Company Fires All Employees

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You are not kidding about companies. The company I work for has gone to great lengths to focus on health and wellness issues. But every Friday the donuts/cakes/brownies, etc. roll in and it is the same overweight people that spend half the day by the food. We pay partial gym memberships, promote tests employees can take to reduce health risks and they are basically unused.

 

Occassional good stories though. Through the wellness testing an employee with  diabetes and one with extremely high blood pressure were uncovered. They made lifestyle changes and are doing fine.

218663[/snapback]

 

I work for Rodale Press. Among our products are Men's Health and Prevention Magazine. This company's motto is "healthy active living". But even HERE they would never throw someone out for smoking a butt. It's frowned on, but they wouldn't fire anyone over it.

 

I'm happy to be here. Seeing all the fit people in my workplace has really motivated me.

[Fezmid]

Then you should take issue not with the companies, but with whatever law it is that prevents them simply from slashing the health insurance of these individuals.  Why shouldn't these companies be entitled to fire those who force them to spend more on premiums?  Do you people realize that these extra costs are imposed on consumers?  Hey smokers, I've got a novel idea!  Why don't you quit imposing social and medical costs on other people?  How about you pay for your own vices and stop expecting others to subsidize your costs later in life?  And how about you stop imposing the costs of second-hand smoke-related healthcare on others?

218824[/snapback]

 

So using your theory, the company should also fire anybody who's married and/or has children, right? Because family insurance plans cost more than individuals. I just looked through my open enrollment papers last month, and my insurance is costing my company roughly $100/month if I recall correctly, while a family with children is costing the company over $250. So again, should people with families be fired because they cost more to insure?

 

Early on, someone brought up the idea that people who drive red cars should be fired as well, because studies show those people with red cars get more tickets and get in more accidents. Accidents = medical bills = higher insurance = FIRED!

 

And why should I be paying social security? I'm only 29, why should I subsidize their costs later in life just because they were too stupid to save for their own retirement? Screw that, I don't want to subsidize others.

 

</sarcasm>

CW

[mead107]

  I'm only 29,

 

</sarcasm>

CW

219038[/snapback]

WOW ! only 29 - I am glad you have a good out look on health . wait till your 50 and you will look at health ins. in a different way.

[Spiderweb]

firing employees who smoke is absurd.  the employers can govern whatever they want during business hours with regards to smoke breaks and smoking areas.  but they have no right to fire anyone over what they choose to do when they're not on the clock

 

and by their reasoning that its for high health care costs, they should fire anyone who eats fast food or drinks coffee

218552[/snapback]

Ah, all those fun loving "1984" wannabes. While smoking is very bad thing, so is being a fat slob and last I heard, there's far more fat slobs in this country "weighing" down the health care system than smokers. Are they the next target?

 

So what the heck, let's continue down that slippery slope toward the day where big brother controls every facit of our lives. Hey, we're only promoting healthier life styles. It's for your own good.

[KD in CA]

As f'ed up as this world is, few things shock me anymore but this is one of them. Talk about a slippery slope! I assume this also means we can fire people for being fat? for eating poorly? for drinking? for failing to exercise? If it's all about health and image, then we shouldn't have any of these types of unhealthy people working at our company.

 

Of course, all those who scream 'discimination' at the drop of a hat will be protesting on behalf of the smokers, right Bill in NYC?

[stevestojan]

Well, I don't take smoke breaks (its not allowed, nor should it be).

 

But, someone said "well, smokers go through a 'nic fit', and aren't working as well"...

 

Ok, so this 400lb woman that takes approximatly 15 minutes to walk to and from the break room to get another f-cking ho-ho or bag of chips and a soda is fine, because she doesn't smoke? Give me a frigging break.

[IDBillzFan]

The company could have taken two alternate steps.

 

(1) Put a cap on how much you will spend on employee health insurance. The truth of the matter is, employee-provided health insurance is not a right. It's a benefit. Provide coverage up to, say, a beginning HMO plan, and make employees pay additional if they want to upgrade beyond that.

 

(2) Don't fire the smokers, but eliminate smoke breaks and change your hiring policy to state that you will no longer hire smokers, while offering incentives for current people to quit.

[hagerge]

I have the unfortunate habit of smoking.......I have done so since I was knee high to a grass hopper. Which is equivilant to 33 years. But the insurance thing is BS. Where I work we are offered extended life insurance at an extra cost. The standard policy is a mere 20k any coverage over that you must pay! Which I see as being fair. Now again, I am a self acknowelged smoker, my wife is 20lbs over weight for her hieght. Guess what, she gets denied the extended coverage, not me. So I dont buy the insurance excuse. Not to mention do you really believe the company will pass the saving on to the employee wages? Especially in a time where profits are slim anyway?

