|
Anti-Smoking Gone Too Far
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. Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight? 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. 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. Lonny Bruce -- Enjoy my new sailing web site http://sail247.com |
"Lonny Bruce" wrote Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight? 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. Those are some great ideas Lonny, I'll bring them up at the next board meeting. SV |
Lonny Bruce wrote: Good points Lonny, However this is a private company, not a govt group, cheese factory. If the owner does not want to hire any smokers... than that is his right. If I hire people I will set whatever restrictions or requirements I want on who I hire. And I will fire whoever I feel needs to be fired. It would have nothing to do with smoking, but it might have something to do with not hiring slobs, non-producers, idiots, ect.. But then perhaps.. when you become a big corporation with bean counters it might be smart to only hire 6' blonde hair 185 pound slim blue eyed salesman with no known genetic defects or heath risks. If we can get this stem cell and cloning stuff up to speed I see the perfect workforce of the future. Yes... I could make a good profit with all the right clones. That way I can afford to grow some spare body parts for old age replacements. Slippery slope my ass... ISO 9000 certification used to be the thing, perfect worker certification will be next, lets get rid of human errors. Joe 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. Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight? 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. 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. Lonny Bruce -- Enjoy my new sailing web site http://sail247.com |
On 26 Jan 2005 12:25:51 -0800, "Joe" wrote
this crap: it might be smart to only hire 6' blonde hair 185 pound slim blue eyed salesman with no known genetic defects or heath risks. Seig Heil, mien Fuherer. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Well, you nailed that one about the overweight part...Just tonight on the
national news they're touting a program in Texas to not only grade kids on their schoolwork but to grade them on their weight. One mother from Arkansas, where they already do this (her kid was 12 and 100 lbs overweight) said she was glad for it and wished it had been done sooner so she would have been aware of the problem...For God's sake, did she never look at her child and see a problem???? Problem with the smoking thing is that people will buy into it. It's pure economics and really has nothing to do with smoking. Health insurance companies are offering smoke-free packages to corporations that will comply at great discounts. With the cost of health insurance skyrocketing and double-digit increases every year, companies will go for this. "Lonny Bruce" wrote in message news:wGQJd.21$u45.10@trnddc08... 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. Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight? 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. 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. Lonny Bruce -- Enjoy my new sailing web site http://sail247.com |
And yet there are those who expect that the Federal government should
institute health insurance so that everyone who makes bad lifestyle choices is covered...and then we all pay for those bad choices. It is now a proven fact that companies that gear their health care programs to "well-being" and provide support groups such as Weight Watchers, AA, and smoke-free programs have happier and healthier employees. Happy, healthy employees are a companies best investment. Retention rates are higher, turn-over is lower and experience rates lower. Too bad so many are blind to that fact. "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 |
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:47:13 -0800, Frank Boettcher
wrote this crap: Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight? Certainly the unhealthy obese, if they are not willing to do something about it. I've always thought that if we refused food stamps to people over 200 lbs., we would save hundreds of millions on welfare. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
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 |
"Horvath" wrote in message ... I've always thought that if we refused food stamps to people over 200 lbs., we would save hundreds of millions on welfare. But, Bobsprit would go hungry . . . CN |
What they should do is limit what can be bought with food stamps...it galls
me when someone in the grocery line has snack food and prepared frozen dinners and that type of thing piled on the belt and then whips out the food stamps... "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:47:13 -0800, Frank Boettcher wrote this crap: Who is next, people that are 20 pounds overweight? Certainly the unhealthy obese, if they are not willing to do something about it. I've always thought that if we refused food stamps to people over 200 lbs., we would save hundreds of millions on welfare. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Comments:
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 You can't know, with the HIPAA guidelines, inless you have corporate spies tracking the eating habaits of your employees... 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? I believe it will...they have now re-opened the McDonald's obesity case. It seems that none of us can make decisions on our own anymore...corporate America ahs taken over our minds and tells us how we are to live... Who's fault is it, then, that he is no longer desirable as an employee? The court's will say it's the employers if the above scenario pans out. I reality,m though, we know that people ahve to learn again to be responsible for themselves. 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. Our employees have a choice of 3different health plans. The cheapest, an HMO with emphasis on wellness care, is the most affordable and is offered at 50/50. The POS plan and the traditional 80/20 health plans are offered at 65/35, the employee paying the heftier percentage. Four years ago, we were pating 50% across the board. This years plan is that we will only pay the percentage on the employee and they will have to pay the full extra amount for the family plan. That is the only way we can afford to offer heealth care in the rpivate sector. Michigan is researching ideas to make health care plans available that are cheaper through coalitions of businesses with like profiles. That will be a little help. 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. That's ok in some industries but in others, you lose control of your employees. 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 |
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 |
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:24:29 -0500, Capt. Neal®
wrote this crap: "Horvath" wrote in message ... I've always thought that if we refused food stamps to people over 200 lbs., we would save hundreds of millions on welfare. But, Bobsprit would go hungry . . . That's the point. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
katysails wrote: Comments: 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. That's ok in some industries but in others, you lose control of your employees. Damn right you do. And if they are good they can put the screws to you, or some smart recruiter will find him and place him where he will make a pile of money for your competitors. Joe |
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:22:13 GMT, "Lonny Bruce"
wrote: 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? Discrimination? I guess you could call it that and yes I think that as an advanced society we have an obligation to continue to make progress but to bring along those who for no reason that they can control would be left behind. But those that make choices to cause scarce resources to be used to offset the results of those choice should not be accommodated. 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. Third party health plan administrators design plans and make those distinctions all the time. If my business goal is to make sure that my employee turnover is low and that my employees are invested in the benefits provided for them, I would expect some responsibility for those benefits. 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? My post talked about the "unhealthy obese" . Twenty pounds does not necessarily qualify. And by the way, I subsidize 60% of the cost of a local wellness center health facility that is less than a half mile from the facility. About 10% take advantage of it. I also provide a confidential Employee Assistance Program for those with any type of problem that requires a program or counseling (drug and alcohol, eating disorders, marriage and family issues, etc.). I believe that if an employee refuses any type of help and just wants the outcome to be paid for, I should be able to terminate them. May be radical, but once all value added jobs are gone and we are trying to maintain an economy based on selling each other food, suing each other and paying government workers from tax dollars we'll be sorry we didn't consider the radical. 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? Not to my knowledge. My family (post Germany) originated in the East Port/Annopolis area. Most of my branch are now on the Gulf Coast in Mississippi and Texas. I'm in Mississippi and (in the spirt of on topic content) that is where most of my sailing is done. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com