It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Employers Blood Testing To Stop Smokers

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:03 AM
link   
absolutely discraceful. no-one should be given that much power over employees private life.




posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Team Locke

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I don't have an issue with an employer having a non-smoking policy since they're likely subsidizing health care and/or life insurance. I have a big problem with them attempting to enforce it on the spouses of their employees.


Well, spouses of employees are on the health insurance also.

What I want to know is when do we start discriminating against the fat people in this country?


Not to sound argumentive...but... The other side of the coin:

Smokers stop working at least every hour to go outside and smoke which is about a 10 minute ordeal. That's lost production in the workplace. The non smokers have to take up the slack for them.

I'm really anti-smoking. When a person lights up everyone around him becomes a smoker. What of non-smoker rights?

Now...
Obese people aren't even in the same catagory... unless you are having to sit next to them on a plane. In that case your rights are being violated by the person invading your personal space.


Again, not posting to be argumentive..just showing the other side of the coin.


LMAO i can picture ur side parting and little moustache.

I smoke, but i dont drive a car, but living in a city centre next to a motorway i dont get much choice about breathing in those fumes do i?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Smoking is not ideal for your health nor your wallet but it is an individual's choice even though the anti-smoking campaign has all but convinced the world that smokers are evil, unhealthy, anti-environmentalist sadistic killers with a death-wish. Therefore, I agree with the OP that smoking is probably on the way out but so are people's rights.
Since the spraying of crops with nasty chemicals, cancer rates started to rise. Fancy that!

The Nazis tried to ban smoking in certain places which kind of says it all really.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by cams]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by pimpdogg

Originally posted by Team Locke

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I don't have an issue with an employer having a non-smoking policy since they're likely subsidizing health care and/or life insurance. I have a big problem with them attempting to enforce it on the spouses of their employees.


Well, spouses of employees are on the health insurance also.

What I want to know is when do we start discriminating against the fat people in this country?


Not to sound argumentive...but... The other side of the coin:

Smokers stop working at least every hour to go outside and smoke which is about a 10 minute ordeal. That's lost production in the workplace. The non smokers have to take up the slack for them.

I'm really anti-smoking. When a person lights up everyone around him becomes a smoker. What of non-smoker rights?

Now...
Obese people aren't even in the same catagory... unless you are having to sit next to them on a plane. In that case your rights are being violated by the person invading your personal space.


Again, not posting to be argumentive..just showing the other side of the coin.


LMAO i can picture ur side parting and little moustache.

I smoke, but i dont drive a car, but living in a city centre next to a motorway i dont get much choice about breathing in those fumes do i?


Interesting, make a post with an observation and get compared to Hitler. Nice, real nice man.

[tongue in cheek~sarcasm]
So I take it you really don't give a damn who doesn't like it. You are going to make us all smoke with you regardless. Your need for your cigarette over rides all other's rights to breath air that isn't stinking from your soldering lung cancer.


Wow, Who's really the nazi then, pal? Seems some would have us all doing the Smoker's goose step.. Hail Smoker!


[/tongue in cheek~sarcasm]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueTriangle
I don't have an issue with an employer having a non-smoking policy since they're likely subsidizing health care and/or life insurance. I have a big problem with them attempting to enforce it on the spouses of their employees.


If the employer is covering spouses in their benefits then I think they have every right to make that demand - that or drop the family members who smoke altogether from the health insurance policy.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
so they pay more for health insurance who gives a crap i am sure if they are like most companies i have worked for they make their money back by making the person work at stupid production levels. the only reason you have health care benifits ftom your employers is because tour goverment makes them!where i work at they are tryinga no smoking policy. i live in nc we have a new plant magager he instituted a no neverage on the floor policy recently then modified it so now you can have 20 ounces of water that is clear and unflavored with no ice then he cut back on the air conditioning in my area of countery last few weeks it was 105 with heat index outside. guess what has been happening. people have been falling out but according to the plant nurse its not from heat but from stress.]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by pimpdogg
absolutely discraceful. no-one should be given that much power over employees private life.


