Denying Employment Due To Smoking

[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?

It should be.

Wouldn't that eliminate your entire spank bank?

 

[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.

Wouldn't that eliminate your entire spank bank?

No, they'd be looking for work.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

It's about smokers dying younger.

And thanks to expensive medical treatment, smokers don't die younger anymore.

 

[Psychopav]

What makes you all think that insurers are pushing non-smokers? There's only two kinds of risk: quantifiable and nonquantifiable. If it's quantifiable, insurers can price for it.

If anything, non-smokers lower claim costs which makes for less risk which means less profit margin.

It's companies pushing this, because like it or not non-smokers really do generate fewer claims per life. Companies are also moving much more towards employee paid benefits.

I'm no expert, but the interesting thing here to me is that the hospital is only applying this policy to new hires. My guess is that their legal folks wouldn't let them apply it to current employees. I don't see anything about people who become tobacco users once they have begun employment. I suspect that's because, as some have stated earlier, enforcement here is near impossible.

Making a guideline about whether you are willing to employ someone who doesn't currently work for you is a lot easier than making one about people who are already employed, I would think.

 

[derek245583]

Sorta off topic, but what about all the smokers that take 6 times as many breaks as employees who dont smoke?

If you work at a place where you have to walk an 1/8th of a mile to your smoking center you are significantly cutting down on work production throughout the day, week, month, year.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Sorta off topic, but what about all the smokers that take 6 times as many breaks as employees who dont smoke?

If you work at a place where you have to walk an 1/8th of a mile to your smoking center you are significantly cutting down on work production throughout the day, week, month, year.

Do you really think this? My experience is that non-woofers take as many breaks. It ain't like smokers are legally protected for breaks and non-smokers aren't.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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

Same here. I have no philosophical problem with this and would do the same thing depending on the cost/benefit analysis.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Sorta off topic, but what about all the smokers that take 6 times as many breaks as employees who dont smoke?

If you work at a place where you have to walk an 1/8th of a mile to your smoking center you are significantly cutting down on work production throughout the day, week, month, year.

couple places I worked at gave you X amount for breaks in a day- either lunch, smoke, or combo. it is lame that people get an hour break plus being able to go out for smoke breaks.

one place clamped down because a few of the non smokers started to ramdomly leave for 5 mins to go outside and sit, etc to prove a point.

 

[NCCommish]

First they came for the Smokers, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Smoker.

Then they came for the Drinkers, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Drinker.

Then they came for the Obese, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not Obese.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

We all do something someone else would love to force us to quit doing. Just remember that when you cheer them on.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Sorta off topic, but what about all the smokers that take 6 times as many breaks as employees who dont smoke?

If you work at a place where you have to walk an 1/8th of a mile to your smoking center you are significantly cutting down on work production throughout the day, week, month, year.

Do you really think this? My experience is that non-woofers take as many breaks. It ain't like smokers are legally protected for breaks and non-smokers aren't.

All the reasons non smokers take breaks, smokers also take.

"I won't go talk to shelly in accounting today because I already took six smoke breaks," said no smoker ever.

 

[KarmaPolice]

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?

surprised there isn't more of this.

any business should want there employees to embody what the business is about. I don't want an out of shape, chain smoking doctor any more than I would want somebody like that in other businesses of health- be it personal trainer to working at gnc. I am surprised that so many hospitals are tolerant of it, but I would guess that a bit of that is a lot of time we don't have a choice on doctors we go to.

 

[psychobillies]

I think we should ban skydiving, scuba diving, mountain biking, motorcycles and skiing. Those are dangerous activities that could lead to more claims, and cause my rates to increase. Now that health care is being subsidized by the feds, we should start passing laws like crazy to stop these maniacs from hurting themselves on our nickel!

 

[Christo]

I think we should ban skydiving, scuba diving, mountain biking, motorcycles and skiing. Those are dangerous activities that could lead to more claims, and cause my rates to increase. Now that health care is being subsidized by the feds, we should start passing laws like crazy to stop these maniacs from hurting themselves on our nickel!

If you can tie that comment to the issue we're discussing I will be very surprised.

 

[Hooper31]

First they came for the Smokers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Smoker.

Then they came for the Drinkers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Drinker.

Then they came for the Obese, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not Obese.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

We all do something someone else would love to force us to quit doing. Just remember that when you cheer them on.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

First they came for the Smokers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Smoker.

