Health Insurer will no longer hire tobacco users in Arizona

[El Presidente]

Health insurer will no longer hire tobacco users in Ariz

Arizona Daily Star

http://azstarnet.com/business/local/articl...1cc4c03286.html

Health insurer Humana will no longer hire tobacco users at its five Arizona locations, including one office in Tucson, beginning Friday.

People hired under Humana's new policy must not use tobacco products, including cigarettes, pipes, chewing tobacco and cigars, and must abstain from use while employed, the company said.

Humana is also encouraging existing Arizona workers who use tobacco products to enroll in the company's tobacco-cessation program, which is free to employees and qualify participants to siginificant discounts on their medical plan premiums.

A number of hospitals nationwide, including the Cleveland Clinic, and non-hospital companies including Alaska Airlines have banned tobacco users from their payrolls.

In July 2009, Humana’s offices in Ohio implemented a similar program, requiring all new hires using tobacco to complete a tobacco-cessation program. A survey of 2010 program participants in Ohio shows that 89 percent of participants established a quit date, 89 percent were tobacco-free for a period of time and 78 percent are currently tobacco-free.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/business/local/articl...l#ixzz1QnTFtTwz

[thechenman]

This is just getting ridiculous...

[Vortigan]

This is just getting ridiculous...

Isn't it just!!! You really do wonder what's coming next!

[Fuzz]

Would this not be in contravention of anti-discrimination laws? Putting out a policy of not hiring tobacco users is like a policy not hiring those who; practice certain faiths, use a private vehicle instead of public transport or use a comb-over to cover a bald spot.

[Ellery]

Isn't that some sort of discrimination?

[cigcars]

**** 'em

[gigabyte056]

It is a clear case of discrimination, however discrimination against smokers generally are approved by the courts.

From a case of respecting the wishes of non smokers this has evolved to a case of persecution and terror.

Bring on the re education centers and forced labor.

[aes8]

This has to be a Constitutional violation, CRA needs to look at this.

[Stalebread]

I recall that when this was first done, it was challenged and the decision was that companies have a right to hire who they want as long as they are not practicing discrimination. Smokers are not a protected class of people so there's no discrimination. Man, this just irks the living crap out of me -- that a business can insert itself into my private life and control (or try to control) my use of a legal product.

[rfenst]

Smokers are not a protected class of people so there's no discrimination.

That is 100% correct pursuant to U.S. law.

In any event, I know I am going to catch a lot of **** for this, but I have no problem with the policy (provided that it only applies to new hirees). It is a business decision.

IMO, the real problem is cigarette smokers. They miss more time from work due to illness. When given the opportunity, they take longer breaks. When they take breaks, they tend to do so with the same groups of people, which can lead to business/office disfuntion for a period of time in an entire office or department.

Cigarette smokers have higher medical expenses.They have smoking related health issues. This drives the cost of health and other insurance benefits upward. They tend to (but not always) throw their butts on the ground or somewhere other than the trash. Many get cravings for their nicotine-fix, which impairs their work product and attitude. Etc., etc.

Personally, cigarette smoke, even if just "on someones clothes", makes me ill- nausea, congestion and headache. I absolutely, positively will not ever hire a cigarette smoker again. I would hire a cigar smoker or pipe smoker, provided that they refrain from use before and during the work-day and don't smell like their tobacco.

The decision to smoke tobacco is a personal one, but the costs associated with it in the work-place and society are real. Go ahead and smoke, but don't expect an employer ( or perhaps the rest of society) to pay for any of the true cost.

Having written all of this, I seemingly-hypocritically admit to very occasionally enjoying a small, little cigar (Joyita, Half-Corona, Mini, Club )while out of the office- in my car or just taking a short break. But, I am self-employed and get to make up whatever rules for my smoking habits I choose.

[Dbone]

I recall that when this was first done, it was challenged and the decision was that companies have a right to hire who they want as long as they are not practicing discrimination. Smokers are not a protected class of people so there's no discrimination. Man, this just irks the living crap out of me -- that a business can insert itself into my private life and control (or try to control) my use of a legal product.

Legal for now.

I won't be surprised if Im not able to smoke cigars at my daugters wedding, she's 10 months old. So I'm thinking in 20 years it could all be made illegal.

Policy makers love picking "low hanging fruit", it's easy. Alcohol will be next. When does it stop, really.... how many foods or activities do we do daily which are considered unhealthy? Jogging is hard on your joints and promote wear of the knees and hips resulting in a high likelihood of joint replacement surgery. Crazy right?

[Nocoins]

I thought I was the only one. I have no problem with this at all. As rfenst says, this policy is probably largely driven by cigarette smoking, but the company has decided to avoid the negative consequences associated with any tobacco use by its employees. Fine with me.

That is 100% correct pursuant to U.S. law.

In any event, I know I am going to catch a lot of **** for this, but I have no problem with the policy (provided that it only applies to new hirees). It is a business decision.

IMO, the real problem is cigarette smokers. They miss more time from work due to illness. When given the opportunity, they take longer breaks. When they take breaks, they tend to do so with the same groups of people, which can lead to business/office disfuntion for a period of time in an entire office or department.

