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.
(visit the link for the full news article)
The health insurer said Wednesday that it will no longer hire workers in Arizona who smoke or use other tobacco products, part of a trend of employers who are cracking down on tobacco use among workers.
To enforce the tobacco ban that starts Friday, Humana will test new employees for nicotine use during a pre-employment urine drug screen.
Why would they want to pay one person 30% more than another person with equal qualifications for doing exactly the same job?
Originally posted by Ultraman2011
If you can do your job, show up on time, and fulfill your duties, that is all that should matter for most occupations.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Why would they want to pay one person 30% more than another person with equal qualifications for doing exactly the same job?
Originally posted by Ultraman2011
If you can do your job, show up on time, and fulfill your duties, that is all that should matter for most occupations.
They don't. They want to pay equal pay for equal work, is that so unfair? Statistically the smokers are going to end up costing them a lot more and they know it.
I worked for a privately owned company that paid its health care costs of its employees from its own pocket and in this competitive world and tough economic times and with soaring health care costs, the health care costs can literally mean life or death for a company. They can literally put you out of business, especially when health care costs are going up faster than sales and profit margins. And when that happens, it's not just the smokers who are affected, when the company goes under, everyone loses their job, smoker or not. And it could literally be the smoker's fault that the company goes under.
Suggesting that obese people aren't being discriminated against...
Originally posted by Ultraman2011
Your treating all smokers the same. Some smokers (and by the way I don't smoke) smoke 3 or 4 cigarettes a day..some smoke more. I actually read a study awhile back that said being obese is more of a risk than smoking, so perhaps their should be rules on hiring over weight people
You guessed it...they are looking at obesity too.
Some employers offer financial incentives or penalties to reduce health-care costs by seeking behavioral changes. Some examples include programs that encourage employees to shed weight, diet, quit smoking or manage other risk factors that could lead to costly health conditions such as diabetes or high-blood pressure.
Such "wellness plans" may include tests that can measure things such as whether a person's body-mass index exceeds recommended standards or if cholesterol levels are dangerously high.
Originally posted by vkey08
this is 100% Unconstitutional. They can regulate smoking on their own property but they cannot test for a legal substance that any adult over 18 can purchase. I forsee a flurry of Federal Lawsuits up and coming..
Originally posted by Ultraman2011
This sounds like unconstitutional political correctness gone mad. Where does is stop? Why not test for high cholesterol, too much tanning bed use, too many twinkies....
Humana representatives say it makes sense for a company in the health-care field to lead by example. Smoking's harmful effects on human health are well-documented, and Humana seeks to promote health and wellness — starting with its workers.
That's false. It would be true if smokers didn't statistically incur higher medical costs than non-smokers, but they do. If your employer provides life insurance like mine, smoking affects the cost of that also.
Originally posted by k21968
My smoking hurts no one but myself.