Humana Won't Hire Smokers in Arizona

reply to post by the owlbear


Ok, so then by your logic, if they won't hire anyone who has visited ATS or FB in the last six months, they won't hire you. Or maybe you are a member of the First Baptist Church on Main street, they won't hire you. They are not discriminating against religion, just the church you attend. If you own a Chevy, or stock in their competitor they won't hire you. Where does it end? Seems ludicrous when you put it into perspective, but it is relevant. The point we are making is it is an intrusion into your personal freedoms and liberties, period.

Here we go!

Watch me get some flack for this post! But it MUST be said!

All I have to say is ABOUT TIME! I am sick and tired of walking through company entrances where all their smokers congregate on their breaks. Everytime I walk through an entrance/exit I have to walk through a cloud of second hand smoke. I am tired of seeing cig butts everywhere I step. The smell from when you come from outside have a smoke is APPALLING!

I cannot get hired to certain places because I use medical marijuana. Yet, this plant has never caused a case of cancer (because it tends to cure cancers). No one has ever died, people do not accrue unbelievable health care costs due to bronchial or pneumonia infections...

So I can certainly understand a smokers frustration. But now you know how I feel, finally.

Originally posted by Phantom28804


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)

Actually, it's "more than 10% of their body weight". This is also something that is most likely a result of poor choices on the part of the party in question. Genetics on the other hand are not a result of our choices and it would not be ethical to discriminate based on them. If you want to continue to smoke cigarettes or choose to engage in other activities which increase the risk of cancer to yourself and people around you then work someplace else.

Regarding the 'fascism' - the definition being "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism"

1) The USA has no dictatorship, but rather 3 branches dividing the power.
2) People in the USA have the Constitutional right to freedom of speech, so there is no forceful suppression of opposition and criticism,
3) Industry and commerce are not regimented but are run in accordance with out Capitalist system, and finnally
4) Racism is illegal and hate crimes are severely punished in the USA.

Sounds like you are just a Cancer-Stick user throwing a fit because some company is exercising its right to choose those who are more enlightened and have greater self-control than you possess.

Originally posted by Phantom28804Ok 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?

Actually, this has zero to do with fascism since the rule to not hire smokers is made by a private entity. The entity also happens to be an insurance company and since they have the facts and figures they know that smokers while they do have to pay slightly higher premiums almost 100% of the time result in a higher overall payout for actual costs than a non-smoker. Since their employees are covered by their own company I think it is just s simple cost-benefit analysis decision and a good one.

A private cooperation in America can and should be able to hire and fire people for whatever reason they deem appropriate. The reverse of that imposed by the government say awarding benefits to companies who hire a certain racial make-up or mandating certain other restrictions or benefits is wrong.

My business my rules - I can hire who I wish for what I wish based on whatever criteria I want.

reply to post by Phantom28804


Soon you will need the best genes, the best DNA to be hired.

Anyone seen "Gattaca" too?

Originally posted by Team Locke
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.

Well on this note I want to say that I am a smoker, and I take approxiamately 4 - 5 5 min breaks a day for a smoke, which is the equivalant of what a non-smoker takes for 2 15 min breaks. I also take a 1hr lunch just like everyone else I work with. I can honestly say that I am the most productive member in my entire workplace. There are 2 other smokers in my division, and I do 3 times the workload of any non-smoker here, so on that note I would like to say that your point is a assumption not based on fact.

Originally posted by k21968
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.

I believe it's with only new potential hires, because they did something similar at place where I live and the current employees didn't have to adhere to the rules, but the possible hires if they smoked would not be hired. Which I think, is totally biased and wrong.

Funny,

On this site I can find more than few threads demonizing companies for not hiring gays, women, different religions, different ethnicities...but fat and smoke and you're out!

If business have the 'right' to hire or fire based on what employees do outside of the business, than there should be no problems in business hiring or firing on the basis of anything listed above.

It is, after all, the business' right is it not.

Find 1 American Indian, have him apply for a job with Humana. Declare he can smoke.

