Employers Ban Smoking-What About Fatties?

[angie]

I can't find the news article, but my train of thought derailed the other day and I came up with a question: I know there are employers out there that want to piss test their employees for nicotine, and will fire them if they come up positive. They are doing this in order to lower their health care costs.

If employers can do this, why can't they fire employees for being fat? Let's face it. Smokers are addicted to nicotine, and fat people are addicted to food. There are those few who have physical problems and there isn't much they can do about it. But in most cases, obesity is self-inflicted. I don't see the difference. Why is it we can say bad things about smokers, but have to be nice to fat people? It's usually their fault, and their binging raises health care costs for those of us who are of normal weight and health. Why should I pay for them to have cholesterol meds, diabetes meds, asthma meds, blood pressure meds, when if they would LOSE THE FUCKING WEIGHT they wouldn't NEED those drugs? And you say I can't have a cigarette and keep working there? Bullshit.

[Reh]

Some fat people are just addicted to sitting on their asses all day. It's not always about food.

[Mohammed_Rots_In_Hell]

Maybe they could test for food in urine as well?

[scout]

Your generalizing.........

Haven't done your homework...

Know not of what you speak.

[jokersarewild]

I agree with Angie...a little bit. You shouldn't be paying for their meds. But who ever said you're supposed to be nice to them. I don't care if someone is fat or not, if they annoy the fuck out of me, one of my insults will most likely involve their lard. And I am a little fat myself. Don't have meds for it. Pretty much everything I eat is reduced fat, but I don't move much. So I haven't gained much weight in a while, and now that I have pnumonia, I have lost 7 pounds, and am now at 203. I am 5' 7". I am not to big for my size. Do people call me fat? Yep. Do I care? Nope. Mainly because their fat-laden grease-smothered food eating will eventually catch up with them. So they will weigh more than me. But are they nice to me? Not really. That is what I am saying. Say whatever the fuck you want. They are another human being just waiting to be preyed upon by the masses. Wait for a better reason to blow up at them though. Their fat isn't necessarily the best argument starter anyway. Wait till you trip over them.

[angie]

Your generalizing.........

Haven't done your homework...

Know not of what you speak.

Care to elaborate?

And JAW, I am not unnecessarily rude to anyone. It just pisses me off to no end when fat people sit and complain about all their physical ailments which are caused by their obesity in the first place.

[snafu]

I

[jokersarewild]

It just pisses me off to no end when fat people sit and complain about all their physical ailments which are caused by their obesity in the first place.

 

But my point was BE UNNECESSARILY RUDE to the dumbass fatties that don't actually realize that this is their fault. Or are in denile. Or are in a burger. Anyway, tell 'em to go not be a fucking pig. I make fun of my gut. Around my friends I'll randomly say "God, I'm sexy!" which always gets a laugh for the reason that I am in shape...cause a circle is a shape. That kinda thing. But you aren't even worthy of jokes if you are 2' 5" and weigh 300+ lbs. You need to just say "Hey fatass, don't complain to me. It ain't my fault that you drown yourself in milkshakes like alcoholics drown themselves in bottles. You need to stop complaining and do something about it." Then you can form your own response when they make a comeback and can barely get it off without having to sit down and catch their breath.

[manicmonday]

I can't find the news article, but my train of thought derailed the other day and I came up with a question: I know there are employers out there that want to piss test their employees for nicotine, and will fire them if they come up positive. They are doing this in order to lower their health care costs.

If employers can do this, why can't they fire employees for being fat? Let's face it. Smokers are addicted to nicotine, and fat people are addicted to food. There are those few who have physical problems and there isn't much they can do about it. But in most cases, obesity is self-inflicted. I don't see the difference. Why is it we can say bad things about smokers, but have to be nice to fat people? It's usually their fault, and their binging raises health care costs for those of us who are of normal weight and health. Why should I pay for them to have cholesterol meds, diabetes meds, asthma meds, blood pressure meds, when if they would LOSE THE FUCKING WEIGHT they wouldn't NEED those drugs? And you say I can't have a cigarette and keep working there? Bullshit.

