Pima County may vote to refuse to hire smokers

[FlamingoTutu]

"Neither rule would apply to people using nicotine replacement products such as gum, patches or sprays, but the ban does include e-cigarettes, Huckelberry said." Pima County may vote to refuse to hire smokers I just really want to know what these people use for brains.

 

[Javamon]

What do you expect from a Huckelberry?

 

[DaveP]

It's funny how many articles say that smokers aren't the ones who are eating the most from the buffet of health care costs.

The true costs of treating smokers, the obese and the healthy | LifestyleReviews

The true costs of treating smokers, the obese and the healthy
Posted on March 17, 2012 by daveatherton

In 2008 the Dutch government looked into the cost of treating people from the age of 20 to death. They had three categories, the healthy, obese and smokers. The results were not what the health gurus were looking for, the paper says:

“Until age 56 annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers. Obese individuals held an intermediate position. Alternative values of epidemiologic parameters and cost definitions did not alter these conclusions.”

The lifetime costs were in Euros:

Healthy: 281,000

Obese: 250,000

Smokers: 220,000

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Sounds like they owe us a lot of back tax money, we've been paying for the healthy people.

 

[WhiteHighlights]

What is extremely egregious, and part of a trend we need to fight, is that they are saying nicotine is bad, not just smoking. This needs to be quashed. I'm off to look for my links to the Alzheimer's study.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

I humbly apologize. I meant to add this quote when posting the OP but was seeing red at the time and forgot. From the article, "Neither rule would apply to people using nicotine replacement products such as gum, patches or sprays, but the ban does include e-cigarettes, Huckelberry said."

 

[readeuler]

Eh, it's probably better for smokers and vapers this way. They sound way too uptight to be worth working for.

 

[DrMA]

This fascist move to control people's behavior must be defeated. Disgusting! I hope the people come out in force like they did in Westminster.

Otherwise, it looks like a typical ANTZ move - go off halfcocked without any regard for logistics or unintended consequences. For example, how did they propose to differentiate nicotine gum/spray/lozenge users from vapers? Look into the financial transactions of every employee or job applicant? Perhaps unannounced searches of their homes? "Enhanced" interrogation at a "black site" in international waters?

 

[WhiteHighlights]

There's also an uncomfortable big brother feeling to the policy too - 'keep an eye out for infringements' and 'use reasonable suspicion'...
Issues with this policy aside, this doesn't seem like the kind of environment (corporate culture) that I'd want to work in.

 

[TNT]

This is really an aside, but on the site where I read about this, the article starts off this way:

Arizona to stop hiring smokers soon

According to a new report, a new Arizona policy will soon ban smokers from working within the state. The Pima County Board is scheduled to vote on December 16 whether they will refuse hiring smokers. Aside from not hiring smokers, new proposal will also inflict a 30 percent surcharge on the health insurances of employees that are currently smoking or consuming various other tobacco products.

Somewhere, banning smoking for new Pima county employees became "Arizona policy will ban smokers from working within the state." I'm not saying that makes it a minor issue... just wondering where the lead came from.

The article also mentions this peculiar device:

Huckelberry added that users of Ebola-cigarette are considered smokers so they need to be cleared too.

 

[pamdis]

I can't wait until employers start taking this to the next logical level.

At my work, in order to get health discounts on our insurance at work, they test for smoking, BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, and AC1 (?) levels. You get 50 % discount for no nicotine, various other discounts for each of the rest being in proscribed limits, and a 10% discount for filling out an online form describing diet, exercise, and lifestyle habits.

Now that it seem normal to exclude nicotine users, I wonder how long before they start excluding hires based on these other things? I'm sure it's coming. When I try to get people I know to be outraged by the nicotine user discrimination, they don't care. But current non-smokers who applaud the smoker exclusions don't believe this will happen to them.

