Employee gets fired for smoking.....at home!

[Guest JMT]

commonplace at halfway houses perhaps. i have never heard of any company testing and/or terminating an employee for alcohol' date=' outside of someone actually being drunk while on the job. however, my company does not insure me, i pay for my own insurance. that isnt the case with the guy in the article. not to mention the fact that regular smokers are prone to taking countless breaks throughout the day.

[/quote']It's being tested at companies like "SunTrust", which sometimes is a halfway house....but that's for another thread. Now, I've never heard of anyone being fired for testing positive for alcohol, but if you asked me a year ago I would've said the same about smoking cigarettes. So just because you've never heard of it yet, doesn't mean some "do-gooder nanny" isn't going to try to impose their will on the rest of us after firing people for smoking has become the norm. MARK MY WORDS....companies will start testing/hiring/firing based on alcohol tests that reveal you drank on your own time. I'll be around to post it too....

this issue is not smoking, the issue is the cost of insurance. if you lie to your insurance carrier about your smoking they can deny coverage. thats impossible to prove for alcohol unless your insurance company makes you piss in a cup every day, as opposed to once every physical for smoking. thus, im not buying the slippery slope argument. again, the guy knew the company rules in advance and he didnt follow them.

[Guest slamminshaun]

commonplace at halfway houses perhaps. i have never heard of any company testing and/or terminating an employee for alcohol, outside of someone actually being drunk while on the job. however, my company does not insure me, i pay for my own insurance. that isnt the case with the guy in the article. not to mention the fact that regular smokers are prone to taking countless breaks throughout the day.

It's being tested at companies like "SunTrust", which sometimes is a halfway house....but that's for another thread. Now, I've never heard of anyone being fired for testing positive for alcohol, but if you asked me a year ago I would've said the same about smoking cigarettes. So just because you've never heard of it yet, doesn't mean some "do-gooder nanny" isn't going to try to impose their will on the rest of us after firing people for smoking has become the norm. MARK MY WORDS....companies will start testing/hiring/firing based on alcohol tests that reveal you drank on your own time. I'll be around to post it too....

this issue is not smoking, the issue is the cost of insurance. if you lie to your insurance carrier about your smoking they can deny coverage. thats impossible to prove for alcohol unless your insurance company makes you piss in a cup every day, as opposed to once every physical for smoking. thus, im not buying the slippery slope argument. again, the guy knew the company rules in advance and he didnt follow them.

So you're saying you're a schizo-racist?

[Guest trancepriest]

So you're saying you're a schizo-racist?

LOL. ;D Get him SS.

[Guest jamu]

Wow thats sad and so superficial, when you allow yourselves to give up your personal freedoms for money. HAHAHA. Shows the quality of your thinking and your ability to critically find other solutions to our current problems without giving up our rights.

[Guest tekniQz]

I am in EMT school.When i graduate i have to sighn a cotract saying that i cant smoke even at home or i get fired.Some of the older guys do it though because they got grandfatherd in.It is understandable if they gave you your insurance.

[Guest coach]

Wow thats sad and so superficial, when you allow yourselves to give up your personal freedoms for money. HAHAHA. Shows the quality of your thinking and your ability to critically find other solutions to our current problems without giving up our rights.

Actually, you are looking at it backwards. This smoker guy is asking other people to give up their rights, not the other way around. Why should *I* pay for your "right" to smoke?

How about my "right" to own a big fat car, do you want to pay for that? If you want to smoke, that's fine, however, don't expect the rest of us to subsidize your bad habit. THAT infinges on OUR rights.

("You" being generic, in this case, of course. I have no idea if you (specific) actually smoke or not.)

[Guest jamu]

Sad. You guys really don't care about freedoms. Then you rationalize it poorly, and say that it is the smokers fault. Pathetic really. Whats even worse is that instead of finding a middle ground you postulate your self as a victum of the smoker not of corporate insurance companies whose greed grows with every dollar they lose when they are held responsible for their work. People like you guys remind me why Orwell was so very right on everything. Pathetic.

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

Wow thats sad and so superficial, when you allow yourselves to give up your personal freedoms for money. HAHAHA. Shows the quality of your thinking and your ability to critically find other solutions to our current problems without giving up our rights.

Actually, you are looking at it backwards. This smoker guy is asking other people to give up their rights, not the other way around. Why should *I* pay for your "right" to smoke?

How about my "right" to own a big fat car, do you want to pay for that? If you want to smoke, that's fine, however, don't expect the rest of us to subsidize your bad habit. THAT infinges on OUR rights.

("You" being generic, in this case, of course. I have no idea if you (specific) actually smoke or not.)

