Are you going to quit smoking in order to keep your jobs?

by prophecor 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  prophecor

  A very intersting discussion on the world news, tonite. Scotts the manufacturer of lawn and garden products has given thier workers opportunities to stay healthy while in thier employ. In an effort to cut down on the cost of health care they pay to cover thier employees, they enlisted sweeping policy changes and guidelines towards the betterment of thier workers.

  They offer a healthier food plan in thier dinning facilities where they have lunch prepared on site. There's a gym for working out should they choose, right on the company grounds. It's free to those who access it at least twice a week, for those who choose not to, all they require is a ten dollar usage fee per month. A very, very sweet deal to just about anyone.

  They figure that if thier workers are given incentives to get fit, stay healthy, they'll have a lot of folks around who are happier, more energetic and willing to work more productively if the company take a vested interest in them. There's a catch, though, for some. If you're a smoker, they don't regard your service to the company as having the same value as those who are not smokers. They will assist you if it is you need it to quit. Smoking cessation programs, education and incentives to stop. The final incentive? You either stop smoking within a specified period of time, or you forfeit you job. They give you nine months to get it together, but after that............

  Sounds like a wonderful idea to bring about change to the health and welfare of the workers of big business. Corporations looking out for, not only the bottom line, but the long range benefit of the rank and file. Afterall, a healthy employee is a happy employee. Right?

  Or does this smack in the face of civil rights? Are you going to kick me to the curb because of what it is I do in my private home? I don't smoke on your job, that's your right to tell me what you don't want done on your property while I am employed here, but how can you say to me, a smoker, we don't want you to light up at home either? Your smoking is costing us millions in extra money being paid out because you're out sick more often, you're a liability as regards your life style and we need to cut our loses. You are not what this company needs to continue moving forward.

  A sign of things to come?
• 

  Eyebrow2

  Actually....you know...I think if you are given that long of a time period to quit, and you know what the results will be and you DON'T quit....hmmm...I don't know if it really violates anyone's civil rights.

  There are a few other companies that have done this.

  http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/4126577/detail.html here is a case that is a year old.

  I think perhaps it would depend on what type of work the person does...I have heard of fire and police departments in some areas that have no smoking policies, even on their own time. I can understand that, since the public's safety could be at risk.

  This is a tough one...however, I am more inclined to think that for MOST jobs, I think they should be able to tell you that you cannot smoke on the job, but leave their outside life alone. I feel the same way about pot....not that I smoke it...but if you are not driving or working under the influence I don't really care.

  Here is a pet peeve of mine, though: PAID SMOKING BREAKS. I worked for one office where the smokers went outside at least 5 times a day, for at least 10 minutes each time for smoking breaks. This was on company time. And they took a full hour for lunch. Every day...and management said nothing to them. I came back 10 minutes late from lunch one day and my boss got right on me for it. I looked at him and said :"I just decided to take a smoke break at the end. All the smokers take several, so why can't I have one?" That shut him up.
• 

  TallTexan

  I remember not too long ago some airline employees lost their job for refusing to stop smoking.

  It's an interesting paradox. While it's true you should have say-so over your life and what you do, it's becoming more common for the state and corporations to try and manage your health for you. We have seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws and more and more corporations telling smokers 'you can't work here'.

  I see both sides of it. As a proponent of liberty and personal freedoms, it chafes me to see people be told what to do on their off time. However, who pays for people who refuse to take care of themselves? You and I. Our tax dollars (via Medicare) pay the substantial health-care costs of long-term smokers. Our insurance rates are higher, as smokers tend to take more sick days and have poorer general health. (not all, so those of you who are smokers and are the model employee please hold on). There is conflict because, as the previous poster mentioned, smokers taking breaks irritate non-smokers who feel that they don't receive the same number of breaks.

  Here's the problem I have. Obesity is as dangerous to one's health as smoking. But if you try to tell someone they can't work for you because they are obese, you'll have a discrimination suit on your hands. Are they going to tell these people that they can't go to the snack machine 10 times a shift? Can they not bring their two grocery bags full of food (I'm not kidding) to eat on their shift? Will the organization set an ideal body weight and not allow employees to vary beyond a certain percentage of that?

  I work in a hospital that recently went to a smoke-free campus. However, we have a number of obese employees. These people are physically less able to perform their jobs as their co-workers. In some instances, they have become so obese that the hospital has found alternate job positions for them because they can no longer do patient care. Yet there is no mention made of the unprofessional appearance, the altered job performance, or the health dangers to these individuals. If they want to infringe on someone's rights by telling them they cannot smoke on their two 15-minute unpaid breaks, or their 30-minute unpaid lunch break due to health concerns, then they need to take the same steps across the baord with unhealthful behavior.
• 

  greendawn

  It's all to do with company costs, they see smoking as a cause of lost time (due to physical illness) at work and productivity, and a factor that contributes to work stress because it poisons the body.
• 

  ballistic

  I work for an American company here in England and they have just closed all their in-company gyms worldwide stating that they were a product of the 80's when gyms were becoming popular and they are now inefficient to run and sevices are better provided privately.
• 

  TallTexan

  It's all to do with company costs, they see smoking as a cause of lost time (due to physical illness) at work and productivity, and a factor that contributes to work stress because it poisons the body.

  Obesity also causes lost time due to physical ailments, lost productivity. My point is not that one is worse than the other, but why pick on one unhealthy lifestyle and not all?