NationStates Jolt Archive

I was watching the news two nights ago, and I noticed that somewhere in.... Bulgaria I believe, a corporate owner, in an attempt to cut down smoking amongst his employees, is giving pay cuts to smokers, and a small raise to non-smokers. To get this, you must make a pledge to not smoke. All those who do not make it, get a wage cut.

I was just wondering what people thought about this? I hear people complain about gov't regulation of smokers, but what about corporate? After all, you don't have to work there. Does anyone disagree or agree with this? Unfortunately I don't have a source right now, but I'm just about to go looking for one, I'll either edit it in, or give it a post soonish. However this is not about the specific case, but the decision in general.

Good to know that the spirit of prohibition is alive and well in the world...

Its such an unreasonable thing to do. Makes me feel like taking up smoking just to spite these people.

Perhaps... my main point was that people who endorse smoking say "well you don't need to go to that pub, you don't need to go to that job", etc.... now that the tables have been turned, will they say "well, Bulgarians don't need to work there", and so on.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4305267.stm

that's the story.

I was watching the news two nights ago, and I noticed that somewhere in.... Bulgaria I believe, a corporate owner, in an attempt to cut down smoking amongst his employees, is giving pay cuts to smokers, and a small raise to non-smokers. To get this, you must make a pledge to not smoke. All those who do not make it, get a wage cut.

I was just wondering what people thought about this? I hear people complain about gov't regulation of smokers, but what about corporate? After all, you don't have to work there. Does anyone disagree or agree with this? Unfortunately I don't have a source right now, but I'm just about to go looking for one, I'll either edit it in, or give it a post soonish. However this is not about the specific case, but the decision in general.

As long as smoking is only prohibited at work, I'm fine with it. Punishment for out of work smoking is just evil.

Well, they'd lose me as an employee if they did that. :shrug:

As long as smoking is only prohibited at work, I'm fine with it. Punishment for out of work smoking is just evil.

No, it's already prohibited at work. it's a total smoking ban. as the link says, ANYONE caught must pay their earnings back in entirety.

But you don't need to work for that guy.... :D

Jeez, thats going TOO far by a fair stretch.... maybe their health care system can't support a high lung cancer rate?

I'm all for the ban in rest/pubs/nightclubs (as a barman meself), but not to the extent that the govt intereferes so drastically. :(

This has nothing to do with the government. This is the initiative by the CEO of a Bulgarian cable corporation, to cut smoking within his company by offering raises to those who won't, and cuts to those who do.

The government is not involved.

Ah, misread a line or two oops :p

still, that surely infringes on some anti-discriminatory legislation?!

well if the smokers do cost the employer more money (insurance? more breaks?) then i can understand, but i still think that goes to far.

I don't believe so. There's nothing protecting smokers, they are not an ethnic group, or sex, or anything like that. Their addiction is entirely their choice, so they cannot be declared.... unaccountable for any consequences they are aware of. my main point is that people accuse gov'ts of being too interfering. Now it seems that at least one corporation is beginning to interfere just as much.

Bumpleration!

I think its a great idea. The money is going to come flying out of the companies purse when the smoker is a lifeless lump on his death bed breathing in pure oxygen and coughing up tar from his lungs. Its a great way to start putting money aside for that fateful week of death and dispair.

Good to know that the spirit of prohibition is alive and well in the world...

Its such an unreasonable thing to do. Makes me feel like taking up smoking just to spite these people.
Hey, corporate freedom. *maniacal laughing* Yeah, I'm evil.

I don't believe so. There's nothing protecting smokers, they are not an ethnic group, or sex, or anything like that. Their addiction is entirely their choice, so they cannot be declared.... unaccountable for any consequences they are aware of.

Would you be ok if Catholics (or any other religious denomination for that matter) were paid less then non-Catholics?


After all, it can be argued religion is an addiction entirely based on the choices of its adherents ;)

Would you be ok if Catholics (or any other religious denomination for that matter) were paid less then non-Catholics?


After all, it can be argued religion is an addiction entirely based on the choices of its adherents ;)


That could be argued. Really, this entire thing is just... to show the reversal, in this case, of non smokers being told to go elsewhere. I wondered if the people who commonly say that would suddenly reverse their opinion of that and call it horrible. But so far, there has been very few responses :( I think I was seen through!

No, that was a side thing for my amusement. it was actually, and really, to demonstrate that corporations don't even need to legislate discriminatory policy, they just have to enact it, and there's little people can do about it. Unrestricted capitalism, what what? It's a modern miracle, and can do no wrong. It makes economic sense. There are figures ranging from 55% to 2/3s of Bulgarians smoking, so they're saving money by giving them pay cuts, and the pay raises they have to give out probably don't balance that out.

I support the right of private employers to make really stupid human resource policies, unless they're bound by contract not to.

Would you be ok if Catholics (or any other religious denomination for that matter) were paid less then non-Catholics?


After all, it can be argued religion is an addiction entirely based on the choices of its adherents ;)

Yeah, but religion doesn't give off addictive fumes.

I really hate smoke. Like, I loathe it. Both my parents smoked two packs a day when I was growing up, and I lost my immunity to it when I was twelve because they both quit for a year and then started again, so my earlier teenage years sucked testicles. That said, this is discrimination, and not cool. Smoking is legal, and should be treated as such.