 

In a work Angie, discrimination. Opening the door to this for smokers or fat people as you would like leaves the door wide open for everyone else. Then the insurance company would quit paying for people's mental meds, diabetic meds, ect ect ect. Sure, it's not your fault your working with someone who's on mental meds, but the insurance still helps cover it. Would you suggest that they cover all of their meds without insurance? Because before I got pregnate, I was taking $900 on different meds to keep me sane. That's what insurance is for. If the company isn't going to pay for mine, then it should pay for your prenatal vitamins because I didn't ask to work with a pregnate lady.(I don't believe this, I'm just making a statement.)

 

Discrimination is a slippery slope. You didn't ask to work with a fatty, but I didn't ask to work with a pregnate person and subsequent child that will be covered.

[angie]

My point is, where do you draw the line to decide who you cover and who you don't?

[manicmonday]

My point is, where do you draw the line to decide who you cover and who you don't?

 

You have to cover every one. It's discrimination otherwise and a company will be sued.

[angie]

You have to cover every one. It's discrimination otherwise and a company will be sued.

Guess what? One company did it and others will follow suit.

[manicmonday]

Guess what? One company did it and others will follow suit.

 

Then the defendant didn't have a good enough lawyer. Insurance covers everyone, not the select. I would be interested in reading your article you pulled this from. Insurance is the only thing I believe should be turned over to a Socialist forum. Everyone is covered and nobody is left behind. Yes that even means the fatties and the smokers.

[angie]

Then the defendant didn't have a good enough lawyer. Insurance covers everyone, not the select. I would be interested in reading your article you pulled this from. Insurance is the only thing I believe should be turned over to a Socialist forum. Everyone is covered and nobody is left behind. Yes that even means the fatties and the smokers.

Um...this isn't about INSURANCE companies refusing, this is about EMPLOYERS firing employees who smoke because they want costs to go down thus lowering the premiums. And as soon as I find the fucking article I'll post it.

[angie]

In a work Angie, discrimination. Opening the door to this for smokers or fat people as you would like leaves the door wide open for everyone else. Then the insurance company would quit paying for people's mental meds, diabetic meds, ect ect ect. Sure, it's not your fault your working with someone who's on mental meds, but the insurance still helps cover it. Would you suggest that they cover all of their meds without insurance? Because before I got pregnate, I was taking $900 on different meds to keep me sane. That's what insurance is for. If the company isn't going to pay for mine, then it should pay for your prenatal vitamins because I didn't ask to work with a pregnate lady.(I don't believe this, I'm just making a statement.)

 

Discrimination is a slippery slope. You didn't ask to work with a fatty, but I didn't ask to work with a pregnate person and subsequent child that will be covered.

Your mania is irrelevant. The point is SELF INFLICTED AILMENTS. Not chemical inbalances that you have no control over, not pregnancy (it's not a negative thing and necessary for survival of the species). Jesus you've got your panties in an uproar.

[angie]

Here's one of the examples. I'll keep looking for more.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041002/NEWS03/410020328&SearchID=73186229035716

On Jan. 1, all of Weyco Inc.'s 200 employees will be nonsmokers - or lose their jobs.

 

On that day, the Okemos-based insurance benefits administrator will make it a fireable offense to smoke anywhere, anytime - including in the privacy of an employee's own home after business hours.

 

"You can do whatever you want, but if you're going to work here, you can't be a smoker, like you can't be a drug user," owner Howard Weyers said.

It's a move sure to spark controversy in a state where nearly 26 percent of all adults smoke.

 

Nonsmokers who support the policy say it will pare health care costs and improve employees' lives.

 

"I think it's great. The intent of the policy is to help employees become healthier," said Mari Damerow, a benefits manager for Weyco.

 

Smokers say it tramples their rights and invades their privacy.

 

"I think it's pretty stupid," said Cooley Law School student Cal Eustaquio, 42, as he puffed on a torpedo cigar at the Creole Cigar Factory in downtown Lansing. "If other companies go the same way, smokers will be marginalized to the point they go underground."

