Humana Won't Hire Smokers in Arizona

reply to post by TheFlash


macedoniaonline.eu...

is the closest I could find doing a quick search I do know there was a big study done at either Berkley or Cambridge that found car exhaust to be much more toxic then cigarette smoke. However I do have to agree there is a bit of disinformation when it comes to that or it would make things look worse for the car industry. God forbid they take any flak. Could you imagine the outrage if your car was banned and you think smokers raise hell.

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..

They can do it if you agree to it. And guess what? If you don't agree to it, you don't get the job - simple. No illegality there - no lawsuits.

Originally posted by TheFlash

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..

They can do it if you agree to it. And guess what? If you don't agree to it, you don't get the job - simple. No illegality there - no lawsuits.

Yes it is, why because this is cigarettes does this become any different than any other thing, you cannot say "I will only hire people that are 5 foot 7 inches and above all others need not apply, that is discrimination, discrimination is illegal.

Originally posted by Phantom28804
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.

No one is taking away your rights to smoke. Feel free; however, they (the company) are just saying that they are not going to hire smokers. That is their right.

Or are you contending that the choice to smoke is somewhere up there with the non-choices of being handicapped, a certain sex or a certain race? I'll leave sexual preference and religion out of the as religion is a choice and the jury is out on sexual orientation. Some say it’s a choice others genetic. I don't really care either way - it's not something that bothers me.

However, If I thought the choice to employ a gay person (or black, or white, or catholic, or Mormon or whatever...) would upset the equilibrium and productivity of my business environment with drama and stress, I wouldn't hesitate to pass over even a qualified individual because it's my business and the productivity of many is at stake. Would I pass over the best or most qualified? Depends on the business environment but if I had multiple qualified people I would chose the one most likely to fit in with the least resistance.

Could I admit that's why if a person cried foul - no but I could just say I didn't like his attitude at the interview. There is no way for anyone to dispute it.

Just face the facts that despite the rules to the contrary private companies can hire who they like for whatever reason they want. Lots of people may technically qualify for a job but it’s the intangibles that are set by the hiring agent that result in final selection. They could be anything from appearance, dress, attitude, sense of humor etc. In some cases like if I sold brooms door to door in Harlem I might not want a white guy from Iowa to sell them - he is likely as not to get poor reception. Apply that in reverse to anything you wish.

Originally posted by Forevever

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.

edit on 1-7-2011 by Forevever because: I finished reading the thread, no one else posted, avoiding a double post

I don't know, honestly. How could I? I do not know you. Just because smoking doesn't affect you the same way it affects me (also an asthmatic) doesn't mean the whole world reacts the same. I am glad you are able to enjoy a cigarette without side effects, but I do get side effects, unfortunately, thats why I stopped smoking cigarettes.

I was a smoker for 11 years. I haven't smoked in over 4 years. For 11 years I would have smokers cough and chronic bronchitis and pneumonia every couple years. My doctor said straight up, quit, or keep being sick.
As hard as a decision it was (because of addiction) I eventually quit. Since I quit I have yet to get sick (other than the odd cold or allergies).

Point is, everyone is different.
Also, I don't care who you support. I never asked. They are all the same, anyways. The only winners here are the corporations.

Originally posted by vkey08Yes it is, why because this is cigarettes does this become any different than any other thing, you cannot say "I will only hire people that are 5 foot 7 inches and above all others need not apply, that is discrimination, discrimination is illegal.

Sorry, but you can put hieght and weight reguirements on a job application for many reasons - the military does, the police do, flight attendants do even cable installers do. It is usually for safety reasons but it can be anything from uniform procurement to desire of the immage for the position.

There are only certain categories protected from "discrimination" in hiring practices and height and weight are not one of them.

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Terminology

Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members.

Originally posted by peck420
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!

That's what it's coming to, so essentially that's right. You've basically described where the line is on what a company can do. You can like it or dislike it, but that's more or less where the line is.

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.

Wrong.

You were right the first time.

reply to post by Golf66


Your missing the point entirely. This isn't just about cigarettes. I mean good lord what is next? They decide to not hire overweight people because they are a health risk. Then we stop hiring people with Diabetes or family histories of severe medical problems because they are a health risk too. Then you move on and say hey you know what I am losing money every year because of parents who have to leave early for the children. Lets just not hire anyone with kids, because it decreases my productivity.

You brought up civil rights. There are laws that say you can't discriminate against a person of color, creed, religion etc. There is absolutely nothing that says that I have to hire you regardless of your sexual preference, so therefore how is that discrimination?

The point is that it is a never ending trend. Here is a good example for you. What if I just don't like vegetarians. Does it make it right for me to say that anyone who doesn't eat meat can't work for me? Based on the same philosophy and argument the company and yourself are using then yes I can say to heck with Vegetarians if you don't eat meat you can't have a job, and I am going to test your protein levels to make sure you are eating meats.

