Employer Control over Smoking?

[Star30]

I see both sides, so convince me.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

I vote no.

 

But if they were to pay the employee for the non-work hours I'd probably go the other way and vote maybe.

 

I believe my time is mine their time is their's...their time begins when I punch in and ends when I punch out at which my time begins and is mine to do with what I wish.

 

Incedently if they want non-smokers they should hire non-smokers. But again no employer should claim control over any portion of an employees life off the clock.

[InfiniteNow]

I think it depends completely on the type of work, the contract the employee signed when hired, and how much the employer contributes to the employees health care. If they pay the lion's share, then they have a greater right to require the employee not engage in a behavior known to cause sickness and increase medical costs.

 

Basically, it's not going to be very common, however, I can envision situations where it might not only be okay, but required.

[REASON]

I think it depends completely on the type of work, the contract the employee signed when hired, and how much the employer contributes to the employees health care. If they pay the lion's share, then they have a greater right to require the employee not engage in a behavior known to cause sickness and increase medical costs.

 

Boy, but where do you draw the line there? What other types of personal behaviors that are currently legal would an employer deem adverse to the potential health care costs for their employees?

 

Say goodbye to Micky D's. :doh:

 

What methods would be acceptable that an employer could legally use to confirm that you are obeying the company rules during your personal time? Maybe they will need to investigate whether an employee is engaging in unsafe sexual practices that could lead to STD's.

 

I don't know, it sounds like a potentially serious invasion of my civil liberties if you ask me. I voted no.

[InfiniteNow]

As I mentioned recently in another thread pertaining to smoking, I used to work at the American Cancer Society, where it was against company policy to smoke... anywhere... anytime. They know that smoking increases your risk of getting any form of cancer by 4 times, and your risk of lung cancer 12 times, so they... on the date of hire... mandate that you sign a form stating you do not, and will not, smoke during your employment with them (or, at least they did when I was offered a position with them several years ago).

 

It wasn't some crazy "we want to rule your life and take away your personal freedoms" issue. It was... If you want to work with us on this project, you cannot be a smoker as it's counter to our purpose and our mission.

 

 

Employers often perform drug tests on their employees. This suggests that they don't want their employees doing illicit drugs in their non-work hours, and the employers are allowed to because of how that drug usage impacts the employees work related behaviors and attendance. Smoking follows this precendent, as those who smoke are more likely to call in sick and decrease productivity while simultaneously increasing health care costs.

 

With the example of my work at ACS... that was just specific to the project and their mission. However, I've also shared some additional support for my choice of "maybe" in the thread. :doh:

[REASON]

I will acknowledge that those are valid points. I think the key is that it was an up-front agreement at the time you were offered the job, and the stipulations were specific. Of course I had to pass a drug screening when I took my current job. But they were screening for illegal drug use and that's understandable. I've worked there for nearly 14 years and it's never come up again.

 

To be honest my first instinct was to consider it legitimate if applied to new employees, but than I didn't think it would be fair that existing employees were not held to the same standard. On the other hand, forcing existing employees to alter previously acceptable personal behavior conducted on personal time or face termination doesn't seem all that fair or beneficial to the company either, particularly if they have been long standing, dedicated and productive employees. (Then of course there was the thought of the company gone mad, conducting clandestine operations with the support of my increasingly dictatorial, Orwellian government, investigating my personal life and tracking my every move. :doh:)

 

It seems there are risks to weigh either way. I would suggest there are other ways to motivate workers to abandon unhealthy behaviors that could be in the form of incentives as opposed to threatening their job security. Maybe bonuses or opportunities for better merit pay increases for employees, that can be demonstrated through regular health assessments. Something that would demonstrate a willingness of the company to reimburse at least a portion of the savings that can be generated by employees that conduct a healthy lifestyle. Something mutually beneficial. I would probably be less resistant to those types of plans.

[Star30]

I think it depends completely on the type of work .... If they pay the lion's share, then they have a greater right to require the employee not engage in a behavior known to cause sickness and increase medical costs.

SO WHAT TYPE OF WORK DO YOU THINK QUALIFIES?

 

Maybe it's comparing apples to oranges, but... Did you know health insurance rates are higher for a woman of child bearing age because she just might have a baby which would cost them more money?

 

So what if the company didn't want to pay for that, should they say you can't have a baby because I am paying for your health insurance?

 

I think the biggest concern where government and corporation control goes is, if you give them an inch they take a mile.

 

I promote being smoke free because it is better in the long run. I don't promote taking away our personal rights.

[Zythryn]

I don't think an employer should dictate off duty behavior.

However, I also don't think an employer should pay for the added cost of health insurance due to self destructive behavior such as smoking.

I also agree that what ever their policy is, they should be very up front with it when signing your employment contract.

[CraigD]

Did you know health insurance rates are higher for a woman of child bearing age because she just might have a baby which would cost them more money?

Do you have source for this claim, Star? :)

 

I’ve a background in healthcare and insurance actuarial work, and am currently involved in developing computer software for age and gender based health insurance premium billing. I don’t recall having encountered such a rating system, and know that this is not the case with my current customer, for whom rates for women are lower, and increase with age, without any “child-bearing year surcharge”. This is not to say your claim isn’t true of some insurers in some jurisdictions, but it isn’t supported by my experience with a fairly small number of insurers in 8 US states and districts.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Maybe it's comparing apples to oranges, but... Did you know health insurance rates are higher for a woman of child bearing age because she just might have a baby which would cost them more money?

Personally I believe that women with the intention of bearing children should have to pay more as should their husbands if they have insurance coverage that covers their wife. Why should others have to pay more to cover the expense? Pregnancy coverage should be an additional expense to be purchased by those intending to have children and those that wish to have a sex life without worrying about the financial end of a child resulting from it.

