More Smoking News: Quit or Lose Your Job
 

Company demands workers give up smoking to keep jobs


MARYSVILLE, Ohio Quit smoking, or you're fired.

That's what Scotts Miracle-Gro is telling it employees. If they don't quit smoking by October, they'll lose their jobs.

The lawn and garden company is trying to keep health insurance costs down by promoting healthy lifestyles for its employees.

http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4228077

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My first job out of college was with a company that didn't allow its employees to smoke during their "off hours" either for insurance purposes.

I don't smoke, but shoot....betweenstuff like this and the city-wide smoking bans, can you even smoke on earth anymore? :o

This is not the first company to enact this rule.

I'd be interested to know if the company is putting any programs in place to help smokers quit. Quitting isn't easy. Is the company helping employees find quit-smoking resources, or is it just hanging them out to dry?

My company has a program to help you quit smoking in order to help insurance costs.

I forget all the details, but after 6 months of not smoking (they test you to make sure) they will give you like $1000. Then for every consecutive 6 months later you get $500 for the next two years I think.

I find it to be complete bs, I understand that it will help insurance, but I dont find it fair that just bc you smoke they will give you all this extra money. A lot of people just quit for 6 months got paid $1000 then started smoking again. I think I know of only a few who actually have quit since this program other than taking advantage of it.

Ah, The Hypocrosy of it all!:(

Sinners in the Eyes of The Rightous do not stand a chance!


Sins:

Dont Smoke!

Dont Drink Alchohol!

Dont Have Sex!

Hell, what else is there?:eek: :confused:

Don't eat steak and onion blossoms!
Don't beat your children!

-Rudey

Rudey, dont do those two, but do at least two of the three I posted!:D

Maturity SUCKS!:mad:

I think this a dangerous precedent, just as I did when the last company that did this got media coverage about it. The biggest fear would be, Where does it end? It starts with the smokers and before you know it, if you eat more than so many grams of fat or sugar a day, or if you don't participate in the company exercise program, or if you drink on weekends, use real butter, over cook your meat on the grill (nitrates have been shown to cause cancer), engage in high risk sports like sky diving, bungie jumping???? At what point is your employer pushing it too far?

How about this.. insurance won't cover smoking related illnesses. Wouldn't that have the same effect and make people responsible for their own behavior? Or, have the smokers pay more of the share of their insurance? Why fire them?

When the smokers have all quit, the rest better look out, because they will start a witch hunt for a new group then.and everybody else will have to cover the taxes that smokers are currently paying

I hear that at FSU they passed a law that by 2010 no-one can smoke on the campus anymore, period (not just 500 ft. away from buildings, etc). I know a lot of chain-smokin professors that will be pretty darn frustrated if that really happens...

Dangerous precedent? As an employer, I would prefer healthy employees who don't have to call in sick because of the recurring upper respiratory infections that they keep getting due to smoking. I'd prefer not to have to pay their higher healthcare costs, It would annoy me to see them taking 15 minute breaks every 30 minutes, and I don't like the smell.

I think this company has every right to select their employees based on whatever criteria as long as it's not illegal discrimination (and cigarette smokers are not a protected class by any stretch).

Ditto...

Plus at some point the higher healthcare costs that the employer has to pay also trickle down to ALL of the employees as higher premiums.

When we do claims analysis for our clients, the greatest majority of claims are OBESITY RELATED. Not lung cancer, not emphysema - OBESITY and conditions stemming from it like heart disease. And this is in areas where lots of people smoke.

Claims are what make your insurance go up, not 15 minute smoke breaks.

So before you spout off about smokers costing soooo much insurance money, get off your fat ass and get the real facts.

Then I'd suggest employers also don't hire obese employees either.

See? Problem solved.

Okay, Lets talk about Tobacco!

1st Cash Crop of The Colonies.

The Tobacco Industry has paid more Federal Taxes than any other Industry. @ 20O Billion in Taxes a Year to The Federal Govt. only This does not include State Taxes.


There was an agreement between the Tobacco Industry Forced upon Them for each Company to Pay into a Slush Fund Called the MSN to funnell Money to States to Pay for Smoke Related Illnesses. That money went to General State Funds used on everything but what it was intended for.
:(

So, if these Billions of Tax Money are Erased, Where does the money come from?

It may not be the best Product as some say, it is legal at the moment. How many other Products will have to soon follow suit? Second major Product was Alchohol which is also taxed Sky High.

Where do we go with Gas Guzzleing Autos, Power Plants on Coal or switching to Natural Gas Turbines which both, Natural Gas, and Oil are going up.:confused:

If I had the Answer, I damn sure wouldnt want to be The Head of State. :rolleyes:


Oh, Hey, Lets sue Fast Food Resturants, they make people fat!

