# Pre employment "TOBACCO" screening? New? Purpose?



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

I had a job interview this morning and it went very well as far as I can tell. Rapidly growing Global Geothermal Manufacturing / Renewable Energy company headquartered in Houston. I have to admit that I was somewhat shocked when they told me I would have to undergo a tobacco / nicotine use screening process. Have I been living in a vacuum? When did this come about. I'm a cigar smoker (not in the workplace) and can't for the life of me understand why this would be a concern to the company. Has anybody ever heard of this practice? If so, what in the mind of the employer is the concern about an employee enjoying a cigar before or after his or her work shift? What are your thoughts on this? Enlighten me please? All the best, Hooked Up:headknock:headknock:headknock


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

probably to help reduce healthcare costs by either a) not hiring you or b) pooling you in a different healthcare account

They didn't ask for your facebook account password?


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

> They didn't ask for your facebook account password?


LOL! Not yet.


----------



## br1006 (Mar 24, 2006)

a small handful of companies are beginning this practice of not hiring tobacco users. Reduces healthcare costs, reduced sick time paid etc...

Yes it is legal, so dont bother asking!

So, how do I know? I have been in the recruiting business for 21 years.


----------



## Ernest (May 21, 2004)

Its all about health insurance costs. Been going on for many years. At least 10 to 15. 

Data reveals that those that use tobacco impose, on average, significantly higher health care costs and absentee-ism (spelling?) relative to non-smokers. 

The "savings" on healthcare costs associated with smoking - cause dead people don't need health care - typically does not occur soon enough to provide an overall saving to employers. 

The employers test because folks will lie about tobacoo use to get a job.


----------



## frank n texas (Aug 11, 2004)

They have to pay a higher insurance premium for employee smokers...


----------



## WillieT (Aug 25, 2010)

There are more and more companies doing this...........and will be more in the future. Cigarette smokers that contract related diseases can run up huge medical costs before they die. Therefore employers are trying to defer these costs.


----------



## fishin shallow (Jul 31, 2005)

The company I work for has been doing this since 2005. Been several good applicants that I have had to pass up because of it. In a way its good because I hate the smell of smoke and the people that smell like chimneys


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Wonder if the cigar smoked last weekend or second hand smoke would disqualify an individual? A single cig or a dip? A no tolerance for tobacco? What if u pull a slick willie and dont inhale. Society has really become intolerant of smoking.


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

whats next? Sex screening for singles? You could contract a disease if you have too many partners. Insurance would go up if you had to see the clap doctor...


----------



## That Robbie Guy (Aug 11, 2009)

State Farm asked me to do this last time I was reviewing my policies ... I was like ***.


----------



## driftwood2 (Jun 6, 2005)

Cigarette smokers go for a outside smoke break every hour while the non smoker continues working. Not even considering the health problems. An easy choice for the employer.


----------



## Dgeddings (Sep 16, 2010)

My company does the same, this way even if that person doesn't smoke I their around enough 2nd hand smoke it's just as bad, it's not discrimination either since they require everyone to do it, our company allows smokers to work there but they have an additional fee tacked onto their healthcare package for it, around $15/week extra


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

driftwood2 said:


> Cigarette smokers go for a outside smoke break every hour while the non smoker continues working. Not even considering the health problems. An easy choice for the employer.


Yup...It happens in healthcare too. You cannot work for the Memorial Hermann corporation if you smoke. Positive nicotine in a blood or urine screen is considered & you will not be hired & / or terminated. :rybka:
Just another addiction folks! :frown:


----------



## Wade Fisher (May 22, 2006)

*They must have already started that policy here ......*



saltwatersensations said:


> whats next? Sex screening for singles? You could contract a disease if you have too many partners. Insurance would go up if you had to see the clap doctor...


I've noticed all the new hires are ugly.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

saltwatersensations said:


> whats next? Sex screening for singles? You could contract a disease if you have too many partners. Insurance would go up if you had to see the clap doctor...


Not all uf us were nasty whorz like you were Josh!


----------



## roundman (May 21, 2004)

poppadawg said:


> Wonder if the cigar smoked last weekend or second hand smoke would disqualify an individual? A single cig or a dip? A no tolerance for tobacco? What if u pull a slick willie and dont inhale. Society has really become intolerant of smoking.


compared to back in the 70's-80's when they treated them very well, had smoke areas set up in all the plants,, went to one once and was a coke machine there, got a coke, sat down and boss told me to go back to my work area if i wasnt going to smoke :headknock


----------



## Bull Red (Mar 17, 2010)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> Not all uf us were nasty whorz like you were Josh!


:rotfl:


----------



## TrueblueTexican (Aug 29, 2005)

*Addict support*

Always pixxed me off I have to pay higher premium to support nicotine addicts - companies finally got smart in their hiring process

My company won't hire nicotene addicts and you get a hair drug test screen pre- employment - about one in ten applicants pass

Don't have to wonder where all the drugs coming out of Mexico are going --


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

Yep, Blue Cross has a "tax" on tobacco use, $30/month per head for users. Started 1-1-12. If you try and cheat and get caught, you could lose your insurance altogether.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

It took me becoming a nurse & watching all the COPD patients gasping for their last breaths to make me stop.


----------



## cubera (Mar 9, 2005)

Nothing new, the Champion Paper in Pasadena had that over 20 years ago.


----------



## collegeboy (May 26, 2004)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> Yup...It happens in healthcare too. You cannot work for the Memorial Hermann corporation if you smoke. Positive nicotine in a blood or urine screen is considered & you will not be hired & / or terminated. :rybka:
> Just another addiction folks! :frown:


Thats actually not true. They will not hire new employees who are tobacco users. There is a tobacco surcharge they will be requiring for existing tobacco users for the insurance this year.


----------



## Fishiola (Apr 30, 2009)

Long Term, smokers are cheaper because they die.


----------



## TheSamarai (Jan 20, 2005)

It's probably all the unnecessary breaks a cig smoker takes. And if you get a couple of them together, the social gossiping may never end.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Cigerettes a re delicious. Unfortuntely they kill you. And it is a ugly painful death. Just ain't enough upside


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

collegeboy said:


> Thats actually not true. They will not hire new employees who are tobacco users. There is a tobacco surcharge they will be requiring for existing tobacco users for the insurance this year.


