NationStates Jolt Archive

Many large corporations are starting to solve their rising heath insurance issues by banning their employees from smoking. Some even submit their employees to breathalyzer tests to ensure that they are not smoking at home, in the car, after sex – never. Some are suggesting that they expand the smoking tests to all family members covered under their insurance policies. Are you kidding me? I am all for the companies that are charging smokers more for their coverage but to terminate one for smoking is surely a step down a slippery slope. What’s next on the agenda? Are your daily activities going to come into question (no more skydiving)? Your eating habits (no more fried chicken!)? Your sleeping habits (no more all-nighters)? Those you associate with (no more NS?!?)? Smokers are the easy target of today. Let them get picked off and you could be the next easy target. Speak up and let us all know how you feel.

the alternative is easy: opt out of the corporate nazihealthcarescheme and privately get your own coverage at an insurance company whose conditions you like.

the alternative is easy: opt out of the corporate nazihealthcarescheme and privately get your own coverage at an insurance company whose conditions you like.

Even easier is not to work for said corporations.

What you do on your own time is your own business. You can't mandate health.....

If I ran a company, I'd do the same thing. People who smoke and who have unhealthy habits are going to cost me more in the long run in terms of lost and reduced productivity and higher health costs. So, if I can know whether or not your habits are going to pose that kind of risk, I'll use that information accordingly.

If it is disclosed ahead of time that termination is a recourse for engaging in that behavior, companies are doing nothing wrong by using it. It's a way to cut costs while improving productivity at the same time.

Note that companies are only resorting to the draconian fitness measures because of the ridiculously high health care costs.

If I ran a company, I'd do the same thing. People who smoke and who have unhealthy habits are going to cost me more in the long run in terms of lost and reduced productivity and higher health costs. So, if I can know whether or not your habits are going to pose that kind of risk, I'll use that information accordingly.

If it is disclosed ahead of time that termination is a recourse for engaging in that behavior, companies are doing nothing wrong by using it. It's a way to cut costs while improving productivity at the same time.

So you would fire an obese person to cut healthcare costs and increase productivity?

Would it be wrong to gloat about free national health for all despite less goverment spending per capita on health care than America?

So you would fire an obese person to cut healthcare costs and increase productivity?

Perhaps, perhaps not. It all depends on whether the costs of firing them are greater or less than the amount I save, and the same is true with any other health risk.

Would it be work to gloat about free national health for all despite less goverment spending per capita on health care than America?

But of course the Busheviks will start singing that spooky "Waiting List" song, nevermind that the net result of insufficient coverage will be the same at best, and no treatment at worst.

Would it be work to gloat about free national health for all despite less goverment spending per capita on health care than America?

Yeah, but America's also got that wonderful special-interest plague that tacks on 25 cents of junk for every $1 of real spending.

you cant beat the great turkmenbashi when it comes to a low cost, efficient health care systemThird wave of medical cuts closes hospitals everywhere except the capital.

By the IWPR team in London (RCA No. 356, 11-Mar-05)

The Turkmen president’s decision to close down all hospitals in the republic and concentrate treatment in the capital Ashgabat has caused dismay at home and abroad.

“Why should we waste good medical specialists on the villages when they should be working in the capital?” asked President Saparmurat Niazov, who styles himself Turkmenbashi or “Leader of the Turkmen”, as he announced the reforms on February 28.

“Why do we need hospitals and doctors all over the country? Let citizens come to the capital and be treated there. Needy people can visit state clinics for advice and the better-off can go to private hospitals. Nobody will be without medical help!”

The move is the third in a series of blows for the medical sector. Two years ago, some 12,000 medical personnel were laid off, and 15,000 more were made redundant last year and replaced with conscript soldiers. It is estimated that thousands more will lose their jobs through these new cuts...

So you would fire an obese person to cut healthcare costs and increase productivity?

Or perhaps black people because of their higher incedence of heart disease and their lower chances of finding organ replacements meaning longer term intensive healthcare.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It all depends on whether the costs of firing them are greater or less than the amount I save, and the same is true with any other health risk.

