to work elsewhere. Just wondering what the FFAs opinion on the topic was. Folks seem to get pretty heated about the soda size ban in NY, here they won't let you have a job if you smoke. What if this spreads to all employers so that the employee no longer has the ability to realistically go elsewhere for work?

As for me, I work in healthcare and I know that for my hospital, our health insurance cost (low 8 figures) are driven substantially by two human "behaviors", smoking and obesity. While legal, smoking has a negative outcome for the rest of society in higher medical cost so I'm ok with the ban. And before the alcohol comparison is made, alcohol has no where near the rampant negative health impacts that smoking and obesity do.

 

[Premier]

My opinion is based strictly on how much it costs the hospital to have smokers on their books. If it's prohibitive......too bad.

 

[matuski]

My opinion is based strictly on how much it costs the hospital to have smokers on their books. If it's prohibitive......too bad.

 

[mr roboto]

Absent an extremely compelling reason, the default position in any relationship should be that both parties are willing participants.

Not questioning the legality nor the ability of employees to work elsewhere. Just wondering what the FFAs opinion on the topic was. Folks seem to get pretty heated about the soda size ban in NY, here they won't let you have a job if you smoke. What if this spreads to all employers so that the employee no longer has the ability to realistically go elsewhere for work?

As for me, I work in healthcare and I know that for my hospital, our health insurance cost (low 8 figures) are driven substantially by two human "behaviors", smoking and obesity. While legal, smoking has a negative outcome for the rest of society in higher medical cost so I'm ok with the ban. And before the alcohol comparison is made, alcohol has no where near the rampant negative health impacts that smoking and obesity do.

I thought the opposite was true of the bolded.

 

[James Daulton]

Absent an extremely compelling reason, the default position in any relationship should be that both parties are willing participants.

Not questioning the legality nor the ability of employees to work elsewhere. Just wondering what the FFAs opinion on the topic was. Folks seem to get pretty heated about the soda size ban in NY, here they won't let you have a job if you smoke. What if this spreads to all employers so that the employee no longer has the ability to realistically go elsewhere for work?

As for me, I work in healthcare and I know that for my hospital, our health insurance cost (low 8 figures) are driven substantially by two human "behaviors", smoking and obesity. While legal, smoking has a negative outcome for the rest of society in higher medical cost so I'm ok with the ban. And before the alcohol comparison is made, alcohol has no where near the rampant negative health impacts that smoking and obesity do.

I thought the opposite was true of the bolded.

You thought smokers had lower medical cost? If you magically made smoking to never have been invented, I would wager that Medicare cost in the country would go down at least by 25%.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Absent an extremely compelling reason, the default position in any relationship should be that both parties are willing participants.

Not questioning the legality nor the ability of employees to work elsewhere. Just wondering what the FFAs opinion on the topic was. Folks seem to get pretty heated about the soda size ban in NY, here they won't let you have a job if you smoke. What if this spreads to all employers so that the employee no longer has the ability to realistically go elsewhere for work?

As for me, I work in healthcare and I know that for my hospital, our health insurance cost (low 8 figures) are driven substantially by two human "behaviors", smoking and obesity. While legal, smoking has a negative outcome for the rest of society in higher medical cost so I'm ok with the ban. And before the alcohol comparison is made, alcohol has no where near the rampant negative health impacts that smoking and obesity do.

I thought the opposite was true of the bolded.

You thought smokers had lower medical cost? If you magically made smoking to never have been invented, I would wager that Medicare cost in the country would go down at least by 25%.

It's about smokers dying younger.

 

[jon_mx]

Smokers die earlier and save is all kinds of money in social security payments. Not sure how medical bills work out. I would assume lung cancer is longer drawn out and more expensive than the average deadly conditions.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Absent an extremely compelling reason, the default position in any relationship should be that both parties are willing participants.

Not questioning the legality nor the ability of employees to work elsewhere. Just wondering what the FFAs opinion on the topic was. Folks seem to get pretty heated about the soda size ban in NY, here they won't let you have a job if you smoke. What if this spreads to all employers so that the employee no longer has the ability to realistically go elsewhere for work?

As for me, I work in healthcare and I know that for my hospital, our health insurance cost (low 8 figures) are driven substantially by two human "behaviors", smoking and obesity. While legal, smoking has a negative outcome for the rest of society in higher medical cost so I'm ok with the ban. And before the alcohol comparison is made, alcohol has no where near the rampant negative health impacts that smoking and obesity do.