 

As for smoking related medical expenses Uncle Sam should be setting aside the BILLIONS he's reaping (and reaped) from the sale of tobacco to cover them not spending it on whatever he blows it on.

[Buffy]

Pregnancy coverage should be an additional expense to be purchased by those intending to have children and those that wish to have a sex life without worrying about the financial end of a child resulting from it.

So just lower rates for gays, Nuns and pedophile Priests, right? :)

 

Not being able to get any shouldn't be an excuse: as Fishteacher73 once advised around here: "go ugly early...."

 

How pregnant sometimes his replies are! A happiness that often madness hits on, which reason and sanity could not so prosperously be delivered of, :D

Buffy

[Not half- but whole!]

I vote maybe. Just as the instance with ACS, smoking is particularly contrary to their mission. Just as in some jobs there are specific requirements that apply 24-7 and not just "on the clock". I doubt you would last long as a parish priest if you worked with an atheist non-profit on the side. Many jobs have "ethical" codes for salaried employees that apply all the time. Smoking in MOST cases falls outside of this realm, but I can see some very specific cases where an "employment contract" outlines what behaviors one could or could not engage in, whether legal or not. I doubt Phillip Morris likes its employees working to hard on non-smoking campaigns.

 

Outside of a pre-employment contract, I see very little rights of a company to mandate what an employee does outside of working times unless it directly contradicts the employee's job or is illegal.

[HydrogenBond]

I believe an employer has the right to regulate the behavior of the employees at work since this time belongs to the employer and the employee is being compensated for their time. But on the other hand, if the employer is able to control their employees time outside of work, then they should compensate the employees for that time. If you look at this logically, by not allowing smoking at anytime, including personal time, the employer gets a cost savings on their insurance by making money off slave labor. This is sort of the businessman utopia.

 

This goal is a one way street. An employee is not allowed to use company time for their own personal best interest. Maybe the trade-off can be the employer can the control personal time of the smoker, if these employees are allowed to do their personal business at work. The employer would owe them 16 hours per day. They could show up with a friend and use the company time 8X2 to do whatever they want, as long as their abide by the no smoking rule during their personal time. If they cheat, they may only be paid for 12 hours extra per day.

[C1ay]

I don't believe this is a one-size-fits-all issue. There are cases where it would be appropriate and others where it would not.

 

In instances of jobs where top physical requirements are not just desirable but necessary it would be fair for the employer to limit employees to those capable of maintaining the required fitness. Such jobs would include policemen, firemen, athletes, runners for courier services, etc.. If smoking is detrimental to this need then the employer should be allowed to maintain a smoke free staff.

 

In jobs where off duty smoking is not an obstacle to production the employer would be overstepping their bounds to control off the clock smoking but it should be fair for the employer to pass on any insurance surcharges that result from lifestyle "choices" made by the employee. It is not reasonable to expect an employer to simply absorb higher premiums for some employees vs others. It's not fair for the employer or peers to have to pay more for their own insurance simply because one or more choose to be smokers. Smoking is a choice and no one but the smoker should bear any burden because of it.

 

As for insurance surcharges, it should be fair for insurance companies to make such charges where an unhealthy or risky lifestyle is "chosen" by an insured, like smoking or skydiving. It is not necessarily appropriate for an insurance company to charge surcharges for things the insured has no choice in, like being a woman during her child bearing years, and I'm not aware that any of this type of categorization actually occurs in the insurance industry. I think most will find that the insurance industry is meticulous at applying statistics to assess their risks and setting their premium policies accordingly.

[Tolouse]

i selected no, unless the employer is going to pay me 24/7

 

of course, i've been active duty Navy for the last 8 1/2 years and a smoker since i was 12

 

but i have a really strong immune system and i never had to call out sick, ever

 

i don't have a single sick day in my whole 8 1/2 years

 

 

so, i would take whatever insurance they give but i doubt i will need any more than that

 

and yeah, whatever i do on my time is my busines

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

So just lower rates for gays, Nuns and pedophile Priests, right? :(

 

Buffy

And women that aren't planning on getting knocked-up just yet. To expect me to pay for your pregnancy related expences is no more just than for me to expect you to pay for me to get nose reduction surgery...people don't HAVE to have babies it's a want or an oops (which is technically still a want) thing. You won't die if you don't reproduce...and you won't die if you abstain or at least use adeqate birth control...a really groovy thing is that you can really stack the odds in your favor by using more than one type of birth control! (Ex. a condom + spermicide+ the diaphragm/sponge/patch/pill/shot/etc.)

 

Incedently not one kid of my own and no intention of ever

makin any...raising and dealing with O.P.K.s has cured me of any desire whatsoever.

 

Not being able to get any shouldn't be an excuse: as Fishteacher73 once advised around here: "go ugly early...."

????????????????????????????????????????:shrug:

[Buffy]

...people don't HAVE to have babies it's a want or an oops (which is technically still a want) thing.

<Buffy bites tongue/>

 

You won't die if you don't reproduce...and you won't die if you abstain or at least use adeqate birth control...a really groovy thing is that you can really stack the odds in your favor by using more than one type of birth control! (Ex. a condom + spermicide+ the diaphragm/sponge/patch/pill/shot/etc.)

 

Incedently not one kid of my own and no intention of ever

makin any...raising and dealing with O.P.K.s has cured me of any desire whatsoever.

Soooooo... you gonna have a vasectomy, or do I still have to be responsible for all that stuff other than the condom (and quite frankly I seem to have to be responsible for that one too sometimes)?

 

And should I have to pay for my birth control pills while the plan seems to pay for your Viagra?

 

????????????????????????????????????????:shrug:

You're "old enough" in Hypo-years to remember Fish! I do miss the guy....

 

Coincidence of Molecules, :(

Buffy