Seriously this is not just about cigarettes its about the rights of everyone to do and be as they wish to be and still be gainfully employed. You said this isn't saying that you can't smoke. It's just saying this company doesn't have to hire you. Your right, but what about when every company has the same policy. Then smokers are going to be like the ex-convicts, sweeping floors or lucky if they can find employment? Eventually it will get to that and then you will be forcing me and others like me to make life choices based on whether we want to live on the streets or not. Also this goes much further then one company. There are entire cities that have banned smoking outright in the city limits. How long before you can't smoke at all unless you hide in a private underground bunker the you dug yourself and lock the door with a password. Smoke house to be the next speak easy's ? Give me a break seriously, this is about a lot more then one companies preference. This is about civil rights and liberties whether you want to face it or not.

Humana is in the health insurance business.

They, if anyone, would certainly have the statistics on the adverse health affects of smoking.

I think that a business should be able to determine the suitability of potential employes to work in a health related field. That would include smoking and/or other addictive behaviors.

I have to laugh at some of the comments about this. Humana is not a part of the government. It is not part of a conspiracy to change your behavior. It is just trying to make sure that it's future employees are not nicotine addicts. I think that it's their right to do this.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Sorry but I have to disagree with you. He isn't wrong that is exactly what it equates to. There was a time in a America when I was growing up where you know no one gave a crap about what you or your neighbors did. These days especially since "Homeland Security" was introduced people have become entirely to nosey and invasive into what others are doing.

"OMG, that woman took a picture of her 2yr old in the bathtub naked, she must be a pedophile."

"OMG, I can't believe that guy just ate an Oreo, doesn't he know all the harmful tranfsfats and High Fructose Corn Syrup are bad for him. Everyone should eat organic food even if it costs more because it's healthier"

"OMG, I can't believe that mother just spanked her child, that is nothing more then child abuse. I wonder why so many kids have become more violent and don't listen to there elders anymore.. But god forbid you should punish the kids."

"OMG that guy looks like he is Middle Eastern I bet he is a terrorist, who cares if he was born here"

"OMG don't these smokers know they are killing themselves and everyone around them even though they are outside and the smoke goes up into the air and blows down the street they are endangering my life and my kids lives." While they are standing behind a car letting there kids inhale car exhaust.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Humana is in the health insurance business.

They, if anyone, would certainly have the statistics on the adverse health affects of smoking.

I think that a business should be able to determine the suitability of potential employes to work in a health related field. That would include smoking and/or other addictive behaviors.

I have to laugh at some of the comments about this. Humana is not a part of the government. It is not part of a conspiracy to change your behavior. It is just trying to make sure that it's future employees are not nicotine addicts. I think that it's their right to do this.

I am not arguing that Humana is part of the government. I am saying this is a trend and again I am sorry if you don't see it but a few years from now when everything has changed just remember the arguments here, because there will be a day when everyone is doing it.

Originally posted by tnhiker
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.

Lol, nicotine is out of your system in like 2 days.

Originally posted by Phantom28804
Your missing the point entirely. This isn't just about cigarettes. I am good lord what is next? They decide to not hire overweight people because they are a health risk. Then we stop hiring people with Diabetes or family histories of severe medical problems because they are a health risk too.

I think you just need to read the federal law for some insight on how this will probably end up in state laws:

www.eeoc.gov...

-- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
---the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
-- the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
-- Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;...
Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information about an applicant, employee, or former employee; and

The 2008 law prohibits employment discrimination based on genetic information, which includes family medical history. And the other laws state which types of discrimination are regulated. You don't see smoking, overeating and sedentary lifestyle on the list, right? so discriminating on that basis doesn't violate the law.

The issues on the table in this thread are smoking and weight.

The laws say where the lines are drawn. Your post seems to suggest they don't. So that's why I suggest you read the laws, instead of citing clearly illegal discrimination such as family medical history as an example of where this might lead.

Originally posted by Wildbob77
It is just trying to make sure that it's future employees are not nicotine addicts.

And since their clients have to pay more to insure smokers, it is also trying to lead by example to not have their smoking employees work with customers by telling them they should try to help their employees quit smoking to reduce insurance costs, in-between puffs on a cigarette

Originally posted by Phantom28804 Then smokers are going to be like the ex-convicts, sweeping floors or lucky if they can find employment? Eventually it will get to that and then you will be forcing me and others like me to make life choices based on whether we want to live on the streets or not.

Smoking is a choice you can make it or not I have no sympathy if becasue of that choice you can't find a job. All choices have consequnces.

Originally posted by Phantom28804Your missing the point entirely. This isn't just about cigarettes. I mean good lord what is next? They decide to not hire overweight people because they are a health risk. Then we stop hiring people with Diabetes or family histories of severe medical problems because they are a health risk too. Then you move on and say hey you know what I am losing money every year because of parents who have to leave early for the children. Lets just not hire anyone with kids, because it decreases my productivity.

Actually, I think you are missing the point that it is in fact all about cigarettes and the choice to smoke them or not.

Humana is an insurance provider and as such one of the risk factors that increase their costs is the choice to smoke. They are simply saying that because of the direct increase in costs to themselves as both the employer and the provider they are not going to hire any more smokers. Logical decision IMO.