Cigarette smokers have higher medical expenses.They have smoking related health issues. This drives the cost of health and other insurance benefits upward. They tend to (but not always) throw their butts on the ground or somewhere other than the trash. Many get cravings for their nicotine-fix, which impairs their work product and attitude. Etc., etc.

Personally, cigarette smoke, even if just "on someones clothes", makes me ill- nausea, congestion and headache. I absolutely, positively will not ever hire a cigarette smoker again. I would hire a cigar smoker or pipe smoker, provided that they refrain from use before and during the work-day and don't smell like their tobacco.

The decision to smoke tobacco is a personal one, but the costs associated with it in the work-place and society are real. Go ahead and smoke, but don't expect an employer ( or perhaps the rest of society) to pay for any of the true cost.

Having written all of this, I seemingly-hypocritically admit to very occasionally enjoying a small, little cigar (Joyita, Half-Corona, Mini, Club )while out of the office- in my car or just taking a short break. But, I am self-employed and get to make up whatever rules for my smoking habits I choose.

[Colt45]

How will they enforce it?

Resistance is futile - you will be assimilated............

[anacostiakat]

"...getting..."?

I am surprised this has not been attacked as a civil rights issue.

[thechenman]

That is 100% correct pursuant to U.S. law.

In any event, I know I am going to catch a lot of **** for this, but I have no problem with the policy (provided that it only applies to new hirees). It is a business decision.

IMO, the real problem is cigarette smokers. They miss more time from work due to illness. When given the opportunity, they take longer breaks. When they take breaks, they tend to do so with the same groups of people, which can lead to business/office disfuntion for a period of time in an entire office or department.

Cigarette smokers have higher medical expenses.They have smoking related health issues. This drives the cost of health and other insurance benefits upward. They tend to (but not always) throw their butts on the ground or somewhere other than the trash. Many get cravings for their nicotine-fix, which impairs their work product and attitude. Etc., etc.

Personally, cigarette smoke, even if just "on someones clothes", makes me ill- nausea, congestion and headache. I absolutely, positively will not ever hire a cigarette smoker again. I would hire a cigar smoker or pipe smoker, provided that they refrain from use before and during the work-day and don't smell like their tobacco.

The decision to smoke tobacco is a personal one, but the costs associated with it in the work-place and society are real. Go ahead and smoke, but don't expect an employer ( or perhaps the rest of society) to pay for any of the true cost.

Having written all of this, I seemingly-hypocritically admit to very occasionally enjoying a small, little cigar (Joyita, Half-Corona, Mini, Club )while out of the office- in my car or just taking a short break. But, I am self-employed and get to make up whatever rules for my smoking habits I choose.

So...are drinkers to be the next group to be addressed?

[Stalebread]

How will they enforce it?[

A blood or urine test . . .? That would reveal the presence of nicotine. Random sampling as employees show up for work.

I'm not sure a test like this exists. If not, the same companies that make smoking cessation aids are working on it.

Obesity. Sun exposure. Unsafe driving. There is no end to the areas where the I-know-what's-best-for-you (and society) police can venture to control next. I realize I'm casting a wide net here. Chalk it up to hyperbole. But I can hear it now: "Nope, I won't hire you. You have a deep tan and sun damaged skin from years of overexposure to the sun so you are at risk for skin cancer. As a business person, I don't want to have to pay for that."

[baragh]

That is 100% correct pursuant to U.S. law.

In any event, I know I am going to catch a lot of **** for this, but I have no problem with the policy (provided that it only applies to new hirees). It is a business decision.

IMO, the real problem is cigarette smokers. They miss more time from work due to illness. When given the opportunity, they take longer breaks. When they take breaks, they tend to do so with the same groups of people, which can lead to business/office disfuntion for a period of time in an entire office or department.

Cigarette smokers have higher medical expenses.They have smoking related health issues. This drives the cost of health and other insurance benefits upward. They tend to (but not always) throw their butts on the ground or somewhere other than the trash. Many get cravings for their nicotine-fix, which impairs their work product and attitude. Etc., etc.

Personally, cigarette smoke, even if just "on someones clothes", makes me ill- nausea, congestion and headache. I absolutely, positively will not ever hire a cigarette smoker again. I would hire a cigar smoker or pipe smoker, provided that they refrain from use before and during the work-day and don't smell like their tobacco.

The decision to smoke tobacco is a personal one, but the costs associated with it in the work-place and society are real. Go ahead and smoke, but don't expect an employer ( or perhaps the rest of society) to pay for any of the true cost.

Having written all of this, I seemingly-hypocritically admit to very occasionally enjoying a small, little cigar (Joyita, Half-Corona, Mini, Club )while out of the office- in my car or just taking a short break. But, I am self-employed and get to make up whatever rules for my smoking habits I choose.

Agree fully. At the end of the day I think I'd side with employers having the right to not hire potential employees that are going to cost them far more in insurance costs.

While wanting to fight for cigar smoker's rights, to me this is a case of employer's rights and I think they should have that right to be selective when hiring.

