City Possibly not Hiring Smokers
#1
Posted 19 April 2012 - 01:24 PM
http://abcnews.go.co...ban-on-smokers/
Seems like a very slippery slope they are considering getting on. Where does it stop or expand to? What other types of costly or risky behavior will be excluded next?
Erik France
#2
Posted 19 April 2012 - 01:47 PM
When I was in the Navy they had a "Fat Boy" program, whatever it was called. When you got to a certain weight they put you on the fat boy program until you were a reasonable weight. If at the end of the program you were still fat they discharged you. Fair enough.
#3
Posted 19 April 2012 - 02:35 PM
Same goes for overweight people. The first physical before/after getting the insurance determines where they are at, and submits to the insurance company, which adjusts the fee on the monthly charge.
I feel like this isn't difficult to do. But banning a smoker from getting hired is discrimination. Especially if they can do their job well.
#4
Posted 19 April 2012 - 03:24 PM
Hear my original music (and other stuff) at RPQx2 Music
#5
Posted 19 April 2012 - 03:29 PM
If the city employees pay any percentage (I'm sure they do) of their health insurance, then the addition money paid for smokers should come out of their check. The person responsible for having the habit pays the extra fee, the taxpayer/city isn't involved, and people are allowed to have the freedom of choice to smoke or not smoke.
Same goes for overweight people. The first physical before/after getting the insurance determines where they are at, and submits to the insurance company, which adjusts the fee on the monthly charge.
I feel like this isn't difficult to do. But banning a smoker from getting hired is discrimination. Especially if they can do their job well.
It is discrimination. But not all discrimination is bad. I hope the city discriminates against lazy and dishonest employees.
I do like your idea of just charging the employee the difference in insurance. Surely for current employees, as opposed to letting them go.
#6
Posted 19 April 2012 - 05:01 PM
#7
Posted 19 April 2012 - 09:31 PM
I am in favor of it. Slippery slope or not. Taxpayers subsidize these City smokers through higher insurance costs. (And then higher taxes.) And I would go further and not hire fat people. They cost too much also. Surely somebody will come back and say, "What about people that eat candy?". I understand it has to stop someplace. But surely smoking and obesity are the biggies. When you buy medical insurance, they don't ask you if you eat candy before they set your rates. They do find out if you use tobacco or are fat. Both, undisputed major health risks. Taxpayers already pay too much for smokers and fat people. (At some stage of fat we say you can stay home because you are disabled and we will just direct deposit a disability check to your bank account to keep you in Twinkies and new knees.)
When I was in the Navy they had a "Fat Boy" program, whatever it was called. When you got to a certain weight they put you on the fat boy program until you were a reasonable weight. If at the end of the program you were still fat they discharged you. Fair enough.
Shouldn't hire gay people either, they might get aids and require a lot of treatment. Women, wouldn't want them, they just get pregnant and take time off work and leave you short handed, then want medical for the kid too. African-Americans, could have sickle-cell, can't take a chance on them. Irish, they just get drunk all the time.
The truth is people get hired for what they can do for you, not what they do. You will always have a choice and the smoker, fat person, woman, etc, might be the best candidate, you hire people worth their benefits, not someone less qualified because of medical benefits. Stupid, however the Ft Worth council has been acting pretty stupid lately, with year round watering restrictions and this dumb idea. We need a constitutional amendment to ban elected officials that smoke or are fat. That way we wouldn't be stuck with clowns like Obama or Christy.
I saw a human resource person on TV the other day and she said Ft Worth can discriminate against smokers legally because Texas does not protect against discrimination in employment, but 29 other states do and this would not be allowed in those states.
#8
Posted 20 April 2012 - 06:05 AM
The city currently does not hire people with criminal records. And shouldn't.
Just as I stated in my argument, somebody would come back with the, "Gee, where would it all end" argument. At some point you have to draw the line as to what is reasonable. That's is why there are elected officials and courts. There will be gray areas.
The "Truth is", governments need to get smarter with our money. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize unhealthy behaviors.
While it surely is possible that what seems like the best candidate for a job is a smoker, they are still likely not worth it in the long run. Besides the increased health care costs you also have people that are either outside smoking a lot of the day, or sitting at their desks thinking about being outside smoking. Not likely an ideal employee.
#9
Posted 20 April 2012 - 11:12 AM
... Stupid, however the Ft Worth council has been acting pretty stupid lately, with year round watering restrictions and this dumb idea...
I wondered if anyone was going to talk about the year round water issue on this board... perhaps in another thread.
With regards to this issue, and in fairness to the Council, the ideas were submitted by City Employees to the Council for consideration as part of an internal contest to save $$.
#10
Posted 20 April 2012 - 08:50 PM
City employee pay and benefits are 20% over the public sector and if I'm not mistaken a lot of government organizations already prohibit smokers.
Better Business Bureau: A place to find or post valid complaints for auto delerships and maintenance facilities. (New Features) If you have a valid gripe about auto dealerships, this is the place to voice it.
#11
Posted 20 April 2012 - 09:02 PM
I read that Ft Worth is the first city considering not hiring smokers. With 29 states protecting potential employees against discrimination that leaves 21 that don't and you would think someone else would have tried that by now. This isn't a new idea, I have seen it come up several times over the years, so why hasn't any other city done this? My guess is that instituting a ban on hiring smokers really doesn't have much of a short term impact on group insurance rates, so it isn't worth the national ridicule. Over time, 20 or 30 years, when you have weeded out all the previously hired smokers, group rates might be lower, but you never will get rid of every smoker because some people might take up smoking after they are hired, since it still is a legal activity. Same thing for fat people, you might hire out nice and skinny and grow over the years. I wonder if the new healthcare law might make all this moot anyway. In any case it appears the taxpayers do subsidize smokers, fat people and anyone else with a job or not, with insurance or without and discrimination won't change the bottom line much.
Volare, I have see some of your comments on other forums about the watering situation. I agree with what you have said and I think this feel good exercise could have some very bad unintended consequences. One thing I don't understand is that my research turned up that all water policy in Texas ultimately comes from the state legislature, this seems to be the tail wagging the dog. The current stage one restrictions we have in place came from the legislature to the state water board to the Tarrant Regional Water District to the city. They go into effect when reservoir levels fall below 75% and are supposed to end when the circumstances that caused stage one no longer prevail. With levels at 98% today, why are we still in stage one? Is there contamination of the supply or major damage to the system? Maybe the city just doesn't think they need to follow their own laws. I think this would be a good separate thread, pretty much everyone uses water, they just don't all have lawns.
#12
Posted 22 April 2012 - 05:06 PM
#13
Posted 22 April 2012 - 07:15 PM
City employee pay and benefits are 20% over the public sector...
This would be surprising news to me, maybe you could post a link to a source on this? How do you compare city staff to public sector anyway, to make sure it's apples to apples? Cops to security guards? Animal control to pet shop employees? My impression is the majority of city staff are underpaid & overworked. (disclaimer, I'm married to one, so maybe I'm biased.)
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users