Exaclty! Why should I pay for you to kill yourself and then pay for you after you die?

[Guest JMT]

Sad. You guys really don't care about freedoms. Then you rationalize it poorly, and say that it is the smokers fault. Pathetic really. Whats even worse is that instead of finding a middle ground you postulate your self as a victum of the smoker not of corporate insurance companies whose greed grows with every dollar they lose when they are held responsible for their work. People like you guys remind me why Orwell was so very right on everything. Pathetic.

how is it freedom when multiple people suffer increased burden due to one person cheating the system? yet again you cant seem to answer that simple question, instead giving vague statements in an attempt to sound philosphical or profound but ending up as neither. the whole goal of the company in this story is the LOWER their risk and premium, thus spend less money. so how exactly are insurance companies responsible for this? did they invent the side effects of cigarettes? are they out giving people cancer? people like you remind me why i went to college.

[Guest jamu]

And I am telling you that insurance companies can set up programs for smokers and non smokers. But because they choose to obligate Americans to think in black and white patterns (profit vs profit loss) Americans are forced to make decisions that limit the rights of others (yes I know all of that is really off the beaten path JMT. Why would that make sense? Instead of baning someone's right.... giving them options. How stupid of me and how non sensical : )

You sound like the type of person that would deny an operation to someone just because they couldn't afford it, and watch them die. Your the type of person that really supports insurance companies, and make it so very difficult to get treatment like mental health treatments because its too expensive, and later that person ends up jumping off a building. Something that could have been prevented. Having worked with insurance companies and mental health agencies, people like you are so sad, and whats worse you think you have the right answer for our insurance problems by just taking away the rights of people, not knowing how insurance works, and tactics used by insurance companies to force their own agenda on the community. Not the communities agenda.

[Guest JMT]

the examples you gave are situations were people dont bring the condition upon themselves. people willingly choose to smoke. therefore they knowingly increase their chance of health problems. in case you havent heard yet, smoking causes cancer. so its apples and oranges, and your attempt at analyzing my character is completely irrelevant.

the company has a policy to not employ smokers for insurance reasons. thats their right. the guy broke the rule, thus i side with the company. perhaps he had the option to waive coverage or perhaps he was a repeat offender, the story doesnt go into enough detail. however, (once again) forcing a group of non-smokers to pay for one person's smoking habit is NOT a right. people should be entitled to pay the premium thats appropriate for THEM. so, i am just left to ponder what hallucinogenic you might be on that makes you see that as unfair.

[Guest slamminshaun]

perhaps he had the option to waive coverage or perhaps he was a repeat offender, the story doesnt go into enough detail.

If he was given the chance to waive coverage, etc than I side with the company. I dont' think everyone should pay for his share of the insurance....but it should not be a policy to employ/not employ someone because of a legal behavior they do at home or on their own time. I think it should certainly be in the company's rights whether to insure them or not....that's different. I never said the guy was entitled to insurance. But to say this guy can't do the job because he smokes at home is an invasion of his privacy.

[Guest jamu]

perhaps he had the option to waive coverage or perhaps he was a repeat offender' date=' the story doesnt go into enough detail.

[/quote']

If he was given the chance to waive coverage, etc than I side with the company. I dont' think everyone should pay for his share of the insurance....but it should not be a policy to employ/not employ someone because of a legal behavior they do at home or on their own time. I think it should certainly be in the company's rights whether to insure them or not....that's different. I never said the guy was entitled to insurance. But to say this guy can't do the job because he smokes at home is an invasion of his privacy.

I agree with you 100% Shaun.

[Guest JMT]

perhaps he had the option to waive coverage or perhaps he was a repeat offender, the story doesnt go into enough detail.

If he was given the chance to waive coverage, etc than I side with the company. I dont' think everyone should pay for his share of the insurance....but it should not be a policy to employ/not employ someone because of a legal behavior they do at home or on their own time. I think it should certainly be in the company's rights whether to insure them or not....that's different. I never said the guy was entitled to insurance. But to say this guy can't do the job because he smokes at home is an invasion of his privacy.

I agree with you 100% Shaun.

ok, so you contradict everything you said before. makes sense.

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

perhaps he had the option to waive coverage or perhaps he was a repeat offender' date=' the story doesnt go into enough detail.

[/quote']

If he was given the chance to waive coverage, etc than I side with the company. I dont' think everyone should pay for his share of the insurance....but it should not be a policy to employ/not employ someone because of a legal behavior they do at home or on their own time. I think it should certainly be in the company's rights whether to insure them or not....that's different. I never said the guy was entitled to insurance. But to say this guy can't do the job because he smokes at home is an invasion of his privacy.