Would love for the prospective employee interview to not only ask "Smoker? Yes/No", but "How many servings of fruit do you eat a day?", "How many cups of caffeine containing beverages?", "How many oz of alcohol?", "How many minutes of vigorous exercise?", "How many minutes of TV?",

ETA: I refuse to get the blood tests and fill out the questionnaire at work on principle, and pay about $80 a month in lost discounts. I know not everyone can afford to do this, but to me it's worth it to keep them out of my business. And it really pisses me off when they send me nagging letters about getting a mammogram or colonoscopy (Our company self-insures)

 

[WhiteHighlights]

I can't wait until employers start taking this to the next logical level.

At my work, in order to get health discounts on our insurance at work, they test for smoking, BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, and AC1 (?) levels. You get 50 % discount for no nicotine, various other discounts for each of the rest being in proscribed limits, and a 10% discount for filling out an online form describing diet, exercise, and lifestyle habits.

Now that it seem normal to exclude nicotine users, I wonder how long before they start excluding hires based on these other things? I'm sure it's coming. When I try to get people I know to be outraged by the nicotine user discrimination, they don't care. But current non-smokers who applaud the smoker exclusions don't believe this will happen to them.

Would love for the prospective employee interview to not only ask "Smoker? Yes/No", but "How many servings of fruit do you eat a day?", "How many cups of caffeine containing beverages?", "How many oz of alcohol?", "How many minutes of vigorous exercise?", "How many minutes of TV?",

ETA: I refuse to get the blood tests and fill out the questionnaire at work on principle, and pay about $80 a month in lost discounts. I know not everyone can afford to do this, but to me it's worth it to keep them out of my business. And it really pisses me off when they send me nagging letters about getting a mammogram or colonoscopy (Our company self-insures)

So, it appears your employer is already imposing different rates for people with existing medical issues in terms of discounts for healthy indicators. If you're obese, have high cholesterol, or are a diabetic (A1C), no discount for you . Wait until they add liver tests (alcohol), memory tests, etc. It is sickening...

 

[pamdis]

No, just wait until they start refusing to hire drinkers or people with bad eating/exercise habits!

 

[AttyPops]

This is really an aside, but on the site where I read about this, the article starts off this way:



Somewhere, banning smoking for new Pima county employees became "Arizona policy will ban smokers from working within the state." I'm not saying that makes it a minor issue... just wondering where the lead came from.

The article also mentions this peculiar device:

Yeah, I found that one too, and posted it in legislation news since it sounded like "all of Arizona". I should probably close the other thread. I did a search in legislation news, but didn't search here.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...na-stop-hiring-smokers-soon.html#post14759734

"Ebola-cigarette" is probably an auto-in-corrected "E-cigarette".

 

[FlamingoTutu]

This is really an aside, but on the site where I read about this, the article starts off this way:



Somewhere, banning smoking for new Pima county employees became "Arizona policy will ban smokers from working within the state." I'm not saying that makes it a minor issue... just wondering where the lead came from.

The article also mentions this peculiar device:

I keep getting "page not available." Probably a good thing.

 

[DaveP]

There will always be a group who tries to make people conform to their standard.

 

[DrMA]

There will always be a group who tries to make people conform to their standard.

The bigger problem and arrogance is the pretense that there is such a thing as "standard" or that it may be comprehended and formulated.

 

[AndriaD]

"Neither rule would apply to people using nicotine replacement products such as gum, patches or sprays, but the ban does include e-cigarettes, Huckelberry said." Pima County may vote to refuse to hire smokers I just really want to know what these people use for brains.

That is outright discrimination, and I look forward to seeing news of the lawsuits this will generate -- since e-cigarettes are NOT cigarettes!

Andria

 

[Lessifer]

e-cigarettes or regular cigarettes, it's a discriminatory practice. I'm sure it could be argued that it's disproportionately discriminating against lower income citizens.

 

[DrMA]

The outrage has nothing to do with tobacco, smoking, or nicotine. It would be a sad day indeed when public agencies can arbitrarily choose who is allowed to work for them based solely on legal lifestyle choices outside of work.