Absolutely incorrect. If your employer is paying for your doctor bills because you refuse to quit a habit that you know is bad for you, why don't they have the right to tell you to either stop smoking or lose your benefits?
Why should the employer have to pay for your being stubborn and selfish?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem
However, the way I am seeing this is a time is coming that tobacco use will become illeagle. I don't know how far off it is but I think it is coming.


Nah, the government makes far too much money on tobacco products. Maybe they should throw some of that money towards health care?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
If the employer is covering spouses in their benefits then I think they have every right to make that demand - that or drop the family members who smoke altogether from the health insurance policy.


Fine. Since health insurance is part of my COMPENSATION. Pay me more so that I can get health insurance myself. Which, BTW, would probably be better insurance anyway.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield SUCKS!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
Absolutely incorrect. If your employer is paying for your doctor bills because you refuse to quit a habit that you know is bad for you, why don't they have the right to tell you to either stop smoking or lose your benefits?
Why should the employer have to pay for your being stubborn and selfish?


Now, YOU are absolutely incorrect. Your employer DOES NOT pay your doctor bills. The health insurance does. Your employer pays a premium to the health insurance. The same rate if you smoke or not.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Enthralled Fan
 


Sorry to test for use of a legal product in my opinion is ludacris. Yes as I said I can understand an employer not wanting you to smoke in the office, on the grounds or durring working hours. HOWEVER to be tested as if it were an illegal drug? and to have my job not just my health insurance my job be in jepardy because of a legal substance? That's bull.

Last time I checked not many people bring their children to work, Some do however not many.

Last time I checked the polution from car exhaust was worse than tobacco smoke. AND in much higher concentrations on the street than the random smoker.

Also Ins premiums are higher for smokers than non, so an employee should make up the difference. It's just fiar.

But to have someones job threatened by the fact they use a legal substance? No way, thats discrimination and also has no legal precident for an employer to do. The employee that gets fired for testing positive for tobacco use should sue the company for wrongfull termination.

Please read posts more carefully before you assume the person is wrong Enthralled Fan, Because while your information may be correct it had little to do with what I was talking about.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno

Sorry to test for use of a legal product in my opinion is ludacris. Yes as I said I can understand an employer not wanting you to smoke in the office, on the grounds or durring working hours. HOWEVER to be tested as if it were an illegal drug? and to have my job not just my health insurance my job be in jepardy because of a legal substance? That's bull.


Actually I agree with you. What I put in the last post was just to show there are reasons why second hand smoke is bad news.


Last time I checked not many people bring their children to work, Some do however not many.


Other than bring kids to work day, I agree with you here, also. The point about it is that if a spouse smokes it affects the other spouse and dependants even if it is at home. That is why the person mentioned as wanting to test his employees will be doing so, even if the employee themselves don't smoke. I'm not saying it's right, but I can understand the logic.


Last time I checked the polution from car exhaust was worse than tobacco smoke. AND in much higher concentrations on the street than the random smoker.


Very true.


Also Ins premiums are higher for smokers than non, so an employee should make up the difference. It's just fiar.


This is definately true for life insurance. In my own experience, smoking does not affect health insurance premiums unless that is something new.


But to have someones job threatened by the fact they use a legal substance? No way, thats discrimination and also has no legal precident for an employer to do. The employee that gets fired for testing positive for tobacco use should sue the company for wrongfull termination.


I agree with you here also, however if they have a ban at their company, it makes it illegal on the company grounds which extends to it's employees.
The legal part comes in to the fact it is on private property, and being part of company policy. I am not saying that I think what some of these companies are doing is right, I am just explaining how they can get away with it.


Please read posts more carefully before you assume the person is wrong Enthralled Fan, Because while your information may be correct it had little to do with what I was talking about.


You might want to heed your own words here, because I never said you were wrong. I was explaining that there is a lot more at stake than lung cancer, and I understand why an employer would do this. Still, it doesn't make it right. If the empolyees spouse is a smoker, then the employee and any dependants on their insurance would be affected by smoking also.

What these people are doing is trying to get more work out of their employees by not having to pay for sick days due to smoking, and to keep health benefits, and or life insurance rates lower.

