Not hiring smokers?

Mott the Hoople said:
Are you saying to me that the people who pay for the health care costs (employers) shouldn't have a say about extremely destructive habits like smoking when they bear the cost?
Click to expand...


Yes, that's what I'm saying. Of course national health care would be better. But an employer should not be allowed to refuse to hire someone because they MIGHT drive up health care costs later. This time it's smokers; what about someone who is HIV positive? Someone who has cancer? Someone whose kid has leukemia? Someone who eats fatty food?

My husband has DEFINITELY driven up my company's health care costs; should they not have hired me because he has health issues?

I'm all for employers offering incentives to get employees to stop or reduce their smoking. I'm all for banning smoking at the work place.

But to me, it's a terrible intrusion to say: because you work for me 40 hours a week, I get to tell you what to do the rest of the week.
 
Because of all this, I never understood why businesses across the country didn't fight for national health care back before the ACA passed. I would have thought every business - except insurance companies - would have been pushing for it, so they could get out of the business of insuring employees...
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Why not? We expect employers to pay a large part of an employees medical cost. A cost which right now averages in excess of 15% of a companies over head. There is no argument that employees who smoke contribute substantially to that cost for employers and their non smoking co-workers. If Employers are expected to bear that burden of cost for employess health care shouldn't they have the right to exclude persons who are going to contribute substantially to that cost through their behavior and choices that adversely impact their health and and thus diminish that companies bottom line and increase health care costs for their non smoking co-workers?
Click to expand...

Smokers die younger and hence do not need to draw pensions for as long as non-smokers. In fact, in the UK, pension annuities are higher for smokers for that very reason.
 
tekkychick said:
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Of course national health care would be better. But an employer should not be allowed to refuse to hire someone because they MIGHT drive up health care costs later. This time it's smokers; what about someone who is HIV positive? Someone who has cancer? Someone whose kid has leukemia? Someone who eats fatty food?

My husband has DEFINITELY driven up my company's health care costs; should they not have hired me because he has health issues?

I'm all for employers offering incentives to get employees to stop or reduce their smoking. I'm all for banning smoking at the work place.

But to me, it's a terrible intrusion to say: because you work for me 40 hours a week, I get to tell you what to do the rest of the week.
Click to expand...

Holy shit, once you go down that road it would never stop. I am amazed that Mott, who is normally very sensible, would even suggest that.
 
Last edited:
tekkychick said:
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Of course national health care would be better. But an employer should not be allowed to refuse to hire someone because they MIGHT drive up health care costs later. This time it's smokers; what about someone who is HIV positive? Someone who has cancer? Someone whose kid has leukemia? Someone who eats fatty food?

My husband has DEFINITELY driven up my company's health care costs; should they not have hired me because he has health issues?

I'm all for employers offering incentives to get employees to stop or reduce their smoking. I'm all for banning smoking at the work place.

But to me, it's a terrible intrusion to say: because you work for me 40 hours a week, I get to tell you what to do the rest of the week.
Click to expand...
Well there I do have to disagree with you. It's absurd to think that those who pay the bills should have no say in how that money is spent and I think it's grossly disrespectful towards those who are footing the bill. They have every right to have a say as long as they are footing the bill.

If you don't want them to have a say then don't force them to pay. Show some respect!
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's because she's making a false equivalency.
Click to expand...

In what way? You say because businesses pay for their employees' health care (or part of it) they have a right to not hire smokers due to smokers over time having higher health care costs.

So do diabetics. So do people with heart disease. So do people with HIV. So do overweight people. So do older people. So do people whose kids have cancer. So do people whose spouses have health issues. And on and on and on. Not a false equivalency.

If employers are allowed to discriminate based on health care costs, where does it stop?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I disagree. Second hand smoke is a proven public health problem and thus the State has a right to regulate it. You don't have the right to pollute the air I breath with your toxic smoke. Nor should I be forced to breath your toxic smoke.
Click to expand...

Then don't come to my place of business. I didn't abduct you from your home to come drink in my bar.
 
Walrus said:
I'm not even at the legal age in my state to work (18) since I'm much younger than that, but it is a violation of human rights to prohibit smokers from working at your company. It is like not allowing woman or Mexicans to work at your company. I can see where this is going though, I happen to hate the smell of cigarettes too.
Click to expand...

So people should be forced to hire those they do not want?
 
tekkychick said:
Slippery slope... people of child-bearing age are more likely to use insurance to have kids; older people more likely to have heart attacks or cancer; heavier people may have health issues. There are smokers who don't use much medical care until after they are retired. A young punk who goes riding motorcycles may use more of that insurance than the smoker will.
Click to expand...

Your argument is also a slippery slope. If businesses are forced to hire smokers, why not force them to hire people unqualified for the job?
 
LORD of the FISHFLYS said:
Your argument is also a slippery slope. If businesses are forced to hire smokers, why not force them to hire people unqualified for the job?
Click to expand...

Silly fly boy. I am saying that businesses when they hire should focus on qualifications for the job. Not unrelated things like gender, race, sexual orientation, health status (unless they are unable to physically perform the job) or what people do in their own time - whether it's jump from planes, smoke, drink, eat steaks, or do drugs.
 
tekkychick said:
Silly fly boy. I am saying that businesses when they hire should focus on qualifications for the job. Not unrelated things like gender, race, sexual orientation, health status (unless they are unable to physically perform the job) or what people do in their own time - whether it's jump from planes, smoke, drink, eat steaks, or do drugs.
Click to expand...

And a business is the sole determiner of what a qualification is, and this instance, they say it's smoking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top