I stand corrected. I obviously receiced bad information.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

poppadawg said:


> Cigerettes a re delicious. Unfortuntely they kill you. And it is a ugly painful death. Just ain't enough upside


 I just can't wrap my head around the concept of a cigarette as being "delicious"... I've smoked a few, mainly after a few dozen beers, and I always woke up thinking that somebody opened a toxic waste dump in my mouth: they don't make a mouthwash strong enough to get that **** out of there..


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Fishiola said:


> Long Term, smokers are cheaper because they die.


That's true for Medicare: it's probably much harder to justify for an employer: they'll die earlier, but most are still dying after retirement age, and the assorted health problems caused by smoking are going to jack the healthcare expenditures before that retirement up considerably..


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> It took me becoming a nurse & watching all the COPD patients gasping for their last breaths to make me stop.


when I walk in front of Memorial.. they're all standing outside in their gowns puffing away, some dragging their machine with them. F'n pathetic, sad for them. And I breathe that **** in as I walk by them to. Supposedly there was going to be a no smoking anywhere in the med center rule/law, that aint happened.


----------



## saltwatersensations (Aug 30, 2004)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> Not all uf us were nasty whorz like you were Josh!


I have no idea what youre talking about. :rotfl:


----------



## -HIC- (May 12, 2006)

InfamousJ said:


> . Supposedly there was going to be a no smoking anywhere in the med center rule/law, that aint happened.


Crazy... The addictive tendencies that are present in tobacco users and alcoholics tend to be present in the good ER Doctors and Nurses as much as any other thrill seeking personality, hence the reason you see many doctors and nurses out there puffing right along with the patients.

People that live in Houston should look forward to being denied jobs next because of zip code air quality tests. In fact, everyone on this board should look forward to a life insurance increase because we choose to go outdoors instead of sitting in front of the television all weekend.

Everyone is fine with the first step of targeting the smokers, but most of you posting will be up in arms when we get dropped, or have an increase for eating the seafood from the gulf, or red meat at all, for that matter.

As benign as it may sound the widespread acceptance of this opens the doors for all other exclusions.

I do not smoke, and in no way affiliated with R.J. Reynolds. 

:flag:


----------



## backwater (Jan 4, 2007)

-HIC- said:


> Crazy... The addictive tendencies that are present in tobacco users and alcoholics tend to be present in the good ER Doctors and Nurses as much as any other thrill seeking personality, hence the reason you see many doctors and nurses out there puffing right along with the patients.
> 
> People that live in Houston should look forward to being denied jobs next because of zip code air quality tests. In fact, everyone on this board should look forward to a life insurance increase because we choose to go outdoors instead of sitting in front of the television all weekend.
> 
> ...


X2....except that I do use nicotine. I do not have a problem with a smoke or dip free workplace or paying higher insurance rates if you use them. But not being considered for a job??? This is just the beginning like car insurance using your credit score to raise rates even though you have never made a claim in your life. If its legal and you do it on your own time then it shouldn't be used against you.


----------



## Tennif Shoe (Aug 11, 2011)

Help me out here, I use to smoke and wanted to quit. Now i use an e-ciggarette. I no longer smoke any tobacco, but would fail this test because of the nicitine in my e-cig? and that would prevent me from getting said job? i havent smoked for 6 months and dont plan on going back.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Henry Ford required his workers to go to Church and not drink.
This is nothing new.
If companies were asking too much, people would pass the jobs up and they'd be forced to rethink their hiring policies. Supply and demand at its finest.


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

saltwatersensations said:


> whats next? Sex screening for singles? You could contract a disease if you have too many partners. Insurance would go up if you had to see the clap doctor...


Do you drink will be the next one.....


----------



## TexasBoy79 (Jan 5, 2009)

-HIC- said:


> Crazy... The addictive tendencies that are present in tobacco users and alcoholics tend to be present in the good ER Doctors and Nurses as much as any other thrill seeking personality, hence the reason you see many doctors and nurses out there puffing right along with the patients.
> 
> People that live in Houston should look forward to being denied jobs next because of zip code air quality tests. In fact, everyone on this board should look forward to a life insurance increase because we choose to go outdoors instead of sitting in front of the television all weekend.
> 
> ...


X2. The non-hiring of a qualified candidate because he/she is a tobacco user is absurd in my opinion. Last time I checked tobacco was legal in this country, and yes, i agree and fully understand there are health risk associated with tobacco use. The solution is simple, like a lot of companies are already doing, charge smokers a higher monthly premium for insurance. IMO that is a better way of handling the situation then passing over a qualified candidate. In addition, to say all smokers are not as productive by abusing break policy's is again absurd, I no longer smoke but when I did it was on my own time and not every hour like some folks seem to claim here.

I agree with a few others in this is just opening the door for trouble. Whats next, your too fat or have diabetes. Heart trouble run in your family. All contribute to higher health care cost. Good luck with that... Just my opinion.


----------



## collegeboy (May 26, 2004)

TexasBoy79 said:


> I agree with a few others in this is just opening the door for trouble. Whats next, your too fat or have diabetes. Heart trouble run in your family. All contribute to higher health care cost. Good luck with that... Just my opinion.


Yes, I do think that is next. If you think tobacoo is a big association with costs, you should see how obese people affect and diabetics. It's not right in the least, but I think this is the next step if people don't stand up to this form of discrimination.

Also, for the tobacco surcharge, you waive this surcharge if you enroll is tobacco cessation classes.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Discrimination is freedom. Don't claim we are free if I as an employer can't tell you as a prospective employee I think you're too fat or you smoke too much and I can't afford your healthcare.
What about the other employees? The ones who take care of themselves? Shouldn't they be rewarded with lower health care costs? Keeping your fat *** out of the company health care pool will do that.
Freedom. Pfft. Most people wouldn't know true freedom if it sat on their face and wiggled.


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

This is a trend that has been developing more each year with companies and yet there are so many new smokers each day. 