You must have missed where I said I am a smoker, too. While I don't agree with these types of policies, I can understand them.

edit to add:

Here is an article that explains a bit about what I mean with no smoking being part of a company policy.

pros.servicemagic.com...

It uses as an example blood tests used for firing somebody who smokes. Oh and just so you know this is nothing new, the article is dated 2006.


Recently, my little town hit the big time. It has been talked about on television and radio, and written about in newspapers and thousands of blogs. Why? Because a local employer fired four employees who would not quit smoking in the privacy of their own homes. How did he know they were smoking when they weren't at work? Random blood tests. This is a pretty extreme case, but it does point to an issue that contractors should know about - specifically, what you can and can't fire people for.


The article goes on to further explain if a non smoking segment is in an employee handbook or contract how it can be used.


To fire an employee with a contract, the employer has to show that the employee doesn't meet the requirements of the contract or the company handbook - for example, that the employee didn't follow the rules in the handbook. This is one of the reasons I'm always preaching that you should put exactly what you expect from your employees in your handbook: Stay sober on the job site. Be ready to work. Handle tools safely. Treat the homeowners with courtesy and respect. That kind of thing.


Of course this could be different depending on the state you are in, but most states have at will clauses for firing.



[edit on 18-6-2008 by Enthralled Fan]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I see where this is going. Let just make it simple for everyone

Smokers will have to have a big Yellow S on their clothes.
Drinkers will have to have a big Red D on their clothes, and so on.
you get the picture.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by pimpdogg
absolutely discraceful. no-one should be given that much power over employees private life.


Absolutely incorrect. If your employer is paying for your doctor bills because you refuse to quit a habit that you know is bad for you, why don't they have the right to tell you to either stop smoking or lose your benefits?
Why should the employer have to pay for your being stubborn and selfish?


I pay taxes that are spent for people on wellfare, yet I don't have the right to tell them not to have more kids. Which will increase the amount of wellfare they get. why should I have to pay for their kids just because they are too stubborn to quite screwing around.


[edit on 18-6-2008 by lost in the midwest]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Being a truck driver, I have to piss in a bottle at least once a month to placate the insurance and government wonks. I have a sneaking suspicion that they test for a whole hell of alot more than just what they tell us!!

Zindo



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Nobody wanted to speak out when they were only blood testing for pot smokers. Now that the cigarette smokers are being attacked, things are differently. Well I will tell you all what you told me when it was me being treated unfairly for smoking marijuana at home. Suck it up and live with it. You can always get another job or quit smoking!!


[edit on 6-18-2008 by groingrinder]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by lost in the midwest
 


Once a man has fathered a welfare baby, he should be sterilized. We do not need to keep forking over tax money because some gangsta cannot keep his dick in his pants.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost in the midwest

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by pimpdogg
absolutely discraceful. no-one should be given that much power over employees private life.


Absolutely incorrect. If your employer is paying for your doctor bills because you refuse to quit a habit that you know is bad for you, why don't they have the right to tell you to either stop smoking or lose your benefits?
Why should the employer have to pay for your being stubborn and selfish?


I pay taxes that are spent for people on wellfare, yet I don't have the right to tell them not to have more kids. Which will increase the amount of wellfare they get. why should I have to pay for their kids just because they are too stubborn to quite screwing around.


[edit on 18-6-2008 by lost in the midwest]


I don't mind my tax dollars going to the welfare system as long as that money is going to people for whom the welfare system was originally intended for.

I do, however, have an issue with that money going to people on welfare who prefer to stay home and not work and receive a welfare check.

As for the kids - I'll admit it infuriates me when I see fund raisers for people in America who can't pay their bills or live in sub-standard housing yet they are surounded by 4-5 children. I think if you are able to work and you are not sterilized you should not be allowed on welfare.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 



And I, as someone who is forced by circumstance to live on the charity of the government dole, thank you from the bottom of my heart....of course I paid into this system for 45 years...however I must tell you as a disabled senior, living on 300.00$ plus 150$ in food allotment a month is a handy trick...not for the faint hearted...but still I'm happy to have anything...including this aging laptop which connects me to the world...





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join