We'll you'd be out of luck trying to do so - it is currently against federal law. Corporations would love to be able to fire their obese employees. The obese are as (maybe more) expensive than smokers to cover. And would you policies move to other health risks like unprotected sex? Anal sex? Family medical history? Where will it end?

We'll you'd be out of luck trying to do so - it is currently against federal law.you should get off your self centred thinking, not everybody is living and working in the us and subject to their laws.
even if, that is another wonderfull thing about globalisation, you can outsource to a place outside the range of us law and its ridiculously strict regulations, this makes it really profitable.

We'll you'd be out of luck trying to do so - it is currently against federal law. Corporations would love to be able to fire their obese employees. The obese are as (maybe more) expensive than smokers to cover. And would you policies move to other health risks like unprotected sex? Anal sex? Family medical history? Where will it end?

So just wondering, why do you think the policies you describe aren't also against federal law?

We'll you'd be out of luck trying to do so - it is currently against federal law. Corporations would love to be able to fire their obese employees. The obese are as (maybe more) expensive than smokers to cover. And would you policies move to other health risks like unprotected sex? Anal sex? Family medical history? Where will it end?

Yes, but they'd have to prove that it's because of their obesity, which is why I'd only fire the people whose job performance is poor enough that the projected costs would outweigh the benefits of keeping them.

My policies would move as far as necessary to ensure the maximization of my company's profit...and not getting caught doing this.

Gestapo = Geheime Staatspolizei = Secret State Police

How can a corporation run a state police?

Gestapo = Geheime Staatspolizei = Secret State Police How can a corporation run a state police?

Well, if they ever started their own country...

Personally, if I were a corporation with that power, I'd call them the Stasi. Staatsicherheit has a better sound to it...it's for their security, not our control.

Personally, if I were a corporation with that power, I'd call them the Stasi.
The ultimate irony? Perhaps. ;)

Well there was the Sipo...the Sicherheitspolitzei.

The ultimate irony? Perhaps. ;)
That's assuming the corporation can't take over the state...wouldn't that be funny though...so yes, the ultimate irony in a way :p

Well there was the Sipo...the Sicherheitspolitzei.
Yeah, but that was really just the fancy name for the structure in which, among other things, the Gestapo was integrated.

Yeah, but that was really just the fancy name for the structure in which, among other things, the Gestapo was integrated.
It was still a cool name...the Sicherheitsdienst within the SS was cooler though :p

The ultimate irony? Perhaps. ;)

I knew you'd get it right away.:p

Many large corporations are starting to solve their rising heath insurance issues by banning their employees from smoking. Some even submit their employees to breathalyzer tests to ensure that they are not smoking at home, in the car, after sex – never. Some are suggesting that they expand the smoking tests to all family members covered under their insurance policies.
Define "many" and "some" and give us a list, please.

Private employers are only subject to personnel laws pertaining to discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, handicap, and veterans status. They can fire you for anything else anytime they choose. It's called "at will" employment and most companies write it right into their employee handbooks.

you should get off your self centred thinking, not everybody is living and working in the us and subject to their laws.
even if, that is another wonderfull thing about globalisation, you can outsource to a place outside the range of us law and its ridiculously strict regulations, this makes it really profitable.

My apologies - not everyone is from the US. What strict regulations are you talking about? Child labor laws? Anti-discrimination laws?

Gestapo = Geheime Staatspolizei = Secret State Police

How can a corporation run a state police?

Ah - part of my point is that we are allowing corporations more authority to impose on personal freedoms than gov't - possibly leading to a future corporate dictatorship scenario. I felt it was appropriate.

Define "many" and "some" and give us a list, please.

Private employers are only subject to personnel laws pertaining to discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, handicap, and veterans status. They can fire you for anything else anytime they choose. It's called "at will" employment and most companies write it right into their employee handbooks.