You as a smoker have a choice, nicotine or a career job. There are way to many applicants out there and the companies know it. So they can and will be choosy since it affects their insurance premiums. 

For the insurance companies it comes down to what they have been doing all along and that is to group certain individuals into different policies. 

Remember when our home insurance covered everything? Now, due to the increase pay outs in storms, we have separate policies. 

Windstorm, flood and homeowners. 

Same thing happening with smokers and non-smokers. They are separating us into two policies. And yes, as soon as there is enough data to support it, they will most likely separate the fatties from the non-fatties. 

It is all about the money with insurance companies.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk 2012


----------



## -HIC- (May 12, 2006)

jamisjockey said:


> Discrimination is freedom. Don't claim we are free if I as an employer can't tell you as a prospective employee I think you're too fat or you smoke too much and I can't afford your healthcare.
> What about the other employees? The ones who take care of themselves? Shouldn't they be rewarded with lower health care costs? Keeping your fat *** out of the company health care pool will do that.
> Freedom. Pfft. Most people wouldn't know true freedom if it sat on their face and wiggled.


Are you serious? Besides the obvious flaw in this thought, "Discrimination is freedom", a company that does not hire people that have some vices will lack talent.

Fi. Most major companies do give discounts for folks that participate in "get healthy" plans or have low BMI and exercise regularly. My company even has health coaches, and if you meet with them monthly and follow through on a plan a couple could save 800 bux a year.

If you are a business owner you should look into this for your employees.


----------



## teamgafftop1 (Aug 30, 2010)

After all of the obvious classification factors are exhausted (smoking, drinking, obesity, genetics, etc.), it will be interesting to see how they address the sticky wicket of racial predisposition. It's not a secret that certain minorities are more inclined toward diabetes, heart disease, etc. It won't be quite so easy to have "segregated' insurance pools but it follows the same logic in terms of risk assessment. In the spirit of equality, if the argument is based on risk, it should be applied consistently even if race is a factor. That will be fun to watch on the news.


----------



## flatscat1 (Jun 2, 2005)

FireEater said:


> This is a trend that has been developing more each year with companies and yet there are so many new smokers each day.
> 
> You as a smoker have a choice, nicotine or a career job. There are way to many applicants out there and the companies know it. So they can and will be choosy since it affects their insurance premiums.
> 
> ...


It is all about money with all companies, whether in the insurance industry or not. Companies will look for ways to maximize profit margins, and all things being equal, they will hire the applicant that costs them the least in premiums and healthcare benefits (the non-tobacco user in this case). Makes sense, right?

My question is: What about other criteria that might be considered - things that will also keep healthcare premiums lower and avoid sick days, keeping productivity higher. Seems to me by this rationalle, Kids get sick often (so screen for applicants without kids). Young couples are likely to start families, which means time off and possible fertility costs - so screen them out too. But if you get too old, then statistically you need lots more Dr. visits and medications, so out with the oldies too..... Fatties versus skinny workers.... Oh, too bad those are violations of employment law....for now. So why you cannot hire, or even ask, about such criteria in an interview, why cant you give a discount to workers who avoid such costs?


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

-HIC- said:


> *Are you serious? Besides the obvious flaw in this thought, "Discrimination is freedom", a company that does not hire people that have some vices will lack talent. *
> 
> Fi. Most major companies do give discounts for folks that participate in "get healthy" plans or have low BMI and exercise regularly. My company even has health coaches, and if you meet with them monthly and follow through on a plan a couple could save 800 bux a year.
> 
> If you are a business owner you should look into this for your employees.


And when a company runs out of talent, it goes out of business, making room for companies that retain talent.


----------



## marksmu (Dec 4, 2008)

flatscat1 said:


> My question is: What about other criteria that might be considered - things that will also keep healthcare premiums lower and avoid sick days, keeping productivity higher. Seems to me by this rationalle, Kids get sick often (so screen for applicants without kids). Young couples are likely to start families, which means time off and possible fertility costs - so screen them out too. But if you get too old, then statistically you need lots more Dr. visits and medications, so out with the oldies too..... Fatties versus skinny workers.... Oh, too bad those are violations of employment law....for now. So why you cannot hire, or even ask, about such criteria in an interview, why cant you give a discount to workers who avoid such costs?


As an employer, I handle the healthcare costs of our health care plan. I see what each employee costs the company and what types of illness they have. On average (and I understand everyone is different) but on average - smokers cost about 2.5x more per year in just health care costs (pharmacy, doctor, etc), they miss about 4 days more work per year, and take significantly more unscheduled breaks to go outside and smoke. There are some smokers who are not in any of these categories...but the majority of them are in all 3....I see very little advantage in hiring a person who is going to add costs, miss more work, and take more breaks than someone who wont.

But what about the other categories you just listed - child bearing for instance....It has actually been shown that having a family is good for employee retention....while new parents miss more work at the beginning, they generally are not employment shopping....A person with a family to support is a much more stable long term employee, than one who is just supporting himself. A family man has to think about things like bills/healthcare/etc for more than just himself.

And the fat/skinny cost debate is already here and readily available. We chose not to implement that program this year - but it is not discriminatory to not hire someone due to their weight. Obesity costs money....as much as smoking in many instances....so its coming too.

Employees need to recognize that when their personal health care is pooled with the rest of the company, their actions effect their peers. It makes no since to raise the rates on everyone to support the bad habits of a few.


----------



## michaelbaranowski (May 24, 2004)

I am have not been given a test by my company. By they gives you a discount on your insurance if you are a non-smoker or quit smoking.


----------



## flatscat1 (Jun 2, 2005)

marksmu said:


> As an employer, I handle the healthcare costs of our health care plan. I see what each employee costs the company and what types of illness they have. On average (and I understand everyone is different) but on average - smokers cost about 2.5x more per year in just health care costs (pharmacy, doctor, etc), they miss about 4 days more work per year, and take significantly more unscheduled breaks to go outside and smoke. There are some smokers who are not in any of these categories...but the majority of them are in all 3....I see very little advantage in hiring a person who is going to add costs, miss more work, and take more breaks than someone who wont.
> 
> But what about the other categories you just listed - child bearing for instance....It has actually been shown that having a family is good for employee retention....while new parents miss more work at the beginning, they generally are not employment shopping....A person with a family to support is a much more stable long term employee, than one who is just supporting himself. A family man has to think about things like bills/healthcare/etc for more than just himself.
> 
> ...