Assuming it would be testable, it's also ok to not hire employees because they eat at McDonalds?

I understand why insurance companies would push this - they want the premiums but don't want to pay out #### and smoking introduces health issues that may not otherwise happen. But employers should be careful what they're doing here, as they're reducing their potential talent base by a good bit.

 

[mr roboto]

Smokers die earlier and save is all kinds of money in social security payments. Not sure how medical bills work out. I would assume lung cancer is longer drawn out and more expensive than the average deadly conditions.

No longer and more expensive that other cancers. I think smokers cost employers more during the time they are employed but cost less after retirement due to shorter life spans. Something like that.

 

[DiStefano]

If only we could extend that ban to the White House...

 

[Hooper31]

I've been wondering about something similar. Here in Washington state we've legalized marijuana use. Companies continue to drug test employees and can terminate employment if someone tests positive for marijuana usage. We're talking about firing someone for doing something that's legal. I'm curious to know which way the pendulum will swing. Is it feasible for an employer to test someone (and fire them) if they drink alcohol? I'm guessing yes. I don't think we're far from insurance companies refusing to insure people if they either drink or smoke.

 

[James Daulton]

Smokers die earlier and save is all kinds of money in social security payments. Not sure how medical bills work out. I would assume lung cancer is longer drawn out and more expensive than the average deadly conditions.

No longer and more expensive that other cancers.I think smokers cost employers more during the time they are employed but cost less after retirement due to shorter life spans. Something like that.

Honestly I hand't even thought of that angle. I just know that the smokers impact on health care cost (while they're alive) is high. It seems that by dying younger, the total cost to the system at least washes with non-smokers. Very interesting. But since employers are worried about the here and now, the fact remains that smokers are a drain on their resources.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I've been wondering about something similar. Here in Washington state we've legalized marijuana use. Companies continue to drug test employees and can terminate employment if someone tests positive for marijuana usage. We're talking about firing someone for doing something that's legal. I'm curious to know which way the pendulum will swing. Is it feasible for an employer to test someone (and fire them) if they drink alcohol? I'm guessing yes. I don't think we're far from insurance companies refusing to insure people if they either drink or smoke.

I work in construction. Our pre-hire screening doesn't include testing for alcohol but, if there's an incident on a site, we do test for booze and that can be used against the employee. It's kind of screwy, but I think - even if pot were legal - that it will continue to be tested for in hiring for a good, long time.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Smokers die earlier and save is all kinds of money in social security payments. Not sure how medical bills work out. I would assume lung cancer is longer drawn out and more expensive than the average deadly conditions.

No longer and more expensive that other cancers.I think smokers cost employers more during the time they are employed but cost less after retirement due to shorter life spans. Something like that.

Honestly I hand't even thought of that angle. I just know that the smokers impact on health care cost (while they're alive) is high. It seems that by dying younger, the total cost to the system at least washes with non-smokers. Very interesting. But since employers are worried about the here and now, the fact remains that smokers are a drain on their resources.

States like MD love that cig tax, though.

 

[dickey moe]

With ever-increasing health care costs (and the costs for companies to provide health benefits), look for companies to evaluate the health of prospective employees more often in the future. That's one of the reasons why companies are promoting "wellness" programs these days.

 

[In The Zone]

Does the hospital consider vaping the same thing as smoking?

 

[James Daulton]

Smokers die earlier and save is all kinds of money in social security payments. Not sure how medical bills work out. I would assume lung cancer is longer drawn out and more expensive than the average deadly conditions.

No longer and more expensive that other cancers.I think smokers cost employers more during the time they are employed but cost less after retirement due to shorter life spans. Something like that.

Honestly I hand't even thought of that angle. I just know that the smokers impact on health care cost (while they're alive) is high. It seems that by dying younger, the total cost to the system at least washes with non-smokers. Very interesting. But since employers are worried about the here and now, the fact remains that smokers are a drain on their resources.

States like MD love that cig tax, though.

Good point.

 

[James Daulton]

Does the hospital consider vaping the same thing as smoking?

The article said that the test would be sensitive enough to tell smokers from second hand smoke. Vaping still uses nicotine (right?) so I bet you couldn't vape either.

 

[chauncey]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

 

[DrJ]

Absent an extremely compelling reason, the default position in any relationship should be that both parties are willing participants.