Then they came for the Drinkers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Drinker.

Then they came for the Obese, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not Obese.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

We all do something someone else would love to force us to quit doing. Just remember that when you cheer them on.

An error occurredYou have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

Yep. I can't wait until they start denying employment and insurance to people that drink soda, sports drinks and energy drinks. I'm guessing a lot of the people here would see things differently.

 

[psychobillies]

I think we should ban skydiving, scuba diving, mountain biking, motorcycles and skiing. Those are dangerous activities that could lead to more claims, and cause my rates to increase. Now that health care is being subsidized by the feds, we should start passing laws like crazy to stop these maniacs from hurting themselves on our nickel!

If you can tie that comment to the issue we're discussing I will be very surprised.

Seriously? Smoking is bad for you, causes increased health care costs, so it should be banned. Why not then say that anything else that might be bad for you might increase health care costs should also be banned. Not really a big leap in logic.

 

[Christo]

I think we should ban skydiving, scuba diving, mountain biking, motorcycles and skiing. Those are dangerous activities that could lead to more claims, and cause my rates to increase. Now that health care is being subsidized by the feds, we should start passing laws like crazy to stop these maniacs from hurting themselves on our nickel!

If you can tie that comment to the issue we're discussing I will be very surprised.

Seriously? Smoking is bad for you, causes increased health care costs, so it should be banned. Why not then say that anything else that might be bad for you might increase health care costs should also be banned. Not really a big leap in logic.

Who's banning smoking?

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I think we should ban skydiving, scuba diving, mountain biking, motorcycles and skiing. Those are dangerous activities that could lead to more claims, and cause my rates to increase. Now that health care is being subsidized by the feds, we should start passing laws like crazy to stop these maniacs from hurting themselves on our nickel!

If you can tie that comment to the issue we're discussing I will be very surprised.

Seriously? Smoking is bad for you, causes increased health care costs, so it should be banned. Why not then say that anything else that might be bad for you might increase health care costs should also be banned. Not really a big leap in logic.

The same thing can be said about bacon. I guess we need to ban it.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

First they came for the Smokers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Smoker.

Then they came for the Drinkers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Drinker.

Then they came for the Obese, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not Obese.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

We all do something someone else would love to force us to quit doing. Just remember that when you cheer them on.

An error occurredYou have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

Yep. I can't wait until they start denying employment and insurance to people that drink soda, sports drinks and energy drinks. I'm guessing a lot of the people here would see things differently.

Yep. I'm not a slippery-slope kind of guy, but this is very close to the precipice.

 

[psychobillies]

I think we should ban skydiving, scuba diving, mountain biking, motorcycles and skiing. Those are dangerous activities that could lead to more claims, and cause my rates to increase. Now that health care is being subsidized by the feds, we should start passing laws like crazy to stop these maniacs from hurting themselves on our nickel!

If you can tie that comment to the issue we're discussing I will be very surprised.

Seriously? Smoking is bad for you, causes increased health care costs, so it should be banned. Why not then say that anything else that might be bad for you might increase health care costs should also be banned. Not really a big leap in logic.

Who's banning smoking?

A large hospital in the people's republic of Maryland. At least for their employees.

 

[psychobillies]

I think we should ban skydiving, scuba diving, mountain biking, motorcycles and skiing. Those are dangerous activities that could lead to more claims, and cause my rates to increase. Now that health care is being subsidized by the feds, we should start passing laws like crazy to stop these maniacs from hurting themselves on our nickel!

If you can tie that comment to the issue we're discussing I will be very surprised.

Seriously? Smoking is bad for you, causes increased health care costs, so it should be banned. Why not then say that anything else that might be bad for you might increase health care costs should also be banned. Not really a big leap in logic.

The same thing can be said about bacon. I guess we need to ban it.

I'm gonna miss bacon most of all. But hey, it's for our own good.

 

[Christo]

I think we should ban skydiving, scuba diving, mountain biking, motorcycles and skiing. Those are dangerous activities that could lead to more claims, and cause my rates to increase. Now that health care is being subsidized by the feds, we should start passing laws like crazy to stop these maniacs from hurting themselves on our nickel!

If you can tie that comment to the issue we're discussing I will be very surprised.

Seriously? Smoking is bad for you, causes increased health care costs, so it should be banned. Why not then say that anything else that might be bad for you might increase health care costs should also be banned. Not really a big leap in logic.

