All companies should refuse to hire smokers

Aghast wrote:

It doesn't matter how many miles you can run while smoking. What matters is your dramatically increased risk of heart attacks, aneurysms, and cancer. Whether you end up with these maladies makes no difference. What matters is that on average people like you are a much greater risk for a company.

The same can be said for people who binge drink, eat fast food, run on train tracks, run with iPods, have sex with people outside of marriage.

I am not defending smoking, it is nasty, but don't go on some high moral tirade about smokers when you probably do some stupid shit as well.

Glass houses beeeyotch.

Truth Man #34 wrote:

[quote]Aghast wrote:

The same can be said for people who binge drink, eat fast food, run on train tracks, run with iPods, have sex with people outside of marriage.

I am not defending smoking, it is nasty, but don't go on some high moral tirade about smokers when you probably do some stupid shit as well.

Glass houses beeeyotch.

Well I don't do any of the above. But I do run in the Fl sun, all summer long, which increases my risk of getting melanoma, which is the disease that recently killed my father-in-law. And even distance running itself--can be hazardous to your joints. It will really suck if my smoking/drinking/binge-eating friends end up walking around happy into their later years, and I'm stuck using a walker because I just had to run so much.

There is a glass houses issue. But anyone who smokes honestly should try everything to stop. Just like I'm trying to wear more sunscreen to protect my skin and strength training to protect my joints.

Complete change of subject: my aunt just last week died of a massive heart attack at the age of 59, with no previous heart problems. She smoked, didn't exercise, and didn't eat well. Life can really bite you in the butt if you don't take care of yourself as much as possible (of course any of us could get run over by a car but I'm just sayin').

i always laugh at people when i see them outside freezing their asses off on their smoke break.

Truth Speaker Man wrote:

I think companies should refuse to hire people who eat fast food.

Fast food is a much bigger problem.

________________________________

Possibly. But, look at this; Fast food eaters will work a typical day, go to a fast food place and hurry back. Yes they are typically lazier after due to the contents they have eaten.

Now, look at the smoker. Each smoker usually takes at least one break before lunch and one after lunch before the end of the day. some take more cigarrete breaks.

The point is, subtract the time the smokers are taking away from work. It adds up to more than you would think. If someone took 2 10 minute breaks a day, that's 20 mintes per day, and about 100 minutes per week and so on. So, if they take 400 minutes per month and multiply this by 12 = 4800 minutes, divide by a 60 minutes = 80 hours. That means, just 2 so-called "little" smoke breaks for some smoker, and these people get to take off 2 weeks with pay!

The kicker is, if a non-smoker tried to take a break with the smoker, they would get into trouble.

I'll take the fast food worker, and know they won't milk the 401k for very long. But, they won't cheat the company out of two weeks every year like a smoker. And, that's a conservative number.

Maybe companies should refuse to hire those who drink alcohol.

That is a very devestating drug much more likely to affect the performance of a young or middle aged worker than smoking?

What say you?

Not quite. While all those things have negative effects it is not on the same level as smoking. The number one thing you can do to reduce your risk factors is to stop smoking. The other things you mention aren't even in the same league as smoking.

Truth Man #34 wrote:

The same can be said for people who binge drink, eat fast food, run on train tracks, run with iPods, have sex with people outside of marriage.

I am not defending smoking, it is nasty, but don't go on some high moral tirade about smokers when you probably do some stupid shit as well.

Glass houses beeeyotch.

If you are saying companies shouldn't hire or employ drunks - I 100% agree. But unlike smoking, you can drink with moderation without any negative (possibly positive) health effects.

The New UncleB wrote:

Maybe companies should refuse to hire those who drink alcohol.

That is a very devestating drug much more likely to affect the performance of a young or middle aged worker than smoking?

What say you?

You have just made me want to take up smoking

Aghast wrote:

If you are saying companies shouldn't hire or employ drunks - I 100% agree. But unlike smoking, you can drink with moderation without any negative (possibly positive) health effects.

You can smoke in moderation without negative health effects as well. My great grandmother lived to be 96 and she smoked 3 or 4 cigarettes a week most of her life. Should she have been unemployable because she was a smoker?

It's actually kind of funny to see runners complaining about others who do unnecessary things by choice that raise health care costs. How many non-runners ever need Achilles surgery? How often does the average twenty-something year old non-runner go to the doctor? Ever? Just look at posts on Letsrun to get an idea of how many trips to the doctors office and physical therapist competitive athletes make.