Not questioning the legality nor the ability of employees to work elsewhere. Just wondering what the FFAs opinion on the topic was. Folks seem to get pretty heated about the soda size ban in NY, here they won't let you have a job if you smoke. What if this spreads to all employers so that the employee no longer has the ability to realistically go elsewhere for work?

As for me, I work in healthcare and I know that for my hospital, our health insurance cost (low 8 figures) are driven substantially by two human "behaviors", smoking and obesity. While legal, smoking has a negative outcome for the rest of society in higher medical cost so I'm ok with the ban. And before the alcohol comparison is made, alcohol has no where near the rampant negative health impacts that smoking and obesity do.

Assuming it would be testable, it's also ok to not hire employees because they eat at McDonalds?I understand why insurance companies would push this - they want the premiums but don't want to pay out #### and smoking introduces health issues that may not otherwise happen. But employers should be careful what they're doing here, as they're reducing their potential talent base by a good bit.

Obesity is easily testable with a scale.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Hopefully they are applying this to fatties as well and not just being hypocrites.

 

[Abraham]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

Agree 100%. I probably have 2 cigs a day, but try to avoid eating crap as much as possible. I don't think our country takes it's obesity problem seriously at all.

 

[DrJ]

Does the hospital consider vaping the same thing as smoking?

The article said that the test would be sensitive enough to tell smokers from second hand smoke. Vaping still uses nicotine (right?) so I bet you couldn't vape either.

Nicotine levels are significantly lower in vapers based on the tests I've seen. And there's gum, the patch, chewing tobacco. I don't think you can easily identify smokers by nicotine levels. And really the problem isn't nicotine per se but a lot of the additional stuff like carbon monoxide. Is chewing nicotine gum really more harmful than drinking? Probably not, but much like marijuana nicotine will show up on a urine test long after its use whereas it's harder to catch raging alcoholics.

I'm guessing the only people they can catch for certain are dumb people.

 

[DrJ]

You should be able to pass a blood test by laying off for a couple of days. Those couple days would suck, but it's doable if you want this job. Urine test is hella easy to pass (I used to go to drug tests stoned just for fun). Good luck with this.

 

[bigmarc27]

I work in healthcare.

Smokers and the Obese cost a fortune. That whole smoking surcharge many companies do now- it's not because they care if you change your lifestyle, it's because when you start dying (which will come at an earlier age), you are expensive. It's the same thing with the obese and as soon as there's a way to implement something that's fair and legal in regards to weight restrictions, I promise you there will be a surcharge on that too.

 

[DrJ]

I work in healthcare.

Smokers and the Obese cost a fortune. That whole smoking surcharge many companies do now- it's not because they care if you change your lifestyle, it's because when you start dying (which will come at an earlier age), you are expensive. It's the same thing with the obese and as soon as there's a way to implement something that's fair and legal in regards to weight restrictions, I promise you there will be a surcharge on that too.

Morbidly obese are easy to identify, just set the bar high and we can slide down that slippery slope as we go along.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I've been dealing with lung cancer for the last couple/three years. While there's no proof that +/- 40 years of smoking caused it (I've had several family members die from it who didn't smoke a day in their lives), I've been in the "well, I made my bed now I have to lie in it" camp. So I'm not whining about my out-of-pocket costs to treat this mutha since the main way I've mentally/emotionally chosen to deal with it that I did it to myself - makes me feel more in control rather than something randomly happening to me, if that twisted logic makes any sense.

In any case, my treatments over the years caused me to miss a ton of time at work. They've been incredibly lenient and those-in-the-know there have kept the knowledge in-house (& away from the corporate bean-counters who view each of us as a number). I guess the fact that I normally work 55-60 hours a week probably buys me a few brownie points (& the fact that we're like family) so, when I felt guilty about being away, I was pumped up by those who know how hard I worked.

I'm not sure what point I'm trying to get to here but, in my experience, the view by the folks I work with seems to be that what my smoking (if that's what caused my illness) has "cost" my employer is a wash at worse. I realize this isn't a proof and that it's my perspective, but there ya have it.

 

[DrJ]

I've been dealing with lung cancer for the last couple/three years. While there's no proof that +/- 40 years of smoking caused it (I've had several family members die from it who didn't smoke a day in their lives), I've been in the "well, I made my bed now I have to lie in it" camp. So I'm not whining about my out-of-pocket costs to treat this mutha since the main way I've mentally/emotionally chosen to deal with it that I did it to myself - makes me feel more in control rather than something randomly happening to me, if that twisted logic makes any sense.