Even the Fed. Regulations cannot decide on S**T.

Dont eat Itialian, Chinese, Eggs, Salt, Cheese, Red Meat, Seafood, ETC.

Oops We need that in our diet. It is Okay.

Oops lets get to Drug Companies who the Govt said Those Products were Okay!

How many Law Suits are going on now and who will go out of business?

Oh on and on!

Natural foods in Health Food Centers can no longer say they can cure certain illnesses as the FDA says You cannot do that, it is not prescribed by an approved method, so approves that? The FDA.:mad:

Sorry, but when everyone beleives the Press Of The Govt and follows the dogam it gets tiresome and then see that OOPS, Oh We were wrong.

Venting cause I get tired of Being Screwed By My Protectors and the followers! My So Duly Elected and appointed by same Govt!

Yes. I would like you to try saying to someone "we won't hire you because you eat pork rinds for breakfast and never exercise and require a troop of Boy Scouts to roll you from side to side."

Your company would be boycotted so fast - by EVERYONE, not just obese people - your head would spin.

Don't you make the same money if prices are raised? The taxes are passed onto the consumer.

-Rudey

I don't know if that would happen. Why would you get in trouble for encouraging your employees to live a healthy lifestyle?

The obese are discriminated against all the time. What.. you don't think appearance is a major factor in many hiring decisions?

Ah, Rudey, no it is not the same, it is called % of of Net. Sure, one can raise the price but doesnt that mean that one has to be comepetive with those in the Immediate area?

The % of Profit lowers because of the cost.:(


33girl, do not mess with My Pork Skins! :mad:

Plain, use Hot Sauce.:)

Also Get BBQ and Hot when I can get them!!!!!

Not Dietetic are they?:(

Hell anything Good is not good for You!:eek:

Soilent Green!

I Dont Eat Happy Bugers, Fries, cant afford them!:(

Unfortuneatly Brains dont come into play anymore!:(

Of course the obese are discriminated against. And if they can prove prejudice it's often taken to court. You think it hasn't happened?

Saying that heart disease is obesity-related, but not smoking-related, is insane.

While cigarettes are also a short-term appetite suppressant, smoking has also been shown to contribute to other things (high blood pressure, COPD, etc) that have elements related to obesity. Many also gain weight upon onset of these elements of poor health.

-RC
--It's all related, is what I'm saying, and only one is able to be remedied through company policy

There's also quite a few of smokers who are obese, and a lot of times it is hard to separate which causes what disease, most of the time they compound and both contribute.

Also, cigarettes are ALWAYS something that someone chooses to do. Obesity MAY sometimes be caused by medical conditions. So discriminating against someone for something they CHOSE to do is a lot different than discriminating against someone for something they don't have control over (*disclaimer, i'm saying SOME, not all or most, obesity is due to disease, so let's not start that debate)

As to cigs, Rudey's right, the taxes aren't coming out of the storeowner's pocket. Of course, as a storeowner, someone like Tom would be against anything that limits smokers. Cigarettes are a cashcow. It's not a frivolous thing, it's something that smokers "need" every day and no matter how high the prices, many keep smoking. Storeowners are happy to exploit that addiction as it makes their pockets fat.

Also, alcohol doesn't kill people, unless it is abused. All of those studies that say a glass of red wine is good for you. There's nothing out there to show that a cigarette a day is good for you in any way, shape or form. The same with fatty foods- in small quantities, they won't hurt you. When you eat like 15 McDonalds quarterpounders a week with a large fry, yeah, that's gonna hurt. Again, cigarettes in small quantities still cause damage.

I feel for smokers, because I know they have an addiction, but at the same time, there are so many ways to quit- products, support groups, etc. etc. So I'm really not bothered by this regulation very much. Some of my coworkers are heavy smokers... I think they're awesome people, but I can't stand to be around them sometimes because of the smell. An air filtering system had to be purchased for one of our (nonsmoking) employees who has severe allergies. And, as others have noted, the frequent smoke breaks take away from productivity, and non-smokers (in most workplaces) don't get the same type of break.

They would have probably lost. There is some precedent where the fact that an individual is fat relates to some health condition that they don't control, but if you simply choose to eat a 12-piece KFC for dinner every night, you deserve what you get.

There is a list of legal precedent showing pretty split authority on the issue (from the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance):

http://www.naafa.org/info/legal/court.html

Anytime an employer discloses the reason he/she does not hire someone, they are asking for a lawsuit.. In some of these cases, they won, in some they lost. The company is stupid for saying anything in the first place though.