He doesn't get hired. File a Federal Discrimination Lawsuit claiming Humana won't hire him because of his religion.

American Indian's SMOKE because it's part of their RELIGION.

That's how you can get millions from Humana.

reply to post by TheFlash


This is what you call the beginning of things to come. Think as you will and play along with the same mentality that the rest of the country follows suit in. You may not see it coming and to be fair neither did I when my uncle warned me about this same stuff 10yrs ago, but the more I grow the more I see what he was saying. We are basing life choices one what you and others think and not one what I or others may want to do. Do I judge you if you indulge in a drink or two a month a year whatever, do I judge you for wanting to say that God should be taking out the anthem, money, etc, or that you think it should be there? Do I judge you for your dislike or support of gay rights? The answer to this is no I do not because that is your right to believe and like what you want. Do I even judge you for your opinion on the smoking issue? No because that is your freedom to say.

What I do have a problem with is when you or anyone else begins to try to eat away or take away the rights that you and I share. This may be a company now but it is a trend that is happening everywhere not just in this one company or a few companies. The more I hear people talk about how I shouldn't eat this, that, or this because its not healthy for me, or I shouldn't indulge in this or that because it's not healthy for me. What right do you or anyone else have to tell me what I can or can't do with my life. Do you care if I jump off a bridge and off myself? I guess that would increase the cost of emergency response, so why are suicides not an issue?

The argument of my lifestyle choice increases my risk of cancer etc and increases your medical costs is played out. Why does no one look at the increased fees of doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies? Insurance companies like Humana are making millions if not more a year off of the American dollar for insurance. The cost of insurance does not solely lie on the shoulders of those that choose to do something unhealthy. Like the car industry. It's easier to blame someone else then to look at the root of the problems. Car companies don't want to pay to make more fuel efficient cars or make cars that do not use Gasoline, but yet everyone only looks at the Oil companies and not at how the Automobile industry is still the biggest oil demanding out there. The root of the health insurance costs is the increased fees for health care.

Ask the company to prove the negative health implications of nicotine.

Than ask them to show the difference between driving to work and smoking.

Once you have them running in circles (sitting in rush hour traffic for one hour exposes me to the seriously dangerous chemicals found in cigarettes at a rate that no known human being could actually smoke) ask them if they will be banning all drivers, all people that commute on public transit, and anybody that comes within approx 500m of any roadway.

The issues that most smokers will face are not from the nicotine, they are from the tar, the carbon monoxide, the arsenic, the formaldehyde, the cyanide, and the benzene. All of which are produced (even in the most environmentaly friendly car) at a rate far greater than any smoker can smoke.

Let's pretend you smoke 50 packs/day. Yes...50!
We will even assume that you recieve 100% of all the toxics in the cigarettes.
Both of these assumptions are outrageous intentionally.
You will consume approx:
1,450 milligrams of tar (1.45 grams)
1,450 milligrams of carbon monoxide (1.45 grams)
6 milligrams of formaldehyde (0.006 grams)
12.5 milligrams of cyanide (0.0125 grams)
4.25 milligrams of benzene. (0.00425 grams)

Here is what my car can produce...per MILE...and still pass CARB testing. I drive just over 10 miles each direction daily.
tar...not even monitored but produced
carbon monoxide...3.4 grams / mile (approx 68 grams / trip)
formaldehyde...0.015 grams / mile (approx 0.3 grams / trip)
cyanide...not monitored but produced
benzen...not monitored but produced

CARB- see page 28, my car is LEV (2005 passenger car).

Cyanide is hard to track down actual numbers on (pay to play studies), here is a tidbit from Environment Agency (UK) - Cyanide

Most cyanides are released from vehicle exhausts and from industrial processes such as iron and steel and chemical manufacturing.

From above source, bold by me.

Benzene and formaldehyde are both also produced by vehicles (motor vehicle emmision are rated as one of the primary producers of both), but nobody tests for it.

I would have to smoke approx 2,300 packs per day to consume what my car produces in a 20 mile round trip (10 there, 10 back).