Who's banning smoking?

A large hospital in the people's republic of Maryland. At least for their employees.

That is categorically false.

 

[Dippa]

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?

surprised there isn't more of this.

any business should want there employees to embody what the business is about. I don't want an out of shape, chain smoking doctor any more than I would want somebody like that in other businesses of health- be it personal trainer to working at gnc. I am surprised that so many hospitals are tolerant of it, but I would guess that a bit of that is a lot of time we don't have a choice on doctors we go to.

Doctors make up a small percentage of a hospital's employees, and in my experience, they're almost never the ones smoking out back. I work in employee benefits and have a few hospitals as clients. Most have a tobacco surcharge for health insurance, smoking cessation programs, and many don't allow smoking on the hospital's campus. So, they really aren't very "tolerant" of it. I think those rules are enough to discourage smoking and disallow it at the workplace, rather than denying employment for something an employee does in their personal time.

 

[The Big Guy]

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

Smoking is a choice, race is not.

So what?

To this point Christo is right. If it costs a lot more to insure a particular group on average then they should be excluded from the hiring pool. In my experience, take away a job from someone and they will stop smoking, lost weight and start exercising and taking better care of their bodies.

Think of it as doing those people a favor by excluding all of them from the hiring pool. I am sure none of us would fall into any of the troubled categories.

 

[psychobillies]

I think we should ban skydiving, scuba diving, mountain biking, motorcycles and skiing. Those are dangerous activities that could lead to more claims, and cause my rates to increase. Now that health care is being subsidized by the feds, we should start passing laws like crazy to stop these maniacs from hurting themselves on our nickel!

If you can tie that comment to the issue we're discussing I will be very surprised.

Seriously? Smoking is bad for you, causes increased health care costs, so it should be banned. Why not then say that anything else that might be bad for you might increase health care costs should also be banned. Not really a big leap in logic.

Who's banning smoking?

A large hospital in the people's republic of Maryland. At least for their employees.

That is categorically false.

Want to go ahead and explain it to me so we don't have to keep quoting this back and forth. Are you just gonna make some argument over semantics, or do you really think this thread has nothing to do with how people are suggesting we treat certain individuals who indulge in unhealthy behavior and using health care costs as justification for discouraging that behavior?

 

[Christo]

I think we should ban skydiving, scuba diving, mountain biking, motorcycles and skiing. Those are dangerous activities that could lead to more claims, and cause my rates to increase. Now that health care is being subsidized by the feds, we should start passing laws like crazy to stop these maniacs from hurting themselves on our nickel!

If you can tie that comment to the issue we're discussing I will be very surprised.

Seriously? Smoking is bad for you, causes increased health care costs, so it should be banned. Why not then say that anything else that might be bad for you might increase health care costs should also be banned. Not really a big leap in logic.

Who's banning smoking?

A large hospital in the people's republic of Maryland. At least for their employees.

That is categorically false.

Want to go ahead and explain it to me so we don't have to keep quoting this back and forth. Are you just gonna make some argument over semantics, or do you really think this thread has nothing to do with how people are suggesting we treat certain individuals who indulge in unhealthy behavior and using health care costs as justification for discouraging that behavior?

This has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with your reading comprehension. The hospital is not banning anyone from smoking. The hospital also didn't say it was doing it because of insurance costs.

 

[KarmaPolice]

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?

surprised there isn't more of this.any business should want there employees to embody what the business is about. I don't want an out of shape, chain smoking doctor any more than I would want somebody like that in other businesses of health- be it personal trainer to working at gnc. I am surprised that so many hospitals are tolerant of it, but I would guess that a bit of that is a lot of time we don't have a choice on doctors we go to.

Doctors make up a small percentage of a hospital's employees, and in my experience, they're almost never the ones smoking out back. I work in employee benefits and have a few hospitals as clients. Most have a tobacco surcharge for health insurance, smoking cessation programs, and many don't allow smoking on the hospital's campus. So, they really aren't very "tolerant" of it. I think those rules are enough to discourage smoking and disallow it at the workplace, rather than denying employment for something an employee does in their personal time.

fair points, maybe it is a small town Wisconsin thing then- quite a few heavy unhealthy doctors and nurses.

I do agree that I would rather see discouraging measures over denying employment, but that is their decision to make.