Yeah, but religion doesn't give off addictive fumes.


Have you ever been to Catholic Mass?


http://www.marieaux.org/uk/images/main_buttons/celeb_spirituality.jpg

;)


The fumes are indeed addictive. When I was an altar boy, there used to be fights over who would be thurifer.

im on the edge with this one. the workplace is most likely private property, and it is legal to ban smoking on private property. and i can see why an employer would do such, especially if the employees do nothing but stand outside and smoke... on the other hand, if thats not the problem, and its simply because cigarettes are unhealthy, then im against his decision simply because it peoples own choice what to put into their body.

as for the addicting religion. i dont find it something i want to be addicted to, but evangelistic christians sometimes seem like they want you "addicted"

im on the edge with this one. the workplace is most likely private property, and it is legal to ban smoking on private property. and i can see why an employer would do such, especially if the employees do nothing but stand outside and smoke... on the other hand, if thats not the problem, and its simply because cigarettes are unhealthy, then im against his decision simply because it peoples own choice what to put into their body.



The unhealthy aspect is apparently his reasoning, but he also says that they are less productive. But aside from not working for the guy, there's nothing you can do about it, and I think his corporation is a large employer in Bulgaria.

Why is this news? It's been legal for police departments in the US to do this for years. You will not be hired as a police officer in California, for instance, if you test positive for nicotine in your pre-employment drug screen. (Although why one of the highest-stress jobs in the world prevents people from inhaling sweet, sweet, delicious, wonderful nicotine...and the rest of the 300-400 chems...is beyond me.)

Not just that, but there are several companies - publicly owned, no less - that will not hire smokers. It doesn't matter where you smoke - they can and have fired people for smoking in their homes.

If the worst that's happening in Bulgaria is a pay cut, they should consider themselves fortunate.

As a smoker, I'm not fond of that idea, but really can't find any reasonable grounds to object to it. As long as its done with respect, its a good positive incentive to quit smoking. I mean, it boils down to: If you quit smoking, I will pay you more money. If you don't, I will cut your pay. I suspect the CEO would rather see all his employees give up smoking and pony up the money, then see them all continue smoking and suffer a pay cut. He seems, to me at least, to be putting his money where his mouth is, AND giving his employees an opportunity to do the same. Looks good on him and its a damn sight more than your average anti-smoking crusader is willing to do. If my employer did the same? Hmmm?

*thinks*

*smokes*

*thinks some more*

Yeah, I'd sign that contract. My big boss is a pack-a-day smoker, but I could see him doing this if he decided to quit smoking. He's a charmingly crazy old Lebanese, its just the kind of crazy thing he'd do. (We already get a special bonus for buying/driving fuel effecient cars... and it a family operation, not a big old corp.)

Perhaps... my main point was that people who endorse smoking say "well you don't need to go to that pub, you don't need to go to that job", etc.... now that the tables have been turned, will they say "well, Bulgarians don't need to work there", and so on.
If a corporation doesn't want to hire smokers, or decides to pay them less, they can feel free to. They'll just send the smokers off to find employment elsewhere.

Now I do take some offense to that he is lowering the wages of current employees and didn't tell them this when they were hired. IE, a bar that allows smokers sort of tells you that at the entrance (or by the smell). Working for a company for 10 years and then being told 'oh btw, we've decided to pay you less now', seems like a rather assholeish thing to do. But hey, its their basic right. And a rather stupid decision to make if the majority of the population are smokers.

I hate whiney smokers.

I'm serious.

You knew it was bad for you (those who started in the last 30 years) and you did it any way.

You have a lot of excuses for it, but basically, you were weak, and now you're addicted.

But unless the job entails physical performance, they have no right to say what you do outside of your job. They woud be perfectly justified in not offering health or dental insurance to a smoker.

I don't think banning smoking from resturaunts is wrong, or discrimitory. Just because you got addicted, doesn't mean the rest of us have to deal with your shit.

But to me, the amount your paid is representative of what your job is worth and what your boss can pay you.

So when somebody says "I pay smokers less," if I were the smoker being told that, I would hear, "I value smokers less."

And like I said, it depends on the job, but smokers are just as a good a workers as anybody.

And like I said, it depends on the job, but smokers are just as a good a workers as anybody.

Except that the medical bills in 20 years time will come back to bite you.

Uh, yeah, um, what does that have to do with anything I said? :confused:

Once again an issue where my personal opinion conflicts with my principles. Yes, if it were up to me, cigarettes would not exist. They stink, they're unhealthy, they're addictive. And no, employers should not be able to control their workers this way. Non-smoking policies at work are completely fine (in fact they are necessary in most places for reasons of safety and/or customer image), but when an employer attempts to control an employee's private life outside of the workplace, we get Orwellian policies.

In summary, I have no issues with pay raises for non-smokers, but pay cuts for smokers are a no-no.

Uh, yeah, um, what does that have to do with anything I said? :confused:

You said they will make good workers. I don't dispute that, but the additional factor of medical bills and decreased health must be taken into account.

No, it's already prohibited at work. it's a total smoking ban. as the link says, ANYONE caught must pay their earnings back in entirety.

Sorry, but if it doesn't affect your performance at work (mentally and physically) then it does not matter what you do in the privacy of your own home. If you enjoy a smoke, a fine whiskey, a relaxing joint or stroking your cat is none of your employer's business.