Employers and smoking in Michigan

[ARedetzke]

Let me preface this by saying that I am not comparing smoking to doing drugs. But here is the logic: Studies have shown that drug users are more prone to on the job accidents. Therefore insurance companies offer discounts to companies that drug test their employees because the liability is lower. The same logic applies with smoking. Smokers are going to cost insurance companies more money with respect to health care costs. This will be passed along to the employer, and the portion of your insurance that they pay will go up. At the heart of this debate is one thing: an employer trying to cut his costs in order to improve the bottom line. Say what you want about "big brother", but capitalism is driving this initiative, not some anti-smoking agenda.

Just my 2 cents

AJ

 

[TSpecht]

My point is, however, where does the line get drawn? Will a company at some point be able to pick activities in which it's employees may not participate when they aren't on the clock? Will they be able to say, no shooting, no ATV's/snowmobiles, will they require employees to drive environmentally friendly stupid little econoboxes, etc, etc? People are getting fired far too often these days without having to give businesses more excuses to let people go.



My problem here is this will basically be a precedent to them banning other activities that somebody puts on a list. Well if we can fire employees who smoke, why not employees who ___________ (fill in the blank)...



For the record I don't smoke, understand it's not good for anyone including society but I also realize that if everybody doesn't try to take a stand against things with potentially far reaching implications, by the time it gets to your activity of choice it's too late, there's not enough people left to put up a valid defense.

 

[Mike Ellis]

There are lots of things that people do outside of work that end up costing the company money due to increased healthcare - they smoke, they drink, they get fat, they take drugs, they have dangerous sex, they ride dirt bikes, drive dune buggies, speed boats, airplanes, you name it.



One of the MOST expensive things you can do outside work that affects your company's healthcare bottom line, is to get PREGNANT. Child birthing is expensive, risky, and it takes the employee out of action for months at a time.



You boys who are in favor of a company being able to fire someone for outside-of-work behavior, might be whistlin' a different tune someday when your wife or daughter or sister gets fired for getting knocked up - or when they fire YOU because your wife is pregnant (even if she doesn't work at the company, if she is covered by your insurance the pregnancy costs them money):-laf :-laf Hey, if you want to have a family you can just choose to work for an employer who cares about stuff like that right? :-laf



Think of all the other areas where the company could save money! Why employ Jimbo who's son has an expensive health condition like juvenile diabetes or multiple schlerosis, when there are lots of single guys without kids who don't impose such costs? And just think how cool it would be if you could have a DNA test run on your prospective employees along with the normal drug screening, and find out whether there is a risk their FUTURE children might be susceptible to some expensive condition - you could avoid those potential costs WAY before they became a problem just by never hiring the guy.



It's all about choice, right?

 

[strick]

Ding! We have a winner! :-laf

 

[jtisdale]

Its not about choice at all. Its about money.