 

[psychobillies]

I think we should ban skydiving, scuba diving, mountain biking, motorcycles and skiing. Those are dangerous activities that could lead to more claims, and cause my rates to increase. Now that health care is being subsidized by the feds, we should start passing laws like crazy to stop these maniacs from hurting themselves on our nickel!

If you can tie that comment to the issue we're discussing I will be very surprised.

Seriously? Smoking is bad for you, causes increased health care costs, so it should be banned. Why not then say that anything else that might be bad for you might increase health care costs should also be banned. Not really a big leap in logic.

Who's banning smoking?

A large hospital in the people's republic of Maryland. At least for their employees.

That is categorically false.

Want to go ahead and explain it to me so we don't have to keep quoting this back and forth. Are you just gonna make some argument over semantics, or do you really think this thread has nothing to do with how people are suggesting we treat certain individuals who indulge in unhealthy behavior and using health care costs as justification for discouraging that behavior?

This has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with your reading comprehension. The hospital is not banning anyone from smoking. The hospital also didn't say it was doing it because of insurance costs.

Did you miss the rest of the thread when it turned into a discussion about McDonald's and fatness and all that? Making comparisons between obesity and smoking? That's when I chimed in about institutions trying to alter people's behavior for their own, and everyone else's own good.

 

[Dippa]

The most fair way I've seen something like this implemented is one hospital where they give employees a health risk assessment. It measures things like BMI, blood pressure, tobacco use, etc. If you're overweight, improve it within a certain amount of time or face a surcharge on your health insurance. High blood pressure? Improve it or surcharge. Same deal for smokers.

,

Those who choose not to comply will pay more toward increased healthcare costs, and those who comply will get healthier. Much more fair than just excluding those filthy smokers from employment IMO.

 

[jonessed]

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.

Medical bills are lower as well (from the studies I have seen). That's over the life if the individual though. That likely helps Medicare costs more than anything.

 

[Raylove]

I think we should ban skydiving, scuba diving, mountain biking, motorcycles and skiing. Those are dangerous activities that could lead to more claims, and cause my rates to increase. Now that health care is being subsidized by the feds, we should start passing laws like crazy to stop these maniacs from hurting themselves on our nickel!

If you can tie that comment to the issue we're discussing I will be very surprised.

Seriously? Smoking is bad for you, causes increased health care costs, so it should be banned. Why not then say that anything else that might be bad for you might increase health care costs should also be banned. Not really a big leap in logic.

The same thing can be said about bacon. I guess we need to ban it.

WHOA....relax!!! Someone needs to make this thread disappear before anyone gets any ideas.

 

[Christo]

I think we should ban skydiving, scuba diving, mountain biking, motorcycles and skiing. Those are dangerous activities that could lead to more claims, and cause my rates to increase. Now that health care is being subsidized by the feds, we should start passing laws like crazy to stop these maniacs from hurting themselves on our nickel!

If you can tie that comment to the issue we're discussing I will be very surprised.

Seriously? Smoking is bad for you, causes increased health care costs, so it should be banned. Why not then say that anything else that might be bad for you might increase health care costs should also be banned. Not really a big leap in logic.

Who's banning smoking?

A large hospital in the people's republic of Maryland. At least for their employees.

That is categorically false.

Want to go ahead and explain it to me so we don't have to keep quoting this back and forth. Are you just gonna make some argument over semantics, or do you really think this thread has nothing to do with how people are suggesting we treat certain individuals who indulge in unhealthy behavior and using health care costs as justification for discouraging that behavior?

This has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with your reading comprehension. The hospital is not banning anyone from smoking. The hospital also didn't say it was doing it because of insurance costs.

Did you miss the rest of the thread when it turned into a discussion about McDonald's and fatness and all that? Making comparisons between obesity and smoking? That's when I chimed in about institutions trying to alter people's behavior for their own, and everyone else's own good.

Yet no one suggested banning smoking anywhere.

 

[jon_mx]

I suggest we ban all smoking.

 

[KarmaPolice]

I suggest we ban all smoking.

I KNOW you are not talking about my weed.

 

[Snoopy]

MD is one of 21 stares that does not have smoker protection laws which an employee is protected from firing for legal activies done outside working hours and off the premises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoker_Protection_Law

 

[lod01]

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

Yes they should. Fatties are really expensive and they are gross as well.

