Baylor bans hiring smokers, apparently other companies do this as well

[Thizzelle]

My roommate just got hired at a winery. They make you pass a physical to get hired. and the more outta shape/fat you are the more you have to pay each month for health benefits.

[Fusion]

Are you going to charge higher rates to dirt bikers because there's a bigger chance they'll break half the bones in their bodies?

Or higher rates for E30 drivers because an E91 has a zillion airbags?

[Turf1600]

The company that I worked for in Houston banned the hiring of smokers. It's nothing more than a way to drive down insurance costs.

[Kershaw]

Then why are we just starting too see this happening now? I think you mean govt.

come on man, this is why i think you dont read the articles posted here, simply relying on fox news and your "gut instinct to tell you what's right." if you'd read the damn article, you wouldnt say crap like that. read. become educated.

A decade ago, bans on hiring smokers were rare. A few companies — including Alaska Airlines, Turner Broadcasting, Florida's Gulf Power and some law enforcement agencies — were among the early adopters.

Since 2007, the Cleveland Clinic— which has 40,000 employees and hires 5,000 a year — hasn't hired anyone who tests positive for nicotine.

Scotts Co., which makes lawn and garden supplies, made headlines in 2006 when it was sued by a new hire who was fired after testing positive for nicotine;

if you're going to comment (and fwiw i WANT you to comment) read the article man. otherwise you are going to make yourself look like a complete douche.

[evandael]

Are you going to charge higher rates to dirt bikers because there's a bigger chance they'll break half the bones in their bodies?

Or higher rates for E30 drivers because an E91 has a zillion airbags?

that's a poor analogy. what you mentioned are health/safety risks, not a 100% absolute health hazard.

[mrsleeve]

Kershaw I suppose I should have been a little more clear, and worded my post a little better. I had meant why are we seeing this getting much more popular now and becoming more acceptable in society, as opposed to the very very very rare instance of this going on in the recent past????

[z31maniac]

It's a fine analogy.

You're making a choice that could increase the chance of needing healthcare services.

[evandael]

It's a fine analogy.

You're making a choice that could increase the chance of needing healthcare services.

driving e30/motorcycling on the weekend = could

smoking = absolutely will

[mrsleeve]

^


Wrong.

[nrubenstein]

^


Wrong.

By and large, smoking creates chronic conditions, while activities produce trauma. Chronic conditions are what really drive the cost of health care.

Whether or not you want companies banning smokers is a separate issue. I'm personally ambivalent.

[z31maniac]

driving e30/motorcycling on the weekend = could

smoking = absolutely will

You're willfully missing the point.

[evandael]

no, i understand the issue of legislating an individual's 'free' choice.

i'm just trolling.. and veering violently off-course because some people seem to believe that smoking won't kill you.

[mrsleeve]

It can kill you, just because something can kill you does not mean it will. There are millions of people that have smoked for a lifetime that died of medical causes not related in anyway to smoking.

Not saying there is not a high likely hood of having some medical complications due to it, just that your not guaranteed too either like you keep telling us

[RobertK]

As an ex-smoker and cancer survivor I agree that smoker's SHOULD pay more for their bad habit. No one is telling them they cannot smoke but rather should you CHOOSE to smoke then deal with the added cost to your healthcare that comes with it.

Banning employment of people who smoke is over the top when most places could just simply enforce a strict no smoking policy while you are at work. Basically tell employees that they can smoke just not at or anywhere around work. Many hospitals here in TN already have this policy in place. Can't even smoke outside one.

Smoking is a freedom anyone should be allowed to enjoy but when it encroaches another person health then its no longer your right.

I don't want to inhale your secondhand smoke no more than I want your dog shitting on my lawn.

[Thizzelle]

As an ex-smoker and cancer survivor I agree that smoker's SHOULD pay more for their bad habit. No one is telling them they cannot smoke but rather should you CHOOSE to smoke then deal with the added cost to your healthcare that comes with it.

should also apply to fattys