In any case, my treatments over the years caused me to miss a ton of time at work. They've been incredibly lenient and those-in-the-know there have kept the knowledge in-house (& away from the corporate bean-counters who view each of us as a number). I guess the fact that I normally work 55-60 hours a week probably buys me a few brownie points (& the fact that we're like family) so, when I felt guilty about being away, I was pumped up by those who know how hard I worked.

I'm not sure what point I'm trying to get to here but, in my experience, the view by the folks I work with seems to be that what my smoking (if that's what caused my illness) has "cost" my employer is a wash at worse. I realize this isn't a proof and that it's my perspective, but there ya have it.

Wow, sorry to hear that man.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Smokers cost more to insure than the average of a perfectly healthy young adult.

The obese cost more to insure than the average for a perfectly healthy young adult

Perfectly healthy young adults who are risk takers or drinkers or stoners cost more to insure than the average perfectly healthy young adult.

Single gay people cost more to insure than the perfectly healthy young adult.

Women in their childbearing years cost more to insure than the perfectly healthy young adult.

Insurance use to spread the risks. Now they want no risks. If they start excluding groups they are reducing their customer pool. They will figure this out. They will also figure out that they can construct like risk groups, but since we move through groups so frequently in our lives that we may get tired of constantly changing from group to group.

In the end I am fine with employers making economic decisions.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I don't really have too strong of an opinion one way or the other, mainly because while I think smokers are among the most annoying groups of people on the planet i also don't really like broad sweeps like this.

I would rather they just pass the increase on to the smokers.

 

[mr roboto]

You should be able to pass a blood test by laying off for a couple of days. Those couple days would suck, but it's doable if you want this job. Urine test is hella easy to pass (I used to go to drug tests stoned just for fun). Good luck with this.

Nope. Nicotine's components that they test for last a month.

 

[DrJ]

Smokers cost more to insure than the average of a perfectly healthy young adult.

The obese cost more to insure than the average for a perfectly healthy young adult

Perfectly healthy young adults who are risk takers or drinkers or stoners cost more to insure than the average perfectly healthy young adult.

Single gay people cost more to insure than the perfectly healthy young adult.

Women in their childbearing years cost more to insure than the perfectly healthy young adult.

Insurance use to spread the risks. Now they want no risks. If they start excluding groups they are reducing their customer pool. They will figure this out. They will also figure out that they can construct like risk groups, but since we move through groups so frequently in our lives that we may get tired of constantly changing from group to group.

In the end I am fine with employers making economic decisions.

People with pre existing conditions cost more to insure than the perfectly healthy young adult.

 

[DrJ]

You should be able to pass a blood test by laying off for a couple of days. Those couple days would suck, but it's doable if you want this job. Urine test is hella easy to pass (I used to go to drug tests stoned just for fun). Good luck with this.

Nope. Nicotine's components that they test for last a month.

But I don't have to give you my urine.

 

[Christo]

Absent an extremely compelling reason, the default position in any relationship should be that both parties are willing participants.

Not questioning the legality nor the ability of employees to work elsewhere. Just wondering what the FFAs opinion on the topic was. Folks seem to get pretty heated about the soda size ban in NY, here they won't let you have a job if you smoke. What if this spreads to all employers so that the employee no longer has the ability to realistically go elsewhere for work?

As for me, I work in healthcare and I know that for my hospital, our health insurance cost (low 8 figures) are driven substantially by two human "behaviors", smoking and obesity. While legal, smoking has a negative outcome for the rest of society in higher medical cost so I'm ok with the ban. And before the alcohol comparison is made, alcohol has no where near the rampant negative health impacts that smoking and obesity do.

That is my opinion. It's certainly not the law.

 

[jwb]

My opinion is based strictly on how much it costs the hospital to have smokers on their books. If it's prohibitive......too bad.

This is too easy an argument to apply anywhere.

Single parents (heck, parents in general, with sick days taken for sick kids)

The obese

People with bad family history medical-wise

drinkers

etc

 

[Christo]

Smokers die earlier and save is all kinds of money in social security payments. Not sure how medical bills work out. I would assume lung cancer is longer drawn out and more expensive than the average deadly conditions.

But SS is not a direct burden to an employer. I thought the issue we were discussing is the employer's reasons not societal reasons.

 

[Christo]

Absent an extremely compelling reason, the default position in any relationship should be that both parties are willing participants.

