Frank wrote:
There is a big difference between behavior and status. very easy to
define.
That is an interesting comment. It made me think.
So, are you saying, in principle, that you could agree with discrimination
based on a persons choice of smoking, or discrimination based on a persons
choice of being 20 lbs overweight, but not agree, in principle, with
discriminating against those who are in bad health situations (or even
potential bad health situations) due to genetics or environment?
I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I am trying to understand what
you mean by that statement.
I cannot tell the difference between someone who is overwieght because they
eat Krispy Kreme donuts for breakfast and someone who is overweight because
gaining weight might be a side effect of medications they are taking for an
inherited illness. How am I, as an employer, supposed to know or find out
the difference? And what is the difference to me, in the end, if my
business goals are to control costs? There is no difference. Cause doesn't
matter. The cost is what I am trying to control, and an overweight person
is going to cost me more, no matter the cause.
And does this attitude towards the overwieght then open the door for an
employee to sue the employer over the fact that he is now 20 lbs overweight
because donuts were served at sales meetings every morning? Who's fault is
it, then, that he is no longer desirable as an employee?
BTW, I used to own a successful construction company, was even involved in
developing some islands in the Caribbean (my sister still is helping to
develop in Honduras, El Salvadore, and Granada), and the one and only cost I
could not control was health care. We experienced 20% annual increases no
matter what we did to try to control it. Well, you don't have to be a
business genius to realize that I could not sustain those kinds of increases
and remain profitable. We fired all the employees, and hired some back as
sub contractors, paying them more money for the work they did, but without
health benefits. At least this way I knew what the cost of doing business
was going to be from year to year.
Lonny Bruce
BTW, you wouldn't be related to some Boettcher's in Nebraska, would you?
--
Enjoy my new sailing web site
http://sail247.com
"Frank Boettcher" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:45:00 GMT, "Lonny Bruce"
wrote:
Neal was wrong, once again, when he brought attention to the wacky way
smokers are being treated in Michigan in the Thread "Getting Tough on
Cigeratte Smokers". This is directly due to the fact that Michigan has a
liberal democrat woman governer, who was not even born in the USA. Here
is
another result of the liberal attitudes here in Michigan:
http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/...7362399290.xml
Just to be clear, I am not a smoker, and I don't condone smoking in any
way,
however we seem to be going down this slippery slope when it comes to
smokers. I see them as simply a convenient target as a group of peeps not
fit for hiring.
Absolutely! I'm in the process of closing a factory and sending the
jobs to the far east. You want to know the only cost I couldn't
control? Health care costs. Up double digits every year. And I know
that a helluva a lot of the cost is related to smoking and other
"lifestyle" issues. However, now that the HIPPA privacy laws have
passed, I don't even have the right to know what I'm paying for. I
applaud the company that is breaking ground and doing something about
this. I wanted to for a while but was advised against it for "legal"
reasons.
Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight?
Certainly the unhealthy obese, if they are not willing to do
something about it.
Why
not? The same arguements can be made that peeps that are overweight take
too much time off, and add to the overall cost of health care, therefore
no
one should hire them. Then who will be next, peeps who are genetically
disposed to certain diseases? Yes, it would take genetic profiling, but
why
not? I mean the same arguements could be made that no one should hire
women
who's mother has contracted breast cancer, for instance, as there is a
risk
that they may contract it too, causing an employers health insurance
claims
to go up.
There is a big difference between behavior and status. very easy to
define.
It is a dangerous, slippery slope. And brought to you by the liberal
political party who claims to be for the little guy, the most vulnerable
in
society. And apparently improperly supported by Captain Neal.
And well advised support ( boy it hurt to say that)
As far as I'm concerned people can do whatever in hell they want that
is not against the law. However they should not expect their behavior
to be subsidized by their fellow workers group insurance ( which means
the company they work for because most are self insured with a third
party administrator) or my tax dollar transfers in the form of
government aid. Expecting that subsidy is the liberal position, not
dropping the hammer on those who expect it.
Lonny Bruce