 

Strict anti-smoking policies have been drafted elsewhere, but Weyco is believed to be among the first companies in mid-Michigan to institute such a rule, local experts say. CNN, the cable news network, is among employers that have implemented a similar smoking ban from the workplace to the home.

 

Indeed, there's no law to prevent Weyco from taking such action, said David Houston, an attorney with law firm Dickinson Wright who helped write Weyco's policy.

 

"This is the U.S. of A., and you, or an employer, can do whatever you want to do as long as it is not prohibited," he said. "There is no constitutionally protected right to smoke."

 

Under the policy, employees can be tested to determine if they smoke. The test is sensitive enough to distinguish people exposed to secondhand smoke from those who are smokers. Those who fail the test will be fired.

 

Weyers says the reason for the policy is his concern about health care costs associated with smoking. Studies show smokers are more prone to lung problems, including emphysema and cancer.

 

Said Weyers: "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking."

 

In keeping with his mission, Weyers has helped employees quit smoking by paying for cessation methods. He's also paid an acupuncturist to treat employees who thought acupuncture might help them quit.

 

The policy hasn't been popular with everyone. One employee already has quit, and Weyers said more are likely to either quit or be fired.

 

"I'm not worried about that," he said.

 

Weyco isn't the only company smokers need to worry about these days.

 

A growing number of employers are prohibiting smoking, said John Banzhaf, executive director of Action on Smoking and Health, an anti-smoking group with 100,000 members nationwide.

 

"Smoking adds to the cost of health and disability insurance, and that expense is ultimately borne by the employer and fellow employees," he said.

 

ASH has helped several employers in court when the policies have been challenged, Banzhaf added. The employers have won every time.

 

Still, those who disagree with the policy contend it goes too far.

 

"Where does that kind of thinking stop? Do you not hire employees who smoke or drink or are overweight?" wondered Marshall Kirk, co-owner of the Creole Cigar Factory in downtown Lansing. The American Civil Liberties Union "is going to have a field day with this."

 

The ACLU of Michigan agrees the policy might be challenged.

 

"Tobacco is a medical addiction, and there is some question of whether that could fall under the" Americans With Disabilities Act, spokeswoman Wendy Wagenheim said.

 

"Companies that do something like this are ripe for the picking."

 

Others oppose such policies because they give employers too much control.

 

"This is an indicator of how far corporate culture has invaded personal life. It's disconcerting to me that any business would worry about what someone does on their own time in their own home," said Todd Heywood, a former Lansing Community College trustee.

 

Heywood helped draft a policy when LCC went smoke-free last year. He agreed with making workplaces smoke-free, but drew the line at after-hours smoking.

 

"A company does not own you when they pay you," he said.

[manicmonday]

Um...this isn't about INSURANCE companies refusing, this is about EMPLOYERS firing employees who smoke because they want costs to go down thus lowering the premiums. And as soon as I find the fucking article I'll post it.

 

It's about the company trying to lower it's out of pocket expenses so the are passing it onto the employers in the way of discrimination. If they feel this way, they shouldn't offer insurance as a benefit and just offer high wages. Because there is no legal line in the sand a company should draw not covering people.

[manicmonday]

The ACLU had been notified on this and probabley at this point, brought into it. That means it's discrimination. It's also an infrigment on the employee time spent away from work. Smoking is not illegal. If they were testing for speed which is illegal, then that's great. Test away. Testing for something that is not illegal is a step into something bigger. Test an employee to see if they had too many cheetos the night before and see how far that will get you.

 

The ACLU might go to far sometimes, but they are a great counter effect to the pendalum of justice. This isn't the last of this we will hear, I'm sure. Discrimination thru and thru.

[manicmonday]

Your mania is irrelevant. The point is SELF INFLICTED AILMENTS. Not chemical inbalances that you have no control over, not pregnancy (it's not a negative thing and necessary for survival of the species). Jesus you've got your panties in an uproar.

 

 

No but this is about a company deciding what behaviors are controlable and what aren't. I would refuse to work for a company that wanted that much control. That's why I'm self employed. I refuse to lower myself to work for a company that thinks it's God like enough to decide what they are going to cover and what they aren't. Anyone who see's different is being hoodwinked.