If companies are serious about health, they should start by tackling the biggest killers...it ain't cigarettes.

reply to post by peck420



Great post and absoluately the truth. As I said before Smoking is merely the red herring of the moment. People are caught up in a health frenzy that has basically been fed by the insurance companies in a effort to shift the blame from there rising prices on to something else so that people won't blame them.

The reason there is such a stink (pun intended) is because some people don't like the smell. The MSM has done a phenomenal job, as well as the CIA, ALA, etc. of demonizing something that really doesn't deserve the rap. Does it cause cancer? I'm sure it does in some people. Just like some people get cancer from asbestos and some don't. It's a feeding frenzy by these organizations that don't want a cure for cancer. They will pin down something that they THINK causes cancer, build a case for it and then present it to us. We get all wigged out and start trying to ban it. Meanwhile, the REAL culprit for cancer and the known cures get swept under the carpet. They know they can keep us chasing our tails for decades while they pocket the cash. If smoking really were that bad, we would have had a prohibition on it by now.

I am glad to see that companies are concerned with the health and welfare of its employees. In case you are not aware, second hand smoke it a Class A Carcinogen.

Smoking around your friends and loved ones - what a wonderful way to show how much you care....


www.cancer.org...

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by the owlbear

 

Ok, so then by your logic, if they won't hire anyone who has visited ATS or FB in the last six months, they won't hire you. Or maybe you are a member of the First Baptist Church on Main street, they won't hire you. They are not discriminating against religion, just the church you attend. If you own a Chevy, or stock in their competitor they won't hire you. Where does it end? Seems ludicrous when you put it into perspective, but it is relevant. The point we are making is it is an intrusion into your personal freedoms and liberties, period.

So, are you a Ron Paul supporter? He is all for businesses to "do what thou wilt". And in this case, it's a private business doing just that.

If you look at the labor laws for hiring, you'll find anyone can be discriminated against except for race, religion, and the whole Americans with disabilities act stuff. I get all this liberty bs, but remember it will take a FEDERAL law that will need to be imposed on people who hire to not discriminate against tobacco users and isn't the Federal thing evil and anti-liberty?

reply to post by TheFlash


Maybe you should drive them to a family picnic?

Oh wait, that is exposing them to 100's of times the amount of those very same carcinogens...

What a better way to show that you love them?

reply to post by TheFlash


I wouldn't believe sh*t that cancer.org or any other related site has to say. When they allow cancer patients to suffer and die, knowing there is a cure, they lose all credibility. When they and the FDA conspire to suppress known cures, then I have nothing but contempt and lack of believability in what they have to say.

Originally posted by InnerTruths
I cannot get hired to certain places because I use medical marijuana. Yet, this plant has never caused a case of cancer (because it tends to cure cancers). No one has ever died, people do not accrue unbelievable health care costs due to bronchial or pneumonia infections...

ok just for the record - I have asthma and I'm a smoker - I smoke a pack a day and keep my asthma under control without the aid of medication, however, I do have an emergency inhaler just in case

you know WHEN I need to use that inhaler? Can you guess? since I'm specifically addressing you?

I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and Humana can do whatever they want.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by TheFlash

 

Maybe you should drive them to a family picnic?

Oh wait, that is exposing them to 100's of times the amount of those very same carcinogens...

What a better way to show that you love them?

Let's see the slightest shred of scientific evidence to support what you are saying. Unless of course you are talking out of your buttocks.

Originally posted by canselmi

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.

Not the problem, companies cannot punish an employee under the current civil rights laws for what they do off work time ,it's that simple, it becomes discrimination and that is against the law no matter how you cut it. Every company in the United States MUST adhere to those civil rights laws or face fines/sanctions, as such any company that refuses to hire a smoker and tries to test them for a LEGAL substance is in violation of their(the employee's) civil rights and thus guilty of discrimination. can't be much simpler.. in this case just because it's cigarettes everyone sees only THAT and not the underlying illegality.