By any measure I would be the most desirable and cost effective employee - so along the same lines of reasoning, where is my reward? Why would I not be compensated higher in some manner, just as you would penalize others who cost more than I do?

I'm married - so I get the "happy long-term employee discount"
I'm on my wife's insurance - I don't cost the firm a dollar of insurance costs. If you don't use the company insurance (can be covered elsewhere) then is that not a huge savings to your company? Can that criteria be considered when interviewing?
I have no kids - no maternity, fertility, sick day issues, unlike employees with kids.
I take my lunch to work - no lost time due to going out for lunch.
In good health.


----------



## flatsfats (May 21, 2004)

so what about the dozer operator that has a smoke while operating his machine? or the commercial fisherman that is sorting the catch with a smoke in his mouth? those folks will work seven 12's (or more) as long as you'll let em.

plain and simple:its another way for insurance companies to squeeze more money out of folks and we have to play along. keep on acquiescing comrades.


----------



## collegeboy (May 26, 2004)

jamisjockey said:


> And when a company runs out of talent, it goes out of business, making room for companies that retain talent.


Guess your right. Just a shame it makes room for more companies outside the US.


----------



## michaelbaranowski (May 24, 2004)

Next thing you know employers will only hire part-time employees so they don't have to offer insurance. Or just not offer insurance.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

flatsfats said:


> so what about the dozer operator that has a smoke while operating his machine? or the commercial fisherman that is sorting the catch with a smoke in his mouth? those folks will work seven 12's (or more) as long as you'll let em.
> 
> plain and simple:its another way for insurance companies to squeeze more money out of folks and we have to play along.* keep on acquiescing comrades*.


Let me guess....there should be a law against the insurance companies or employers barring smokers, right?

*Laws do not give you more freedom. When the state grows, freedom shrinks. It is a fact of the nature of government. *
If you think the ability of PRIVATE companies and PRIVATE individuals to make decisions and enter contracts with each others is communisim, your idea of "freedom" is skewed.


----------



## FISHROADIE (Apr 2, 2010)

I am a smoker and all these rules and regulations on smoking are out of control. They should just outlaw it and be done with it, lets start proabition all over again it worked last time, not.


----------



## spicyitalian (Jan 18, 2012)

Tennif Shoe said:


> Help me out here, I use to smoke and wanted to quit. Now i use an e-ciggarette. I no longer smoke any tobacco, but would fail this test because of the nicitine in my e-cig? and that would prevent me from getting said job? i havent smoked for 6 months and dont plan on going back.


I asked my HR person directly about e-cigs. She said they don't count towards the increase in premium coming up here in a few months. We aren't going to test or anything, but I guess I'm going to finally make the final plunge and completely get off of the analogs before rates go up.


----------



## flatsfats (May 21, 2004)

jamisjockey said:


> Let me guess....there should be a law against the insurance companies or employers barring smokers, right?
> 
> *Laws do not give you more freedom. When the state grows, freedom shrinks. It is a fact of the nature of government. *
> If you think the ability of PRIVATE companies and PRIVATE individuals to make decisions and enter contracts with each others is communisim, your idea of "freedom" is skewed.


Never said anything about making more laws. I simply have an issue with people that want to shove thier agenda down my neck to make even more profit by worming out of what we pay for in the first place. Health insurance.

How about we start screening people for sugar abuse? Those diabetics cost a lot of money (sarcasm) :headknock


----------



## randymiles03 (Jun 13, 2011)

TexasBoy79 said:


> Whats next, your too fat...


Already happening...

http://lifeinc.today.msnbc.msn.com/...-hospital-says-fat-people-need-not-apply?lite


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Lets make it even more interesting, how about DNA testing for a genetic predisposition. According to your DNA sample you are a higher health risk, no insurance for you.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

I won't hire ugly people.


----------



## flatsfats (May 21, 2004)

Biometric screening. If you have insurance and haven't been subjected to it yet, you will be soon. The goons are at my place of employment for additional monitoring this very morning.


----------



## marksmu (Dec 4, 2008)

flatsfats said:


> Never said anything about making more laws. I simply have an issue with people that want to shove thier agenda down my neck to make even more profit by worming out of what we pay for in the first place. Health insurance.
> 
> How about we start screening people for sugar abuse? Those diabetics cost a lot of money (sarcasm) :headknock


You clearly do not understand how insurance works...there are many different plans available. In the plan I run, the company pays for 100% of the employees medical insurance. You only pay if you smoke (10% of total cost) or if you add a wife/children to the plan (you pay 100% their actual cost).

We are a self insured plan. Under the self insured plan, the employer pays for your care. We pay the insurance company one set price - about $8 per employee per month to do the paperwork, and to utilize the insurance companies clout for provider discounts, and services. When you goto the doctor, the doctor sends the insurance company a bill. The insurance company reviews it, applies their discounts, and then sends me a bill to pay on your behalf.

You are not paying for anything in my plan (except a measly copay). I pay for you....if you smoke and as a result of your smoking you need more health care, I cut more checks directly from me to your doctor on your behalf. There is no set monthly amount we pay....we pay each bill from each doctor every single day....To prevent that from bankrupting us, we buy more insurance (stop loss) that says after that sickly smoker racks up $75,000 this year in blood pressure meds, bypass surgery, and emphysema treatments, the insurance company will pay the rest - up to $2,000,000. Thats another about $3 per employee per month.

So if you think your contribution into an insurance plan is paying for the plan you are wrong....even in a fully funded plan your wrong. You are not paying up front for services that you deserve when you are sick....you are paying into a pool that everyone accesses and everyone uses...if everyone got sick there would be no money left at all....its a risk/reward game...insurance companies are very good analyzing the risk of a smoker, and they have found that they are generally losing propositions.