If an employee is using more than their allotted sick days and haven't filed FMLA papers, then you fire them. I can't remember the last time I had an upper respiratory infection. If employees take more than their allotted breaks (including their GC time at work), you fire them. If you can't afford their healthcare costs, you make them pay more of them. You lump all smokers into one category.

The precedent is that what you do in your free time, away from work, if it doesn't affect your work, should not be your employer's business and it's dangerous to allow them to dictate that. It started with random drug testing. Now it's moving to cigarettes. At least the drugs they test for are illegal. Smoking isn't.

My brother is a thin, non-smoker who exercises daily. He is also on medication for high blood pressure and high cholesterol and was rejected by the Air Force because of his blood pressure. He has the healthiest lifestyle of anybody I know but genetics gave him these issues. It would be a scary world if he couldn't get a job because of this. Where and how do you draw the line?

I think they should end the ban on drugs. People can take cocaine breaks, drop acid in the mail room, smoke ganja on their breaks and shoot up some heroin during the group bonding exercises.

-Rudey

From reading those cases on that fat peoples' advocacy group, the courts seem to draw the line at conditions caused by the individual's own actions and conditions caused by injuries, illnesses, etc.

So if I'm fat because my favorite midnight snack is two big mac supersize combos, I might be rightfully discriminated against. If I choose to continue smoking, again, I might be rightly discriminated against. If I'm overweight due to diabetes, some sort of glandular condition, etc. not my fault, and I think the ADA might even protect me.

The ADA doesn't cover the Air Force, but if a private employer discriminates against him due to his high blood pressure, he may have a good lawsuit.

Just more of big brother trying to tell me what I can do with my own body.

I wonder how the pro-choice people feel about this. It's the same thing. The gov't telling you what you can do on your own time.

It's funny that all these liberal ass cities and universities are placing a ban on cigs and yet pretty much turn a blind eye to people smoking weed. I don't get how all the hippies against big tabacco companies are against cigs...while they are smoking a blunt in the bathroom during lunch.

Is Tobacco a Cash Cow? Yes it is to Our Federal, State and Local Govts.

Yes it is.!!!!!

Now, who will pay all of the taxes from a leagal Product when I and Thousands of others are out of work and Business.:rolleyes: Who will pay for them sitting idle!

Guess Who Missy? You!:rolleyes:

If You personally dont want to smoke, then dont! If You do not want to go somewhere People do, dont.

Do not take the high and mighty road and tromp on My Freedoms of what I wish to do.

Are You or anyone going to pay My way when I am out of business and have not work, or pay My people who work for Me and the Hundreds of Wholesalers, Manufacturers, Truck Drivers, ETC!

Coramoor, You are so right On!

How many more Rights am I/we I going to lose?:(

I would get a Lawyer over The Fact that I now have to buy from a Wholesaler with Higher Prices because an Appellate Judge Couldnt make a Decision and it may now go to The Supremee Court. It is thier decision to hear it, but who are they? Black Robed Lawyers!:mad:

Yes, the company is providing smoking cessation resources to those employees who need them. Scotts also opened a new health and fitness center for employees in Marysville earlier this month.

More info was in the full article in the Columbus Dispatch:
http://shop.dispatch.com/newsarchive...937:7:2&md=dir

(registration required, but no charge to read the article)

I found this on the CDC web site while looking for something else and thought of this thread. I'd suggest reading the whole article, it's pretty interesting. Perhaps they'll end up banning people who exercise eventually too...

More than 10,000 people receive treatment in the nation’s emergency departments (ED) each day for injuries sustained in SRE activities. At least one of every five ED visits for an injury results from participation in sports or recreation. In 1999, Americans made an estimated 1.5 million ED visits for injuries sustained while playing basketball, baseball, softball, football, or soccer. Approximately 715,000 sports and recreation injuries occur each year in school settings alone.


For example, in the U.S., anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) knee injuries are usually sports related, and the vast majority occur in active, healthy 15- to 24-year-olds. ACL rupture can be debilitating in the short term, preventing continued physical activity. The cost of ACL reconstruction alone, not including initial evaluation or rehabilitation, is just under $1 billion per year in the U.S.


the link

What does that have to do with smoking? Answer: nothing.

Exercise has enormous health benefits. Smoking does not have ANY. Exercise does not hurt anyone else, smoking does. Exercise is not guaranteed to hurt you, smoking is. Exercise does not cause cancer. Smoking does.

Any injury from exercise is not going to kill you (with the exception for the odd freak accident). Injuries/illnesses from smoking have a very high chance of killing you.