With health care costs so high it makes no sense to hire a smoker when you can find an equally qualified non-smoker. Not smoking is the number one thing you can due to decrease risk of cancer and heart problems. Why should a company take on such a burden willingly? If I ran a company, I would never hire a smoker. I would also be more likely to hire a runner over an equally qualified sedentary person.(quote)

this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard. i seriously hope that you're joking.

Okay I will take the bait. Tell me what is not correct in that statement:1) Health care costs for companies are high?2) Smoking is the number 1 preventable risk factor for heart problems and cancer?3) If you excluded smokers, companies could get better health care insurance rates?4) Companies are already excluding/firing smokers for this reason?

hah really? wrote:

With health care costs so high it makes no sense to hire a smoker when you can find an equally qualified non-smoker. Not smoking is the number one thing you can due to decrease risk of cancer and heart problems. Why should a company take on such a burden willingly? If I ran a company, I would never hire a smoker. I would also be more likely to hire a runner over an equally qualified sedentary person.(quote)

this is the dumbest thing i have ever heard. i seriously hope that you're joking.

You don't understand risk factors. Just because one person lived a long time and smoked in moderation doesn't mean that on average such a group is at significantly higher risk for health problems - they are

moderation is key wrote:

Aghast wrote:

If you are saying companies shouldn't hire or employ drunks - I 100% agree. But unlike smoking, you can drink with moderation without any negative (possibly positive) health effects.

You can smoke in moderation without negative health effects as well. My great grandmother lived to be 96 and she smoked 3 or 4 cigarettes a week most of her life. Should she have been unemployable because she was a smoker?

It's actually kind of funny to see runners complaining about others who do unnecessary things by choice that raise health care costs. How many non-runners ever need Achilles surgery? How often does the average twenty-something year old non-runner go to the doctor? Ever? Just look at posts on Letsrun to get an idea of how many trips to the doctors office and physical therapist competitive athletes make.

once you cross that line, it would be a slippery slope. where would you draw the line on who not to hire? the obese? diabetics? what if somebody is not a smoker when they get hired, but begin smoking a year later? it's just completely unrealistic.

The lines are pretty clear. If you smoke - you aren't hired. If you become a smoker - you are fired. If you lie when you are hired and are actually are a smoker - you are fired. There is precedent all of this already (mostly at hospitals) so that line has been crossed.In terms of other situations - obese, diabetics, etc. that is a different case. Obese is probably the closest but they are a protected class in many states. Let me ask you this. Would you hire a drunk? Would you fire an employee who is a drunk? Analogous to smoking addict.

hah really? wrote:

once you cross that line, it would be a slippery slope. where would you draw the line on who not to hire? the obese? diabetics? what if somebody is not a smoker when they get hired, but begin smoking a year later? it's just completely unrealistic.

Aghast wrote:

You don't understand risk factors. Just because one person lived a long time and smoked in moderation doesn't mean that on average such a group is at significantly higher risk for health problems - they are

Show me that moderate smokers (say, those who smoke fewer than 6 cigarettes per week) have increased risk, then. I'll be glad to read any study you provide a link to.

Your great-grandmother was one of those statistical outliers, just like my wife's 93 year old grandfather--he's smoked a couple of packs a day since he was teenager. He's still sharp as a tack and has had only one major health issue--colon cancer about six years ago; he had surgery and completely recovered. How many non-smokers can make a similar claim to such longevity?

It's incredible how much abuse (some) human bodies can take and still beat the odds....

i would not hire a drunk, because alcohol is mind-altering. obviously i wouldn't want some dude showing up to work f'd up.

Yeah, ok, make all smokers unemployed in your utopia. Then see how you're doing without doctors, lawyers, dentists, gas station clerks, librarians, professors, etc

Actually, if a company really wanted to minimize costs they should EXCLUSIVELY hire smokers.

The vast majority of healthcare costs for the average person are incurred in the last few years of old age as the person's health begins to fail.

Also, a person living a full life costs a TON in pension costs.

Smoking helps short-circuit both of those. And, the person is still pretty productive during most of their working life. Then, they get sick and die. If that is in their 50s, or 60s, they've already worked for 30-40 years. Not all they were going to do is suck off the pension teet for another 25-30 years. What company wants that?!