 

Just some insight, I have my own bookkeeping business. Not ONE of my clients company insurance apps ask about smokers. Not one! Hmmm makes you wonder!

 

Maybe soon I will be come a non smoker-------- but please dont wear perfume in my presents........it irritates me lol

[stevestojan]

 

(2) Don't fire the smokers, but eliminate smoke breaks and change your hiring policy to state that you will no longer hire smokers, while offering incentives for current people to quit.

219181[/snapback]

 

Perfect.

 

We are not only not allowed to take smoke breaks, but we are not allowed to smoke on company grounds during our lunch. If you want to smoke, you have to drive off of the grounds, and have a cigarette.

 

We do get full health insurance, so incentives to quit would have to be monetary, and that obviously wouldn't work.

 

Can you state that you won't hire smokers? Doesn't that add up to even MORE frivelous lawsuits against tobacco companies (Philip Morris owes me $50,000 a year for life because I'm addicited to their product and I couldn't get a job because of it!) ... I could just imagine that...

[Spiderweb]

Then you should take issue not with the companies, but with whatever law it is that prevents them simply from slashing the health insurance of these individuals.  Why shouldn't these companies be entitled to fire those who force them to spend more on premiums?  Do you people realize that these extra costs are imposed on consumers?  Hey smokers, I've got a novel idea!  Why don't you quit imposing social and medical costs on other people?  How about you pay for your own vices and stop expecting others to subsidize your costs later in life?  And how about you stop imposing the costs of second-hand smoke-related healthcare on others?

218824[/snapback]

 

In case you haven't heard, the smokers DO pay for their sin/vice, with the very price they pay for every pack they smoke. Strangely enough, big government profits quite handsomely from the very heavy taxes imposed on the product. Taxes, settlements, etc. Sorry, but it's the most well funded sin/vice there is.

 

Also, as a side note, a number of years back, during the infamous cigarette trials, the defense (big tobacco) was not allowed to bring into evidence that smokers actually cost the system less (mainly because of their shortened life span). The argument, a bit revealing and cold in that they would have been saying, "yep, our product kills you" wasn't politically correct and was deemed inadmissible .

 

Make the smoker go outside, fine. They have no right to impose their smoke on another person. Just as you my friend, have no right (business, government, or otherwise) to tell them they can't smoke or they'll be fired, stripped of their citizenship, or rights, etc, etc, etc.

 

Yes, I do smoke. At home, I go to the garage or outside for the sake of my family (not to mention the yellow sticky film it leaves on everything inside one's home). I've quit a dozen times, yet ultimately have wandered back. I'll quit again. Maybe someday I'll make it, but that should be MY choice, not yours or my employer's, or the government's.

 

By your logic, next on the list will be Mickey D's and so on until society matches up with your self perceived best intentions. Clearly you enjoy freedoms today you simply do not deserve because you fail to understand what freedom is.

[IDBillzFan]

We do get full health insurance, so incentives to quit would have to be monetary, and that obviously wouldn't work.

 

219197[/snapback]

The last company I worked for offered $2500 to anyone who could quit smoking for one year. Out of 200 people, about 25 tried it and eight made it. It does work, though maybe not as well as other ideas.

 

Nonetheless, it's my company...my money...and I'm going to hire whoever the fug I want (or don't want). The reality is, my company will only be as successful as the people who work for it. Why fire good employees simply because they smoke? Because they cost me more money? Fine. I'll find another way to cut costs, but I WON'T fire good employees because they smoke. It's simply an assinine way to make a statement to the world while not paying attention to your company.

[stevestojan]

The last company I worked for offered $2500 to anyone who could quit smoking for one year.

219203[/snapback]

 

 

The reason I thought monetary rewards wouldn't work is due to the non-smokers getting upset.

 

How did the company deal with that?

[bills_fan]

This is completely unbelievable. A company has no right to control what you do after working hours. Nor should they. I hope this company goes out of business because of the high cost of litigation. Cause they're gonna find out that the cost of insurance payments are nothing compared to the cost of legal fees.

[IDBillzFan]

The reason I thought monetary rewards wouldn't work is due to the non-smokers getting upset.

 

How did the company deal with that?