Not questioning the legality nor the ability of employees to work elsewhere. Just wondering what the FFAs opinion on the topic was. Folks seem to get pretty heated about the soda size ban in NY, here they won't let you have a job if you smoke. What if this spreads to all employers so that the employee no longer has the ability to realistically go elsewhere for work?

As for me, I work in healthcare and I know that for my hospital, our health insurance cost (low 8 figures) are driven substantially by two human "behaviors", smoking and obesity. While legal, smoking has a negative outcome for the rest of society in higher medical cost so I'm ok with the ban. And before the alcohol comparison is made, alcohol has no where near the rampant negative health impacts that smoking and obesity do.

Assuming it would be testable, it's also ok to not hire employees because they eat at McDonalds?

It should be.

 

[Christo]

I've been wondering about something similar. Here in Washington state we've legalized marijuana use. Companies continue to drug test employees and can terminate employment if someone tests positive for marijuana usage. We're talking about firing someone for doing something that's legal. I'm curious to know which way the pendulum will swing. Is it feasible for an employer to test someone (and fire them) if they drink alcohol? I'm guessing yes. I don't think we're far from insurance companies refusing to insure people if they either drink or smoke.

It's still against federal law.

 

[DrJ]

What if a particular race costs more to insure on average?

 

[Christo]

It is interesting how smoking has become such a demonized activity in our society. Sure if you smoke a pack a day you are probably going to have long term health issues, but none any worse than the schlubs who eat fast food, Sysco distributed food at the majority of restaurants in this country, or packaged crap from the grocery store. I guess it is much easier to point the finger at the person whose habit has stinky consequences rather than the person whose habit has visually disgusting consequences. ####ification of America IMO. *I'm not condoning smoking, just criticizing the hypocrisy in our culture.

I would argue that we are well on our way to demonizing the causes of obesity too.

 

[tommyGunZ]

GL Uruk-hai. Sorry to hear about your illness.

 

[Christo]

GL Uruk-hai. Sorry to hear about your illness.

 

[Fennis]

GL Uruk-hai. Sorry to hear about your illness.

 

[Christo]

I see we've gone to the insurance angle. But what about the hospital's claim that it is to support the health and welfare of the community? Shouldn't a hospital set an example for good health?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I've been dealing with lung cancer for the last couple/three years. While there's no proof that +/- 40 years of smoking caused it (I've had several family members die from it who didn't smoke a day in their lives), I've been in the "well, I made my bed now I have to lie in it" camp. So I'm not whining about my out-of-pocket costs to treat this mutha since the main way I've mentally/emotionally chosen to deal with it that I did it to myself - makes me feel more in control rather than something randomly happening to me, if that twisted logic makes any sense.

In any case, my treatments over the years caused me to miss a ton of time at work. They've been incredibly lenient and those-in-the-know there have kept the knowledge in-house (& away from the corporate bean-counters who view each of us as a number). I guess the fact that I normally work 55-60 hours a week probably buys me a few brownie points (& the fact that we're like family) so, when I felt guilty about being away, I was pumped up by those who know how hard I worked.

I'm not sure what point I'm trying to get to here but, in my experience, the view by the folks I work with seems to be that what my smoking (if that's what caused my illness) has "cost" my employer is a wash at worse. I realize this isn't a proof and that it's my perspective, but there ya have it.

Wow, sorry to hear that man.

Thanks, but not necessary. I got shamed into trying more treatment after I (& my former oncologist) thought I was done. Got a new doc, who I still can't understand more than one word in three when she talks, and shrunk that ####er down. Had a brief scare a month or two ago, as a growth showed up but they cut it off and it appears it was unrelated to the original cancer.

In any case, wasn't trying to derail a fellow Ravens fan's thread - I was mainly trying to express the fact that though I missed work, I was still considered to have not missed time by my employer since I work so many hours. I don't know why I thought that matters since my experience isn't necessarily that of anyone else's.

I will say, though, that insurance coverage - smoking related or no - absolutely sucks. And that ain't sour grapes, since I own up to my possible involvement in my illness. I have spent more than my house cost out-of-pocket.

Sometime several months ago, I estimated what I've paid for health insurance over my lifetime of working and what I've been covered for during the same. My advice? Do not go through this exercise - you will puke.

 

[bigmarc27]

What if a particular race costs more to insure on average?

Smoking is a choice, race is not.

 

[Christo]

What if a particular race costs more to insure on average?

Smoking is a choice, race is not.

So what?