If I asked you to insure my beach house with a hurricane right off the coast you would decline - even if I offered you 10x more than anyone else had quoted me...because you know you are going to lose. Smokers are the same bet. Almost all smokers have health related issues because they smoke. You may have not had that issue hit you yet. But keep smoking you will....then you will ***** and moan about how you pay for insurance and they only cover x amount of it....when you think it should be free. Smokers drain the pool. It takes non-smokers to fill it up. Smokers should have to pay more.


----------



## flatsfats (May 21, 2004)

I do pay a higher premium and thats not necessarily whats sticking in my craw because I choose not to quit. What bothers me is that those of us who play by the rules are ever increasingly being squeezed to pay for those who do not. 

Let me try to wrangle my thoughts into a coherent string. Think of our country as the "risk pool". The problem is that there are too few footing the bill for too many. 

For example: 

Bums that refuse to purchase auto insurance but get on the road and whack another persons vehicle. They don't have a pot to #### in so there is no way to hold them accountable for the damages even if you take them to civil court. Therefore, premiums go up for everybody. 

Uninsured "Migrant Workers" that go to the emergency room to give birth. They"re not citizens of this country to start with so they just throw the medical bill in the trash and send off the paperwork to add another kid to their Lonestar card. Ooops..we need more taxes and another healthcare premium increase....from somewhere. Hmmmmm lets think. 

Its not us evil, premium paying smokers that are breaking the system. Its just another way to try and stop the bleeding from all the things that our country/society refuses to correct.


Little by little. More and more from every direction. The honest folks anty up and make do with less available cash inflow because it would be evil to refuse healthcare to someone who isn't going to pay for it.

Capitalism or refined Socialism?


----------



## sea ray (Mar 15, 2006)

Dgeddings said:


> My company does the same, this way even if that person doesn't smoke I their around enough 2nd hand smoke it's just as bad, it's not discrimination either since they require everyone to do it, our company allows smokers to work there but they have an additional fee tacked onto their healthcare package for it, around $15/week extra


What do they do about the lost time for smoke breaks?


----------



## flatsfats (May 21, 2004)

Interesting articles:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199710093371506

http://www.consumerreports.org/heal...for-high-costs/health-care-security-costs.htm


----------



## Dgeddings (Sep 16, 2010)

sea ray said:


> What do they do about the lost time for smoke breaks?


they have a break schedule, you don't go out except when scheduled or you don't have a job, I'm in IT so I don't even know what a break is, I even work on vacation


----------



## Hoggin' it (Oct 27, 2006)

If I was a private employer, I would hire the non - smoker over the smoker everytime, if nothing else, then just from a productivity standpoint.


----------



## TexasBoy79 (Jan 5, 2009)

flatsfats said:


> Never said anything about making more laws. I simply have an issue with people that want to shove thier agenda down my neck to make even more profit by worming out of what we pay for in the first place. Health insurance.
> 
> How about we start screening people for sugar abuse? Those diabetics cost a lot of money (sarcasm) :headknock


Don't stop there. Let's stop hiring adults who consume alcohol. More and more study's are coming out showing that alcohol consumption enhances the risk for certain cancers. That said, the consumption rates are not as great as you'd think, meaning you don't have to be an alcoholic like some of you are thinking. :headknock

I wonder what unemployment rates will jump to if employers start the trend of not hiring qualified candidates because they partake in adult beverages.

And for the obesity comments, there are certain medical conditions which cause a person to gain wait (it is not always laziness or lack of control, to generalize obesity as such is asinine). Not hiring someone because there overweight seems seems a bit harsh in my opinion when it could be a legitimate medical issue, and no I'm not obese and one other thing, you'd be surprised at what BMI ratios qualify as obese. The point here is that you don't have to be 300+ lbs to fall under the obese category.

Last, what about pre-determined illnesses for you or a family member to be insured. Let's start the trend of not hiring cancer survivors, epileptics and so on and so forth, after all they do hold a greater risk for higher health care costs. All Seams a bit illegal to me...


----------



## cj6530 (May 15, 2010)

TexasBoy79 said:


> Don't stop there. Let's stop hiring adults who consume alcohol. More and more study's are coming out showing that alcohol consumption enhances the risk for certain cancers. That said, the consumption rates are not as great as you'd think, meaning you don't have to be an alcoholic like some of you are thinking. :headknock
> 
> I wonder what unemployment rates will jump to if employers start the trend of not hiring qualified candidates because they partake in adult beverages.
> 
> ...


generalizations about obesity are mostly valid. Very very few are because of medical issues. What part seems illegal?


----------



## Loyd (Aug 13, 2009)

Next thing you know they won't hire you if you have over 2000 post on 2cool.


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

Loyd said:


> Next thing you know they won't hire you if you have over 2000 post on 2cool.


LOL! Guess I'm in BIG trouble then.


----------



## plgorman (Jan 10, 2008)

Ok. Here's a question no one has asked. How long does it take for tobacco to leave the system, as in be undetectable in the 'tests'. I quit snuff about 11 days ago and am in the running for a job that tests...I wont be tested at least for a couple more weeks.


----------



## vette74 (Oct 11, 2009)

plgorman said:


> Ok. Here's a question no one has asked. How long does it take for tobacco to leave the system, as in be undetectable in the 'tests'. I quit snuff about 11 days ago and am in the running for a job that tests...I wont be tested at least for a couple more weeks.


According to www.whyquit.org 72 hours.


----------



## collegeboy (May 26, 2004)

What I think is funny is that there is hardly any of this(drug screenings) for people to take advantage of free healthcare, lonestar cards, welfare, etc. We continue to let people take advantage of the system. 

But we continue to make it harder and harder to work for a living. Were forcing people to get onto the system with no incentive to get out of the hole they've put theirselves into.


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

sea ray said:


> What do they do about the lost time for smoke breaks?


Probably the same that they do for coffee breaks.


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

Hoggin' it said:


> If I was a private employer, I would hire the non - smoker over the smoker everytime, if nothing else, then just from a productivity standpoint.


I'd hire a smoker before I'd hire a drinker coming to work all of the time with a hangover.


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

cj6530 said:


> generalizations about obesity are mostly valid. Very very few are because of medical issues. What part seems illegal?