 

[lod01]

I suggest we ban all smoking.

I KNOW you are not talking about my weed.

Weed is good for you so no, he's talking about tobacco.

 

[Christo]

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

Yes they should. Fatties are really expensive and they are gross as well.

I've met a few who aren't.

 

[chauncey]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

 

[Christo]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

 

[MaxThreshold]

First they came for the Smokers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Smoker.

Then they came for the Drinkers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Drinker.

Then they came for the Obese, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not Obese.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

We all do something someone else would love to force us to quit doing. Just remember that when you cheer them on.

I don't typically agree with NC on a lot of stuff, but I agree with this. What NC says here can't be underscored enough.

 

[greenroom]

I thought the idea was to higher the best candidate for the job. So you are shrinking your work pool for something that is legal and is a personal choice. Is smoking cigars on the golf course also going to prevent Drs from the job?

 

[Judge Smails]

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?

surprised there isn't more of this.

any business should want there employees to embody what the business is about. I don't want an out of shape, chain smoking doctor any more than I would want somebody like that in other businesses of health- be it personal trainer to working at gnc. I am surprised that so many hospitals are tolerant of it, but I would guess that a bit of that is a lot of time we don't have a choice on doctors we go to.

it's actually happening more and more. Several hospitals/health systems won't hire smokers.

 

[Christo]

First they came for the Smokers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Smoker.

Then they came for the Drinkers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Drinker.

Then they came for the Obese, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not Obese.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

We all do something someone else would love to force us to quit doing. Just remember that when you cheer them on.

I don't typically agree with NC on a lot of stuff, but I agree with this. What NC says here can't be underscored enough.

No one is coming for anyone. We're talking about private entities. An employer should get to choose who it wants to employ just as employees should get to choose who they want as an employer.

 

[Christo]

I thought the idea was to higher the best candidate for the job. So you are shrinking your work pool for something that is legal and is a personal choice. Is smoking cigars on the golf course also going to prevent Drs from the job?

That is their choice.

 

[Freelove]

First they came for the Smokers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Smoker.

Then they came for the Drinkers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Drinker.

Then they came for the Obese, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not Obese.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

We all do something someone else would love to force us to quit doing. Just remember that when you cheer them on.

I don't typically agree with NC on a lot of stuff, but I agree with this. What NC says here can't be underscored enough.

No one is coming for anyone. We're talking about private entities.

Private entities are no one?

I think it's reasonable to argue that private entities have a right to go after who they like in these sorts of matters, but I'm not at all sure that justification means that it isn't really happening.

 

[FUBAR]

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.

Another truth is smokers take more breaks during work than non smokers. Lost productivity.

 

[FUBAR]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yep

Discrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

 

[FUBAR]

First they came for the Smokers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Smoker.

Then they came for the Drinkers, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not a Drinker.

Then they came for the Obese, and I did not speak out--

Because I was not Obese.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.



We all do something someone else would love to force us to quit doing. Just remember that when you cheer them on.

Way to abuse a quote.

Personally I have no problem with people smoking and will defend their right to do so, as long as it doesn't impact others rights to clean air.

But, I also support a business decision made by a private company when it's made for objective reasons. If, in their analysis, smokers cost the business more than the benefit the business, that's a business decision. They aren't firing anyone either.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I get the increased premiums that smokers and obese are charged for many medical plans. Not hiring based on a legal lifestyle choice just seems like discrimination though. Imagine if someone was not hired because of their religion or sexual orientation.

As I was skimming a magazine at lunch I came across an interview with the #1 at American Cancer Society. He says currently tobacco accounts for ~33% of all cancers and obesity accounts for ~25%. By year 201? (16,18 I don't recall) obesity will be the #1 cause of cancers, something to do with inflammation.

It is discrimination. But there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

Yep

Discrimination gets a bad reputation because people automatically associate the term with racism or sexism. Truth is we all discriminate every day, usually for decent reasons.

to both you and Christo. Charging smokers higher insurance premiums absolutely is discrimination. And it's entirely justified. This is exactly analogous to how my auto insurance doubled when my 15 year old son got his license (South Dakota -- you can get a DL at 14 here).

We've attached a stigma to the word "discrimination" that needs to be removed. There's justified discrimination (upping auto insurance premia for teenage boys) and unjustified discrimination (refusing to hire a black guy because he's black). We should worry about the latter and not the former.