Agreed, the bottom-line is the bottom-line. Off the top of my head I'd guess that tobacco and diet/physical inactivity (entirely personal factors) are leading causes of high health care costs.

>I support a company's right to reduce costs by cutting or
>not hiring folks who voluntarily significantly increase their
> personal health risks and accordingly the company's
>bottom line.

As do I.


But what's "significantly"?

I suppose you support a company who decides not to hire people who rock climb or people who hang glide. Or maybe people who commute to work on their bikes. Like someone else said, check out any tri or running forum, and it's filled with people getting MRIs and X-Rays and seeing surgeons and chiropractors all the time.

There's a cost cutter right there.

Not directed at rb5980 in particular but wondered if it would be OK to not hire or fire someone based on a drug habit? Following that logic another step isn't nicotine a drug and very addicting? Shouldn't an emplyer have that right to terminate someone or not even bother hiring them? The reason I am against government intervention is it is not your job or my job. It is the employers job. He is the one taking the financial risks by starting and continuing running his business. You or I may have a certain skill set desired by the employer and is it not their discretion whether they hire me? If I am the greatest employee in the company making him a lot of $$ but fires me then that is his problem to deal with if the company does not continue to be successful. When people say "my job" they really mean my employers job.

There's abig difference bwteen a drug habit and nicotine in that drug habit generally refers to illegal drugs. I'll fire anyone I want for doing something illegal.

Don't get me wrong, I think smoking should be illegal too, and at the least, I shouldn't have to see, smell or breathe it.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Why not? Do triathletes/rock climbers/smokers have a "right" to certain jobs?

---

_______________________________________________

Why not? Do triathletes/rock climbers/smokers have a "right" to certain jobs?

Interesting point of view.

Let's take this question to its logical extreme. Suppose this sort of policy becomes the norm among employers. Then the question isn't whether or not X class of people has a right to certain jobs, but whether anyone has the right to spend their free time as they see fit.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't have the legal right to smoke pot all day.

If this policy becomes the norm, then employers are going to have to weigh what benefit they get vs. the cost of excluding a priori certain kinds of people.

---

_______________________________________________

Related Story...

Fired for smoking? Michigan health care company has strict
anti-tobacco policy The Associated Press Updated: 12:18 p.m. ET Jan. 26, 2005

LANSING, Mich. - Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

advertisement
Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.

Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. “I don’t want to pay for the results of smoking,” he said.

Related story

San Francisco bans smoking in public places

The rule led one employee to quit before the policy was adopted. Four others were fired when they balked at the smoking test.

Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes estimated that 18 to 20 of the company’s 200 employers were smokers when the policy was announced in 2003. Of those, as many as 14 quit smoking before the policy went into effect. The company offered them help to kick the habit.

“That is absolutely a victory,” Climes said.

That's the point I've been trying to make.

As someone working on becoming a business owner, I'm all in favor of my right to choose whom I hire.

But as a citizen, one of my highest values is my right to privacy.

“why not go after alcohol? Or how about, let's start with people that are all 3: smokers, drinkers, and overweight?”



You’re still not thinking big enough. How about not hire/fire gays as they are at a higher risk of HIV/AIDS. You know how much those drug cocktails cost for treatment? What about people with lots of points on their drivers licenses for speeding or poor driving practices? They’re just itching for a prolonged hospital stay after an accident. For that matter, let’s not even think about motorcyclists. There probably already is discrimination for conditions like MS. I’m also pretty sure you won’t get hired if you have an existing cancer condition.

As much as I hate smoking, I think the not hiring let alone firing of smokers is a bad omen for the work place. Just where exactly will it stop? If this passes without a fuss, it will spread well beyond just smoking.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

You’re still not thinking big enough.

Neither are you, I'm afraid. We need to do what the Marines tried a few years back and refuse to let employees marry. Marriage, I bet, roughly doubles a companies health care cost in an instant. And geez, don't even get me started about having kids- the childbirth costs alone are through the roof, and that's not even taking into account all the miserable little childhood illnesses they get, vaccines they have to be given, dental work they require, etc etc etc.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I'd agree with that. If a company didnt want to hire triathletes, well fine. But I'd be pretty pissed if they had guys snooping around on me to see if I was doing brick workouts on the weekend...

---

_______________________________________________

Ok, so what's next - fire a guy for wearing briefs instead of boxers or vice versa? I've also read recently of employers firing people because they are too fat.

IMO, I don't care if somebody smokes as long as it's not in my face. So that means they can't smoke in the work place, but they can step outside at break and have a smoke if they wish. I don't give a damn if a co-worker smokes, drinks too much, is 300 lbs overweight, is same sex orientated, gets beaten by a dominatrix every pay day, or wears a bunny suit around the house. Who cares, just as long as they are competent in their job and do this off work stuff on their own time.

I think a better solution would be to have a two tiered health payment plan. If you're not a smoker, are not overweight and engage in regular physical activity, then your premiums should be less based upon laws of averages. Just because you're living a healthy lifestyle may not make you a better worker or asset to the company. It will however, statistically lower your health costs.

I believe that's illegal here, although I dont know it it's federal or state law.

---

_______________________________________________