Lets ask the fat people here, OK?

Do all of you fat/overweigh people here on 2cool choose to be fat/overweight?


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

When my company was bought out by a VERY big company, they asked the tobacco question and since I smoke, I have to pay more for insurance. But they didn't ask me if I shot up Heroin while bungee jumping from an ultralight.


----------



## BigNate523 (May 19, 2010)

i would just hire a good worker i wouldnt give a **** if he did tooters and shooters at the same time as long as he showed up and does the job he has to do. end of subject 

next your employer will be asking if you are a 2cool member cause i know there is some productivity lost surfing this site lol


----------



## MikeV (Jun 5, 2006)

Pasadena1944 said:


> I'd hire a smoker before I'd hire a drinker coming to work all of the time with a hangover.


You do realize that smokers drink and take coffee breaks too?

But hey, as far as you hiring smokers, your pool of potential employees is likely to get larger over time!


----------



## Walkin' Jack (May 20, 2004)

vette74 said:


> According to www.whyquit.org 72 hours.


The answer to this very good question will vary widely considering several factors:
.Age when started smoking
.years smoked
.How heavily you smoked
.Age when quit smoking
.Filtered or unfiltered cigs
.Overall general health during the time you smoked.
.Pro'lly a few I can't think of at the moment.

Everyone is different in the way we react to certain stimuli. Exposure to tobacco smoke will have a harsher effect on some people than others and like wise the effects of tobacco will dissipate at different rates. I smoked from the time I was 13 until I was 30 years old and it took 3 years for my chest X-rays to show clear. And I was a very moderate smoker, never smoked as much as a pack a day.

But that is just me. I doubt that anyone else would have the exact same results I had. There is one unmistakeable truth though, the longer and heavier you smoke the longer it will take to get free of the effects. And I believe that it IS possible to smoke so long/heavily that you will not be able to shake it.

Case in point my wife's dear sweet mother and several good friends.

Smoking doesn't CAUSE cancer. You can find stories of some people who smoke all their lives and live into there 90s and beyond. What smoking does do it to INCREASE your propensity to get cancer. We are all born at some risk of getting cancer based upon family history and the life style you choose to live. What smoking does is to ADD TO your chances to get cancer.

My prayers and good luck wishes to every one who is trying to quit. God bless.........


----------



## MapMaster (May 25, 2004)

collegeboy said:


> What I think is funny is that there is hardly any of this(drug screenings) for people to take advantage of free healthcare, lonestar cards, welfare, etc. We continue to let people take advantage of the system.
> 
> But we continue to make it harder and harder to work for a living. Were forcing people to get onto the system with no incentive to get out of the hole they've put theirselves into.


X2


----------



## mercenarymedic2105 (Jun 8, 2011)

What I don't agree with is that, as a smoker, I can be asked to pay more into the pool or get disqualified from employment even though I'm more qualified than the next person, but the Travis Pastrana wanna be that thinks he can leap tall buildings on his days off won't. Or the people with kids that weigh twice what they should because they sit in front of an XBox 23 hours a day that's going to end up with juvenile diabetes, or the amatuer motocross racer, or any one of the thousands of people that have high risk hobbies that, if they get hurt, the pool that I contributed to is paying for it....


----------



## Pasadena1944 (Mar 20, 2010)

MikeV said:


> You do realize that smokers drink and take coffee breaks too?
> 
> But hey, as far as you hiring smokers, your pool of potential employees is likely to get larger over time!


I've been a smoker and a drinker..Never missed a day from smoking but missed a few from drinking...


----------



## texcajun (Feb 22, 2009)

I now get charged an additional 20 bucks a paycheck on top of my insurance premiums because my wife smokes. I don't smoke, and I can tell you her health is significantly worse than mine. Just in the cost of reduced premiums and cigs not bought we could be banking and extra $2800.00 dollars a year. 

I am married to a smoker and I don't blame companies for asking employees to bear more of the cost for a habit.


----------



## MikeV (Jun 5, 2006)

Pasadena1944 said:


> I've been a smoker and a drinker..Never missed a day from smoking but missed a few from drinking...


The days missed from smoking will come near the end.

At any rate, it is a sign of the times, with more to come.


----------



## Bozo (Jun 16, 2004)

MikeV said:


> The days missed from smoking will come near the end.
> 
> At any rate, it is a sign of the times, with more to come.


Not necessarily. When I quit smoking my annual sinus infections/flu that kept me out of the office at least 2-3 days a year stopped as well.

I haven't taken a sick day in years and I attribute that to not smoking. Hacking up a lung from smoking compounded by seasonal allergies causes tons of unscheduled time away from work for most smokers.


----------



## cj6530 (May 15, 2010)

Pasadena1944 said:


> Lets ask the fat people here, OK?
> 
> Do all of you fat/overweigh people here on 2cool choose to be fat/overweight?


Wrong question. Do all you fat/overweight people here on 2cool choose to be thin by exercising regularly (hour a day), eat a lean protein/low carb diet, count calories, limit alcohol to a couple glasses a week, don't eat at night and go to bed a little hungry and are still fat/overweight?


----------



## saltwater_therapy (Oct 14, 2005)

Anyone here seen the movie Gattaca? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca
This will be similar to our future society.

tobacco screening, drug screening, alcohol screening, credit checks, demanding access to social network accts, for employment are all bs and invasion of privacy. as long as people arent showing up to work drunk i dont care. what they do on their own time is their business.


----------



## Redfish30 (Dec 5, 2006)

yeah man its all about health costs. The facts show that tobacco users typically end up sick more often than non tobacco users.


----------



## KingTut (May 19, 2005)

We're letting them frisk four year olds at the airport because of terrorism. We're letting them screen for nicotine for healthcare costs. Slowly but surely they're taking away freedoms we all take for granted. How about this scenario? Of the three days a week I have off, I spend two of them in a boat on water in very remote places. In fact so remote that there's usually no one around to assist me should I get into trouble. Does this sound familiar to YOU? Going by the logic so many of you sheeple are applying here, my employer should begin to screen me for unusually risky behavior so as to avoid having to fund my life insurance claim. 