It seems as though these days, companies are getting more and more to involved with their employees personal lives.

What kind of job did this person have again?

[Guest slamminshaun]

Works for Scott's Lawns....he sprays fertilizer for a living.

[Guest jamu]

perhaps he had the option to waive coverage or perhaps he was a repeat offender, the story doesnt go into enough detail.

If he was given the chance to waive coverage, etc than I side with the company. I dont' think everyone should pay for his share of the insurance....but it should not be a policy to employ/not employ someone because of a legal behavior they do at home or on their own time. I think it should certainly be in the company's rights whether to insure them or not....that's different. I never said the guy was entitled to insurance. But to say this guy can't do the job because he smokes at home is an invasion of his privacy.

I agree with you 100% Shaun.

ok, so you contradict everything you said before. makes sense.

Yeah okay whatever. But it's obvious that critical thinking wasn't your strong point in school growing up. :

[Guest swirlundergrounder]

Works for Scott's Lawns....he sprays fertilizer for a living.

He sprays fertilizer for a living? Shit.. the chemicals he is exposed to doing that job will kill him a lot faster than smoking will..

What a strange scenario...

[Guest JMT]

perhaps he had the option to waive coverage or perhaps he was a repeat offender, the story doesnt go into enough detail.

If he was given the chance to waive coverage, etc than I side with the company. I dont' think everyone should pay for his share of the insurance....but it should not be a policy to employ/not employ someone because of a legal behavior they do at home or on their own time. I think it should certainly be in the company's rights whether to insure them or not....that's different. I never said the guy was entitled to insurance. But to say this guy can't do the job because he smokes at home is an invasion of his privacy.

I agree with you 100% Shaun.

ok, so you contradict everything you said before. makes sense.

Yeah okay whatever. But it's obvious that critical thinking wasn't your strong point in school growing up. :

considering you just agreed to a key point made by me, you dont come off as too bright yourself there jammy.

[V. Barbarino]

read here

This is why this is a good thing:

After Lung Cancer Surgery, Nearly Half of Patients Resume Smoking

By LiveScience Staff

posted: 11 December 2006

09:39 am ET

More than a third of smokers who had surgery to remove early stage lung cancer were smoking again within a year, a new study finds.

The study involved patients who were forced to quit smoking for surgery. Many were puffing away within two months of the surgery, and nearly half eventually resumed the habit.

"These patients are all addicted, so you cannot assume they will easily change their behavior simply because they have dodged this particular bullet," said study leader Mark Walker of the Washington University School of Medicine. "Their choices are driven by insidious cravings for nicotine."

The investigators found that those smokers who were the last to give up their cigarettes—some on the same day as their operation—and who saw smoking as a pleasurable activity they would have difficulty giving up, were also the first to resume the habit. And they concluded that patients who were able to hold out the longest before they took up a cigarette after surgery were the ones who were most likely not to be smoking in a year’s time.

Several previous studies had found smokers tend to relapse after lung surgery, but study results varied widely. The new study of 154 patients is the most comprehensive done on the topic. The results are published in the December issue of the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

The researchers found that 43 percent of patients smoked at some point after surgery and 37 percent were smoking 12 months after their operation.

Tobacco is responsible for about 435,000 deaths every year in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

[Guest coach]

Tobacco is responsible for about 435,000 deaths every year in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Man, I love this number.

[Guest slamminshaun]

Tobacco is responsible for about 435,000 deaths every year in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Man, I love this number.

Why? Tragic if you ask me.

[Guest coach]

Tobacco is responsible for about 435' date='000 deaths every year in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

[/quote']

Man, I love this number.

Why? Tragic if you ask me.

It shows the complete insanity of the American ethical system. The cigarette companies run nearly a hundred year fraud on the American public causing the untimely deaths of millions of Americans and costing everyone billions of dollars, and the worst they get is a slap on the wrist. And then you compare that to all the stuff that Americans DO react intensely to and it just doesn't make any sense to me. And don't give me any bullshit about "freedom to choose to kill yourself smoking" because it is not freedom unless you CAN make an informed decision, which the cigarrette companies spent millions of dollars making sure you could not.

[Guest slamminshaun]

If you are ignorant enough to smoke, you deserve anything you get. The Surgeon General warning has been on those things for over 30 years. I cannot think of one week that went by when I was in school, where a teacher or some other authoritarian figure did not lecture us on the dangers of smoking....anyone who started smoking in the last 30 years made an informed decision.

[Guest raffa711]

now there's nothing wrong with smoking weed right.

please. please. please tell it's not true.