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.

 

Humana Won't Hire Smokers in Arizona

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Humana Won't Hire Smokers in Arizona


www.usatoday.com

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.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Ok so this is another step into the trend of Fascist America. I do not understand why we as a nation and people continue to let this # happen. What happened to Liberty and Justice for all? Now it's just Liberty and Justice for those that choose not to do anything unhealthy?

How long before they stop hiring people for being more then 10% of there body weight, or not having the proper DNA strain like in the movie Gattaca.

This isn't the first time that I have said this America is becoming more and more of a Dystopian Society.

www.usatoday.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:37 AM
link   
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....

If you can do your job, show up on time, and fulfill your duties, that is all that should matter for most occupations.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
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..



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Don't smoke.


Seriously though, it's one thing to prohibit smoking during work or on corporate property. Maybe even raising health insurance cost (seems fitting for Humana ...), but simply flat-out refusing to hire smokers is bad for business. Hey, smokers are attributing to the economy, and if they want to kill themselves off, no problem.



edit on 1-7-2011 by Nurv47 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   

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.
Why would they want to pay one person 30% more than another person with equal qualifications for doing exactly the same job?

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.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
No, I do believe that the company (Not owned by the Govt) can state that they will not hire people who smoke.

Simple, either don't smoke and get hired or smoke and work somewhere else.
It is obvious that the people running the company don't like smokers, so why on earth would you smoke and want to work there?
Even if you did get hired, you would more then likely be passed up for promotions and such.

Don't go away mad, just go away and be successful somewhere else.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.
Why would they want to pay one person 30% more than another person with equal qualifications for doing exactly the same job?

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.


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, as they will cost most in the long run also, and African Americans have greater levels of heart disease...maybe this should be factored in?

This smoker discrimination is a dangerous road to go down



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
What an employee does when not at work is not the right of any employer to be concerned about, PERIOD!

Anything else might as well be slavery when the context is an economy where jobs are scarce and losing one's job or not getting hired can cost the person their home and whatever else. That gives employers a lot of power over people's lives, which becomes an awful lot like slavery.

There is simply no excuse for an employer to try to have any say in what an employee does outside of work. All that matters is if one works responsibly and performs his duties in a satisfactory way.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   

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
Suggesting that obese people aren't being discriminated against...

news flash: they are, though they probably won't announce that as openly.

From the article:

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.
You guessed it...they are looking at obesity too.
edit on 1-7-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
I have actually encountered several companies that will not hire smokers. Says on the website that must not have smoked in the past 6 months.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   

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..


So let's pass a law saying companys can't refuse to hire a tobacco user. Heck let's go one step further and say that a company's work force must be made up of at least 20% smokers, and if not then it's discrimination.

I firmly believe it is not the government's job to determine whom a company can and can not hire.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

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....


It's coming, don't you doubt it.

And when you have sex will be controlled too. You see, it can make you tired, and when you are tired, you are prone to accidents. And you are more productive when you are not tired. They already do this to some sports stars.

Health insurance will be used to bring control measures like this in.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Phantom28804
 


Wait a minute. Minorities are statistically shown to smoke more than whites. How does this policy not have a disparate impact on minorities?

Sounds like the EEOC will need to get engaged here and race norm tobacco usage to ensure fairness of this policy.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Phantom28804
 


I work for Humana and I smoke and I am overweight. I guess I should start looking for alternate employment.

We were discussing this at our daily meeting yesterday and the smokers amongst us brought up that it was discrimination. Our boss said they have a gadzillion attorneys who have already ensured no legal action could come of it.

Fortunately the state I live in has not done this yet. However, I dont think they could. Kentucky is the tobacco capital of America. It concerns me. I am good at my job, I go to work (today is a vacation day) and I meet or exceed all expectations from the company. If they asked me to stop smoking tomorrow to keep my job I would have to quit to feed my family, but I would then have to persue medication for the rage that would ensue. Smoking calms my nerves.

Whats next? Not hiring people who drink a glass of wine with their dinner? It is the same thing. ALcohol hurts/ kills many people and causes health problems as well.

This topic was a hot one at work yesterday and basically the non smokers were happy and the smokers were not. There was no in between.

I choose to smoke. I smoke in our "smoke shacks" outside. My smoking hurts no one but myself. It does not affect my work performance so I do not understand this at all.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Lets hope people actually get outraged at this, i dont smoke cigs, but its exactly the same as employess being drug tested, Its none of the companys business what there employees get up to outside of work, im gald we dont have this bulls*** in the UK.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Phantom28804
 



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.


Source

This makes perfect sense to me too, and I smoke



edit on 1-7-2011 by cripmeister because: chemtrails!



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by k21968
My smoking hurts no one but myself.
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.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Test's on females for breast implants..... test's will be conduct and through the data acquired by hands on experience we will review the acceptance or decline of all woman. Kindly forward all applications to my u2u



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Phantom28804
 


Good. They'll get more production out of non-smokers. Smokers are always out on a smoke break. Smokers are worse than heroin users. They pollute everyone with that vile nasty smelling smoke.







 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join