Same with the Hospital where my wife's sister works as a phlebotomist; they are no longer hiring smokers and all current smokers are enrolled in a mandatory smoking cessation program paid for by the hospital. They have 12 months to quit or face dismissal.

Why? They are not a provider of insurance so there is no increased cost to them as the premiums are all they pay...but as a provider of health care it doesn't really put forward a good image if on one hand they (as an institution) are advising their patients to quit and the good health benefits of it and on the way out of the hospital all the employees are in the smoking area smoking away. Just an image issue.

In that vein to use your example of fat people - I wouldn't hire a bunch of obese people to work at my gym or fitness center and I think it would make sense while a company who does phone sales would not be able to make the same argument. These things have to be looked at on a case by case industry specific basis.

For example - vegetarians; you said what about them. I can say that if I sold beef I'd expect my employees to eat beef and eat our beef and to tell all their friends how great it is so I sold more. It would be counterproductive to hire a bunch of vegans.

As for medical conditions I have been denied a job based on them - can't be a cop because I've too many health issues as a result of being wounded in the wars. Too much liability.

I wouldn't want to hire a guy with a heart problem to do hard labor or a person who has had several heat injuries to work outside in the summer - too much liability for loss. However, can a sedentary office situation make the same claim? I think not.

Same with exotic dancers - I would hire based on weight and attractiveness as would anyone else; discrimination? I think not but what if it's for a receptionist.

Don't I have the right as an businessman to choose a well dressed manicured woman who is not over weight and attractive to be the first thing clients see. Or must I hire the frumpy senior because she applied?

Maybe if I sold Hoverounds (sp) I might even hire someone who used one to show how great they are even if there was somoene younger and better qualified. I mean empathy is a good motivator for sales.

Maybe if I sold running shoes I might not choose to hire a guy in a wheelchair as he might not talk up the way they feel after a five mile run… All employment decisions make sense in certain situations and should be entirely the purview of the owner not the government.

You are looking at the issue in a broad sweeping manner not this specific case in which an insurance provider doesn’t want to hire people who increase their liability.

How did this get to 4 pages? It's cut and dried. Unless, you peep want more government regulation.

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.

Here in Iowa...BCBS of Iowa won't hire smokers either. You cant smoke AT ALL to work there. Ya I'm sure non smokers think that is great. But I dont think people should be so quick to give up personal rights or privacy just because its something you dont like. Its the idea that you can be discriminated against for something that has nothing to do with your job.

If we do the same thing with alcohol...well lemme tell ya - a lot of people will be banned from working, or going to college. I dont like or trust this kind of trend!

reply to post by Golf66


Yea if you choose to hire the more attractive woman based on looks and not based on qualifications then yes that is discrimination. The guy in the wheelchair yea that would be discrimination as well. Just because a vegan doesn't like meat really doesn't mean you can't hire them to work with meat. I would guess they would more then likely not want to work there anyway, but yes I feel that would be discrimination as well.

I understand that this is a company and they can hire the way they want for that particular item. Just like they could hire for weight and anything else health related that they would want. Why not they do the same with the insurance they offer as well. The problem is not just that this one company Humana did this. It's the fact that lots of companies are doing this. People keep saying this isn't the government, but since I work for the government I beg to differ on that. Also the sweeping legislation on smoking that has happened over the last few years as well. Increased taxes on cigarettes, increased no smoking zones. So don't say this isn't the government too. A huge chunk of this is coming from the Obama insurance plan as well. This is about a lot more then one company.

As I said in another forum. Its easy to ignore something when it's not you that is being discriminated against.

Originally posted by peck420
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!

What if you smoke 50 packs at a time?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dbafe4553cac.png[/atsimg]



But your argument is weak. unless you run a garden hose from your tailpipe to the inside of your car, (which will kill you, I found a body in that condition), you're only inhaling a tiny fraction of car exhaust and yes even that's not good for you. That's part of the reason why I have to get a smog test on my car when I renew my license.

You inhale a larger percentage of what you smoke.

The car problem will take care of itself, eventually. We will use up all the existing oil, and even before that happens it will be so expensive as to cause people to reduce their use of oil and oil products like gasoline. But for now some places like where I live, have smog control in place.

Well, if a company has a problem with me doing something that is 100% entirely legal, then I don't want to work for such a company anyway.

What I do in my own time, is my own business... As long as it is legal, I don't think they should have the right to do this....I wonder, does this count as discrimination? it sure seems like it. Not hiring some one because of a legal activity they participate in? Come on.... how is that even legal?

Originally posted by Golf66

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.

I agree. Humana should be able to hire people based upon whether they smoke or not (and I'm a smoker).

Like you said "My business my rules - I can hire who I wish for what I wish based on whatever criteria I want.". That is the basis of property rights and the 4th amendment. I should also be able to hire people based upon their skin color and sexual preference. Those topics are protected under ONLY the 64 civil rights act which violated the 4th amendment.
You see, the argument is not about whether something is voluntary or not. The argument is that the company has first use of rights.