If the few are allowed to sculpt social norms as the masses sit quietly by, they will continue to squeeze until they end-up at YOUR front door.


----------



## TexasBoy79 (Jan 5, 2009)

saltwater_therapy said:


> Anyone here seen the movie Gattaca? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca
> This will be similar to our future society.
> 
> tobacco screening, drug screening, alcohol screening, credit checks, demanding access to social network accts, for employment are all bs and invasion of privacy. as long as people arent showing up to work drunk i dont care. what they do on their own time is their business.


ding, ding, ding. You absolutely nailed what has irritated me from this threads beginning and that's the shear invasion of PRIVACY. Such a slippery slope a bunch of you support here.

KING TUT also nailed it. I'm stunned at the amount of people on here supporting big insurance. Don't you realize in a round about way your supporting big insurance by limiting their exposure to paying claims they dont want to pay in the first place. What's the point of insurance if we continue to let them find ways to scape claims (in this case by culling out there exposure ourselves). Keep fighting the battle for big insurance as KINGTUT calls it SHEEPLE.


----------



## fishermayne (Dec 22, 2009)

I can see how the health insurance companies feel that it is necessary to charge tobacco users more than non users. It is just like the auto insurance companies charging a 16 year old male with a corvette more than a 60 year old woman with a minivan. In order to stay in business they have to collect more then they pay out, so they can either raise the premiums for everyone, or just for those who are engaging in activities that have historically proven to result in higher claims.

So my issue is not with the testing of tobacco for health insurance purposes. My problem is with the testing of tobacco for employment purposes. If the company is afraid that the employee is going to have less production due to smoke breaks, than ban the smoke breaks. The employee can smoke before work, during the lunch break, or after work. If they are afraid that the smokers will have more sick days, then limit there sick days. If they go over there limit, then make the employee use there vacation days. Last time I checked, companies don't own there employees and what the employee does on there time off is there own priority. The only thing the company has control of, is what goes on during business hours. If the smoking does not prevent the employee from preforming the required tasks, I don't think that it should play a role in the hiring process.

That being said, while I think it is short sided, I do think that any company has a right to determine there own policies; and if they don't want to hire smokers, that is there decision. In the end, I think the companies that discriminate based on factors that are not relevant to the position they are hiring for, will end up only hurting themselves. It all goes back to Adam Smiths "Invisible Hand Theory", in a free market if Company A only hires the best "non smoking employees" and Company B hires the "best possible employees available, regardless of there smoking tendencies", Company B will ultimately do better than Company A. By discriminating, a company is only limiting there scope of available candidates and preventing themselves from achieving the maximum results possible.

I have worked in sales for most of my career, and some of the top producers are smokers. If a company refused to hire those sales reps because they smoked, then they would have missed out on all of the profits those employees produced. Furthermore, those top producers would not have quite smoking, they would have went to work for competitors and the discriminating company would have lost out on all of the profits recognized from those sales. 

I don't smoke cigarettes, but for me, if a company I was applying for had a policy for not hiring smokers, it would be a red flag. If they are going to try to control the actions of employees outside of work, then they are probably going to have other policies that I would not agree with. I would be willing to bet that they are also going to have a culture of micromanagement and tend to invade your privacy in other ways. Companies that pry into employees personal lives usually have a mentality that "you are lucky to be able to work here" and are not fun places to work.


----------



## drfishalot (Sep 9, 2004)

Fishiola said:


> Long Term, smokers are cheaper because they die.


 I seriously doubt this to be true. they do die, just not quickly enough to be cheap.


----------



## drfishalot (Sep 9, 2004)

flatsfats said:


> so what about the dozer operator that has a smoke while operating his machine? or the commercial fisherman that is sorting the catch with a smoke in his mouth? those folks will work seven 12's (or more) as long as you'll let em.
> 
> plain and simple:its another way for insurance companies to squeeze more money out of folks and we have to play along. keep on acquiescing comrades.


those folks will work 7 12's, that is true, they also wont have health insurance and will spent plenty of time in the ER/hospital with copd before they die.


----------



## Slightly Dangerous (May 21, 2004)

*Yes*



fishermayne said:


> I can see how the health insurance companies feel that it is necessary to charge tobacco users more than non users. It is just like the auto insurance companies charging a 16 year old male with a corvette more than a 60 year old woman with a minivan. In order to stay in business they have to collect more then they pay out, so they can either raise the premiums for everyone, or just for those who are engaging in activities that have historically proven to result in higher claims.
> 
> So my issue is not with the testing of tobacco for health insurance purposes. My problem is with the testing of tobacco for employment purposes. If the company is afraid that the employee is going to have less production due to smoke breaks, than ban the smoke breaks. The employee can smoke before work, during the lunch break, or after work. If they are afraid that the smokers will have more sick days, then limit there sick days. If they go over there limit, then make the employee use there vacation days. Last time I checked, companies don't own there employees and what the employee does on there time off is there own priority. The only thing the company has control of, is what goes on during business hours. If the smoking does not prevent the employee from preforming the required tasks, I don't think that it should play a role in the hiring process.
> 
> ...


You are absolutely correct. I have employees and could care less what they do in their own time. If it costs me a little more as an employer so be it. If they are important enough to work for me then I am ready to support them however I can and keep them happy. On the other hand the large employers could care less about anything other than the bottom line and they prove it every day. Even their CEO is no more than dead meat if he/she fails to produce. Work is the name of the game and how dare you even think about taking a break of any kind, much less for a smoke.

My question is how many people die very early due to the stress of constant work with nothing to take their mind off of it? Perhaps a good question is how many Americans are taking blood pressure pills? Is it 25%, 30%, or much more? Why were we recently called the Prozac Nation? Why is Xanax the most used recreational drug? I submit that the people in healthcare kill more folks in a year than smoking does in 20 years. Why don't the insurance companies raise your rates if you go to the hospital? Oh wait...they do! Go figure.