[Lethalfind]

I have read about this case Angie is talking about and I wondered how long it would stand like this. I can't imagine that this employer will get away with this long term.

 

However I do see one difference between fat people and smokers. From what I understand of the Americans With Disabilities Act, being fat could be considered a disability under those guidelines.

As it stands insurance does not normally pay for slimming medication. There are times that insurance will pay for gastric bypass but I know that in 2005 (I think) HUmana in Florida stated they would no longer be paying for gastric bypass at all because of all the other medical problems it brings up.

 

I have heard of policies that give you a discount on things like a gym membership in order to encourage people to live more healthy. There are also plans that give discounts for preventative care but where does this stop?

 

The medical community still says that for some people there is an influence that can be said to be genetic, however most also go on to say that these people can loose weight but don't try. Dr Phil points this out in his own family, he had two nephews who were both over 500lbs. He says that of course it doesn't help that they eat...and he went on to describe what they were eating in one meal. I wanted to be sick. It could have fed a whole homeless shelter. He even stated that one of his nephews had lost 100lbs, then and onl once he had lost that much weight he was able to fit in an MRI and found that he had cancer and was able to get it treated.

 

I agree, it annoys the shit out of me to sit and hear people go on about things they bring on themselves, to be honest even if its not something they bring on themselves. There are people out there who are so self absorbed thats all they want to talk about.

Life is too short to dwell on things like that in my opinion.

 

Be very sure of one thing if nothing else in all this, the insurance company would like nothing else but to find an excuse to NOT pay for just about anything...problems you have because of genetics, being fat, smoking, whatever else they can find an excuse for.

Don't think that for one minute that if employers start doing something like this that insurance companies won't try to take up the banner and refuse converage to people and the group they pick might be one that YOU fit into next...

[jokersarewild]

Like pregnant...

[scout]

Care to elaborate?

And JAW, I am not unnecessarily rude to anyone. It just pisses me off to no end when fat people sit and complain about all their physical ailments which are caused by their obesity in the first place.

I have reread your post as I should have done before I replied to it. I took that leap that I have on other forums here. I think I have seen the light, hallelujah! You did say that there are some overweight people that have a legitimate problem. I agree there are a lot of people that just don't care. But how do you differentiate the two? So the ones that have the legitimate problem have to lose their benefits so the ones that don't, don't get the benefits? Not very realistic. It sucks. Smokers have a choice, no matter how you look at it. Smokers do become ill more often than nonsmokers. The longer you smoke the more pronounced the illnesses become. Trust me on this, I've smoked for 39 years. If you don't smoke you live a healthier more productive life. You don't eat, you die.

[angie]

I have reread your post as I should have done before I replied to it. I took that leap that I have on other forums here. I think I have seen the light, hallelujah! You did say that there are some overweight people that have a legitimate problem. I agree there are a lot of people that just don't care. But how do you differentiate the two? So the ones that have the legitimate problem have to lose their benefits so the ones that don't, don't get the benefits? Not very realistic. It sucks. Smokers have a choice, no matter how you look at it. Smokers do become ill more often than nonsmokers. The longer you smoke the more pronounced the illnesses become. Trust me on this, I've smoked for 39 years. If you don't smoke you live a healthier more productive life. You don't eat, you die.

No problem. I've done my fair share of that.

There IS no way to differentiate the two. EVERYONE has some sort of unhealthy habit, and in the end, it's not anyone else's business(except smoking, which is why it is banned in public places, but that is for another time). We all have to pay our health care costs regardless of our health. That is what I have been trying to get at. I guess I put it the wrong way cause' I'm the only one who gets it.

[scout]

Do you mean how can they single smokers out as more costly than any other group? Maybe because it's in vogue now to single out smokers and therefore they'll be more likely to get away with it. Your employer pays part of your health insurance costs, so it's in their interest to lower the cost.

[Lethalfind]

Insurance companies always ask, do you smoke and do you drink. So does your doctor and don't you think that information is being forwarded to your insurance company by them at some point...the answer to that is YES !!!