219204[/snapback]

They offered $3000 to any non-smoker who could pick up the habit in three weeks.

[IDBillzFan]

This is completely unbelievable.  A company has no right to control what you do after working hours.  Nor should they.  I hope this company goes out of business because of the high cost of litigation.  Cause they're gonna find out that the cost of insurance payments are nothing compared to the cost of legal fees.

219210[/snapback]

The company can do whatever the hell it pleases. A job is not a right. This company should be able to employ whomever they want. Don't like it? Work for someone else.

[Fake-Fat Sunny]

This is completely unbelievable.  A company has no right to control what you do after working hours.  Nor should they.  I hope this company goes out of business because of the high cost of litigation.  Cause they're gonna find out that the cost of insurance payments are nothing compared to the cost of legal fees.

219210[/snapback]

 

Actually that tends to not be true (particular specific cases are particular specific cases and one ends up with inaccuracies if you apply any extreme case or outrider as though it were the general rule).

 

Litigation is an episode, while constant costs like consistent insurance or almagamated health costs of employees happen each month.

 

While the smart business translates litigation costs if there are enough of them into a consistent and predictable cost by hiring an in house lawyer to handle the load if there is one, generally the costs of litigation may be bad if you lose a case, but often are even manageable if you lose when they are turned into a cost of doing business and risk is laid off to insurers.

 

The "high" cost of litigation is a relative term. The smart business calculates the costs of litigation and compares that to the income stream produced by various activities which may lead to litigation and then does things that pay and doesn;t do things which do not pay.

 

Our society works because the costs of litigation rather than being "high" in most cases are quite manageable. On the other hand, the costs of healthcare since we bizarrely have made provision of health insurance an area of competition for employees are unrelenting and griowing.

 

My sense is that if the US wants to efficient about doing business it will eventually separate health care and insurance from competition for emplyees doing their jobs.

[todd]

I have yet to see how this is legal. How the hell can you fire someone who is stupid enough to smoke? It doesn't make sense, unless someone signs a contract WHEN THEY ARE HIRED indicating that they won't smoke.

 

I think smoking is stupid, and everyone who smokes should quit. I also think the ill effects of smoking causes everyone's insurance costs to go up. But I don't see how this is fair for people who allready worked at this place.

 

On the other hand, a company should be able to hire and fire whoever they want,. especially if it enables them to remain competitive. That's freedom for you. I like freedom.

 

 

*My bad, I should have put an OT on this.

 

The firm wants to save some dough on health care.

 

http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html

 

I have long thought that non-smokers were better employees -- yes, of course, with many exceptions.

 

Think about this -- those who smoke need extra "smoke breaks," which obviously cuts down on the time they are actually working. If they don't get the breaks, they get “nic fits” and are short-fused with fellow employees and customers.

 

Hey, I smoked for about five years. I am only speaking from first hand experience and observations. I am sure there are many of you out there who smoke and are great employees, but if I owned my own company, I would do what I could to keep smokers off my payroll.

 

*My bad, I should have put an OT on this.

218531[/snapback]

[Spiderweb]

The company can do whatever the hell it pleases. A job is not a right. This company should be able to employ whomever they want. Don't like it? Work for someone else.

219216[/snapback]

 

AP - In a wide spread action by Corporate America, all female workers have been fired yesterday. A joint statement from Fortune 500 companies was issued stating the reason was because their health insurance costs too much.

 

In a related move, Yellow Freight, Con Way, ABX, Roadway, Ryder, were considering firing all male drivers under the age of 35 because their driver's insurance costs were deemed too high, but they've since reconsidered because female replacements would have cost them too much in health care costs.

 

Currently, both the Senate and Congress are considering the elimination of all equal opportunity laws because companies should be allowed to do whatever the hell they feel like doing.

 

<sarcasm off>

 

Maybe as pre-employment criteria, I could accept some of this, but where will it stop? No job for you son, sorry, you've been known to frequent fast food establishments, ride motorcycles, play contact sports, and have also had mutiple instances of blood alcohol levels exceeding .02. But hey, we're only promoting healthy lifestyles and excercising our god given right to do whatever the heck we feel like doing.

[BuffaloBud]

When I worked at Texas Instruments the rule was that you could not smoke anywhere on company property, even the parking lots. People's habits changed real quick.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

They offered $3000 to any non-smoker who could pick up the habit in three weeks.

219212[/snapback]

 

That's sweet!

 

if I was an ex-smoker (which I am), I'd start smoking again to get the three grand then quit for a year to get the $2500!!