Scotts Miracle Gro for one. If you want a list - use google - I have a baby in my arms right now. :)

Many large corporations are starting to solve their rising heath insurance issues by banning their employees from smoking. Some even submit their employees to breathalyzer tests to ensure that they are not smoking at home, in the car, after sex – never. Some are suggesting that they expand the smoking tests to all family members covered under their insurance policies. Are you kidding me? I am all for the companies that are charging smokers more for their coverage but to terminate one for smoking is surely a step down a slippery slope. What’s next on the agenda? Are your daily activities going to come into question (no more skydiving)? Your eating habits (no more fried chicken!)? Your sleeping habits (no more all-nighters)? Those you associate with (no more NS?!?)? Smokers are the easy target of today. Let them get picked off and you could be the next easy target. Speak up and let us all know how you feel.

Let the Gestapo have their way.

Do not work for them.

When they have no workforce, and take their enterprises to where people will
put up with their rules, for a while, just wait until even those populations tire
of them and refuse to work for them.

They will move more and more often.

If any force if used to "command" people to work for them, that will be
called "slavery" and we all know what eventually happens to perveyors of
slavery.

Then they will die (as corporate entities) because the expense of moving will
make them unprofitable.



-Iakeo

Frankly I don't know if this is anything new...after all, employers have been testing for all sorts of drugs for years; the only difference is that nicotine is legal and most of the other drugs tested for are not. However, ask any employer about their stance toward alcohol at work - would any employee last too long for showing up drunk at work? What about putting away beer the way others put away soda? Any employee caught doing so would be fired faster than they could say, "Beer me." The only difference is that alcohol isn't as addictive as nicotine is. One can put in a productive day at work, go to a restaurant after work, have a few beers, sleep it off, and come back to work sober and productive the next day. Nicotine usually doesn't work that way. People take smoke creaks at work all the time and often don't go for too long working at a time. Depending on the type of job one is working, it may be difficult to go for a few hours without taking a cigarette break. Employers may decide that cigarette breaks are no longer acceptable and, therefore, they don't want to hire smokers. In a lot of states, breaks are not even required for adult workers (in Ohio, employers don't have to allow breaks, though most do...just a tidbit I picked up from my current employer, which allows the standard two 15-minute paid breaks and an unpaid lunch.)

Maybe in some nightmarish future where all land is owned by corporations, employers can dictate what people do with their free time all they want, but as it is, employers know what they can and can't reasonably get away with. It's not an issue of government regulation, morality, or ethics; it's an issue of how much an employer believes it can get out of its employees. At one point, employers demanded long days in poor conditions with virtually no breaks for next to no pay. They demanded that young children begin working at even less pay than their adult counterparts, they demanded that young employees submit to severe beatings for misconduct, they demanded that adult employees submit to fines for misconduct, and they got away with it because the government did nothing about it and the employees had no leg to stand on, since these jobs were in such high demand, if you can believe that. The government even took the employers' side in many cases, using the military to break up strikes and allowing "Yellow Dog" contracts that forbade employees from unionizing.

While no employer today in the West would attempt to go back to this situation, simply because it couldn't be done, employers have different demands. Employers can't get away with paying children next to nothing to work for them, but they can go after teenagers, college students, and unskilled workers. Employers are aware of overtime laws, so when they can help it, they cap hours at 40 a week and avoid paying out that overtime any way they can. Employers know how picky they can be in terms of hiring employees. If there are fewer jobs and more people who need them, employers can take only the best of the best and be unusually picky, and if someone doesn't work out, it's not difficult to cut them loose and hire someone new. On the other hand, there are cases like the late 1990s when the job-seekers had all the power. Hell, if I recall correctly, there were opportunities in, I think, Nashville, TN where people could earn something like $14 an hour to work at frigging McDonald's. In a situation where people earn $14 an hour to flip burgers, imagine what else employees can command. In an economy like that, there is no way in hell employers are going to target a mainstream group such as smokers. Now that employees have fallen out of power, employers have the opportunity to go after a particular group. When employees come back into power, they will likely be able to establish some of their own demands.