----------



## drfishalot (Sep 9, 2004)

Slightly Dangerous said:


> My question is how many people die very early due to the stress of constant work with nothing to take their mind off of it? Perhaps a good question is how many Americans are taking blood pressure pills? Is it 25%, 30%, or much more? Why were we recently called the Prozac Nation? Why is Xanax the most used recreational drug? I* submit that the people in healthcare kill more folks in a year than smoking does in 20 years.* Why don't the insurance companies raise your rates if you go to the hospital? Oh wait...they do! Go figure.


:work: people kill themselves,:work:


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

Slightly Dangerous said:


> I have employees and could care less what they do in their own time. If it costs me a little more as an employer so be it.


So do you as an employee pay pay the cost of health insurance coverage for your employees?


----------



## On The Hook (Feb 24, 2009)

FireEater said:


> So do you as an employee pay pay the cost of health insurance coverage for your employees?


I don't understand why people associate the cost of or the availabily of healthcare as something related to who you work for or if you have a job at all.

Why should an employer pay for or be the supplier of healthcare? Why is healthcare associated with employment? Why is an employer who offer jobs be forced to pay matching fica taxes and unemployment insurance just because the offer someone a job? Most employees do not know that the employer pays from his pocket an amount equal the fica and unemployment taxes that are deducted from the employees paycheck. I feel that if an employee wants unemployment insurance that they should be the one who pays got it.

Obviously. I cannot speak for all employers, but in my experience smokers take more breaks, spend lots of time thinking about and discussing how badly they need a smoke. They also have more absences and tent to be less productive overall compared to non smokers. That does not mean that they are not still great people, just that they cannot separate themselves from smoking.


----------



## FireEater (Jul 31, 2009)

On The Hook said:


> Why should an employer pay for or be the supplier of healthcare? Why is healthcare associated with employment?


Because it is simply a benefit that the employer offers. The reason they call them Health Care Benefits.

Same reason employers offer other benefits such as vacation, holidays, dental, vision ect....



On The Hook said:


> Why is an employer who offer jobs be forced to pay matching fica taxes and unemployment insurance just because the offer someone a job?


I would assume because the employer is the reason you would be able to apply and recieve unemployment benefits.

You simply cannot just quit and recieve unemployment. The employer has to lay you off or terminate you before you can recieve the benefit.



On The Hook said:


> I feel that if an employee wants unemployment insurance that they should be the one who pays got it.


Again, you only are able to recieve said benefit due to the actions of the employer and not yourself.

The employer can deny your unemployment benefit, then you have to appeal the decision of the employer to see if you are entitled to unemployment.


----------



## POC Troutman (Jul 13, 2009)

TexasBoy79 said:


> Don't stop there. Let's stop hiring adults who consume alcohol. More and more study's are coming out showing that alcohol consumption enhances the risk for certain cancers. That said, the consumption rates are not as great as you'd think, meaning you don't have to be an alcoholic like some of you are thinking. :headknock
> 
> I wonder what unemployment rates will jump to if employers start the trend of not hiring qualified candidates because they partake in adult beverages.
> 
> ...


funny how people can be relatively well spoken and still not know the proper use of their/there/they're.

here ya go... http://www.better-english.com/easier/theyre.htm


----------



## En Fuego (Jul 26, 2006)

I love it when people get on here and go on and on about their rights and the personal freedoms being taken away because they get passed over or fired or whatever for their actions.

This issue is the ULTIMATE exercise in Freedom. Freedom for you to smoke. Freedom for the company to not hire you for doing so.

You do NOT have a God-given RIGHT to a job - sorry bud, you don't.

You DO have the right to smoke, or to eat yourself to over 300 lbs., or to drink until you fall down, or to smoke, snort, inject, or consume something because reality is just to boring for you.

It is absolutely your right to do that - just as it is absolutely my right to not hire you because you do.

BY ALL MEANS - EXERCISE YOUR FREEDOMS, just dont come back whining because there are real consequences to your actions!!!

Remember the Dixie Chicks?? They had the right to say whatever they wanted to say about "W", but they had to deal with the fallout from exercising that right. Where are they now? -really who cares - their music sucked anyway.

Dont talk about Freedom and then cry like a little girl because Freedom has a price tag.

You want to smoke those cigarettes, and suck a chili cheese dog down your fat gullet, go right ahead - just be prepared to suffer the financial consequences if you do.

Isn't this what we are all complaining about lately - no one feels the need to take personal responsibility for their actions???

Don't want to have to pay more in insurance? Don't want to risk missing out on a good job? 

Stop smoking - it really, really, really IS that easy.


----------



## En Fuego (Jul 26, 2006)

Point of Clarification - Hooked Up's original post said that he enjoyed the occasional cigar (Just like I enjoy the occasional cocktail)
I don't think that an occasional cigar or drink should be grounds for raising your health insurance premiums, since you could probably inhale as much smog sitting beside a parked car.
The unfortunate part of the test is it seems to be a all or nothing result (for now). It doesn't seem to differentiate between a every so often vs. an every other hour tobacco user - to which the brunt of my comments were directed at.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

I'm looking for a job that requires its employees to smoke and drink, provides free lunch buffet everyday (except Friday half days), and pays about $250k a year. Would consider slightly less if the job is something I like and extremely flexible work hours for dr visits and hangovers or not feeling well enough to come to work. If you know of anything meeting this criteria, let me know. Thanks.


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

InfamousJ said:


> I'm looking for a job that requires its employees to smoke and drink, provides free lunch buffet everyday (except Friday half days), and pays about $250k a year. Would consider slightly less if the job is something I like and extremely flexible work hours for dr visits and hangovers or not feeling well enough to come to work. If you know of anything meeting this criteria, let me know. Thanks.


ROTFLMBO!  Guy


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

Hooked Up said:


> ROTFLMBO!  Guy


Actually, that is a pretty good description of a job in the 90's during the DOTCOM bubble. Only I left out the breakfast bagles and donuts every morning. We had game rooms full of video games, pool table, foosball, and coolers stocked with beer and snacks. They wanted you to live there and get more work done, yeah right. No wonder it busted, huh? LMAO


----------



## Mad Mike (Dec 28, 2005)

Medical costs of obese patients higher than smokers.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americas-waistline-expands-costs-soar-100758490--sector.html


----------