The topic was health insurance costs and productivity at work as being justification for an employer dictating what you are allowed to do in your home. There are numerous behaviors that people engage in that are dangerous which affect their use of health insurance and productivity time at work. I just happened upon statistics for something that seems like a very healthy thing to do, but actually does affect your health costs and your work productivity.

See, the point is, it's ok for them to dictate for smoking, because only 20% of the population smokes. But when they extend it to your eating habits (not obesity, but what you eat, because that's really what affects heart disease/high cholesterol/high blood pressure), whether you have unprotected sex (cuz you could get an STD that would cost money/time off work), whether you engage in extreme sports (because it puts you at risk). There is no difference between smoking in your home and these other things.

None of it should be grounds for being fired.

But again, smoking doesn't increase productivity or lower insurance costs. While injuries may result from exercising, the overall health benefits are greater. If this were not the case, insurance agencies would constantly ask people to stop exercising like they do for smokers.

-Rudey

No, I don't see the point because you are comparing two totally different, unrelated and uncomparable things.

There is plenty of difference between these things and smoking in your own home. Again, as I stated, none of those things will harm you in small or moderate quantities, and how much any of those things will harm you . Smoking, in ANY amount, is harmful and has absolutely ZERO benefits. As I said in my last post, where you failed to address any of my points.

You could get a paper cut on your hand, it could get infected, get gangrene, the infection could spread, and kill you. Does this mean that people shouldn't be able to use paper? No, because the chance of this happening to someone is probably about 1 in a billion.

Bottom line is that insurance is all about odds. And the odds of smoking causing physical harm to someone are much much higher than almost anything else.

There's a big difference between having a cigarette after a meal and smoking 2 packs a day. Not to mention having a cigarette when drinking as LOTS AND LOTS of people do - even though they never smoke any other time.

They say they haven't decided yet how to enforce it - but I'm guessing it'll be random testing as with drugs. If that's the case, then someone who had a puff or two when they were drinking could get fired. I'm sorry but that is ridiculous for a legal substance.

And Rudey - Dee didn't say exercise - she said EXTREME SPORTS. Skydiving not step aerobics.

She did say banning exercise in her next-to-last post.

I can see the issue with the one a day versus 2 packs a day. But again, a cigarette or two a day, or a pack a week, still have an effect on a person's health.

And don't many insurance policies exclude coverage for very risky things such as skydiving? I distinctly remember talking about that in my insurance law class.

A cig a day is NOT the same as two packs a day, and to fire someone because they had one cigarette over the weekend is asinine.

And Dee has a point with the no exercising. If you're doing it incorrectly, you can really screw things up.

Do insurance agencies ask if you exercise when you join? Do they provide stop exercising programs? She has no point.

http://www.worldhealth.net/p/a-cigar...005-10-03.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...2/ai_n15624116
One to four cigarettes a day triples a smoker's risk of dying from heart disease and lung cancer, with women more likely to be affected by the habit.

The study also quashes the notion that 'light' smokers escape the serious health problems faced by heavier smokers.

-Rudey

No, she has no point.

Here are two quick reasons: time frame and cost.

Common injury while exercising:

-Torn ACL: depending on severity, the subject may be able to walk and function, without much support in the knee etc. The remedy is surgery and physical therapy, neither of which are particularly invasive to the work day - generally, the subject's ability to work any jobs not requiring motion or lifting is unaffected or only moderately altered. Subject can still be shifted to desk jobs, less strenuous tasks or etc.

Common injury while smoking:

-Heart disease: the number-one killer of Americans, and inextricably linked to cigarette smoking as a key factor. Requires hospitalization, and often changes work abilities in a severe fashion. Shortens productive lifespan. Surgical procedures often required.

---

Now, I don't have current insurance cost figures, but I would guarantee the second is more burdensome. Also, it's more common!

We can go on and on and cite statistics on both sides till the cows come home.

The main argument is whether you believe your employer has the right to tell you what to do when you are not in the workplace. I personally do not - whether that's drinking, smoking, bungee jumping, smoking pot, sleeping with a whole football team, whatever. Unless you have a job where you can be called to work unexpectedly it's none of their damn business what you do in your off time.

Employers don't HAVE to offer insurance. If they do, they can alter it in all sorts of ways - they don't have to cover birth control if they don't want to, for example. If it can be found that an illness is related to smoking, they can choose not to cover it. But then that sets up a situation where the employer is constantly trying to get out of claims that they SHOULD be paying.

Umm, some people still do manual labor jobs where they DO have to lift all day. I'm betting Scott's Miracle Gro has more than a few guys who sling 50 pound bags around on a regular basis - and they're not the guys you can automatically shift to a desk job.