[CohibaBehike]

Alcohol will be next. They could say that people who want to have a drink at night shouldn't be allowed because it will affect their behavior early in the morning from a hangover. But everyone drinks and so than it would be an issue, but for a low population of smokers it's not a big deal to let them go... It's all total crap.

[Stalebread]

While wanting to fight for cigar smoker's rights, to me this is a case of employer's rights and I think they should have that right to be selective when hiring.

I agree up to a point. However, for me, this is more about an employer trying to control my use of a legal product that I use on my own time and in moderation.

It has also to do with what is politically correct. It is easy for an employer to say, "I won't hire you because you smoke." I can't imagine an employer saying, "I won't hire you because you're fat" even though I would be willing to bet that obesity related diseases cause a lot missed days from work and account for increases in health care costs.

[baragh]

I agree up to a point. However, for me, this is more about an employer trying to control my use of a legal product that I use on my own time and in moderation.

It has also to do with what is politically correct. It is easy for an employer to say, "I won't hire you because you smoke." I can't imagine an employer saying, "I won't hire you because you're fat" even though I would be willing to bet that obesity related diseases cause a lot missed days from work and account for increases in health care costs.

You're right, I don't see it likely that an employer would get away with not hiring people who are overweight. But to me there is some distinction between discrimination based on body fat and smoking.

Being fat is a symptom often linked to a behaviour (overeating) but may also be due to other factors. I COULD see an employer discriminating based on people who eat more than 500 big macs a week, whether the employee is fat or not. Conversely I could not see an employer discriminating based on someone having yellow teeth, as that is a symptom related to a behaviour, but may also be caused by other factors (eg genetics).

I always thought the rationale behind anti-discrimination law was to protect people who were discriminated against for things they were born with and couldn't change, but not protect people for things that they had the power to change, i.e. their behaviour.

Just my 2 cents

Cheers,

Will

[cigcars]

If any of the above drastic moves like passing out the dixie cups for urine samples, etc. are actually eventually implemented, all that has to happen is for some powerful/rich/influential fatcat to be negatively affected by it. And then if they can be kept from skirting the charges/penalties/losses associated with it instead of "beating the rap" as usual, then it will stop for everybody else.

[PigFish]

While I don't see tobacco as an ill of society, as a private industry I think an employer should hire who he or she wants. There may be both good and bad that comes from this situation as I see it. If the best employee smokes, well they just lost out on them!

Frankly the government does not belong in the "directing who to employ" business. Look at the quality of the average employee at any 'state run' facility and you can understand why! I see this as a private property freedom issue for the employer. Whether it is a good or bad decision will be determined in the future. Humana, a healthcare insurance provider is likely looking to cut costs and tobacco using employee underwriting costs money. Cigarette smokers often take enormous numbers of breaks now that they cannot smoke in their offices. If they decide that tobacco smokers are a risk or an expense that is their business, not mine, nor the courts... as I see it.

I do however recognize that certain sexual behavior is also a heath risk. So is exposure to the sun... So is parachuting, and motorcycle riding!!!

I personally am tired of people screaming discrimination concerning acts of private industry as if everyone has rights in another's company. The real discriminator is government! Criminalizing acts of free people is tyranny, no matter how you cut it. This is where the problem started in the first place. While I can live without being hired by this company, I cannot live with the government walking into my place of business and telling me what I can and cannot do with it. The real crime is not private industry selecting whom it considers the best employees; the real problem is government forcing the hand of private companies to compel it to perform acts it deems as the correct acts. Most of these folks have credentials from elite schools and cannot even balance their own checkbooks. It is now wonder that they cannot balance the 'States,' either! Criminalizing tobacco use in the work place is likely the genesis of this move. You only have to peel the skin of the onion back to see the centroid of the problem.

When you give people sick days they often take them! When you pay for their insurance they often utilize it. If employers based compensation on performance of the individual and could freely fire who they wish without the interference of lawyers and the government, we would not see this problem arise. If one could smoke in ones office and work around it, they would not be walking a half mile to smoke a cigarette five times a day (due to legislation) and that problem too would be avoided. Now, this is a course of action based on what they percieve as problem employees that they cannot get rid of without consequences. If the company could simply rid itself of employees that it does not desire, and accommodate those it does, there would be no need for moves such as this. The legalese associated with the firing, hiring and compensating of employees, telling what employers can do in their workplaces, such as sweeping tobacco bans, has caused this problem; not the cigarette, the cigar or otherwise. Just a little food for thought.

-Piggy

[tucomapache]

While I don't see tobacco as an ill of society, as a private industry I think an employer should hire who he or she wants. There may be both good and bad that comes from this situation as I see it. If the best employee smokes, well they just lost out on them!

Frankly the government does not belong in the "directing who to employ" business. Look at the quality of the average employee at any 'state run' facility and you can understand why! I see this as a private property freedom issue for the employer. Whether it is a good or bad decision will be determined in the future. Humana, a healthcare insurance provider is likely looking to cut costs and tobacco using employee underwriting costs money. Cigarette smokers often take enormous numbers of breaks now that they cannot smoke in their offices. If they decide that tobacco smokers are a risk or an expense that is their business, not mine, nor the courts... as I see it.

I do however recognize that certain sexual behavior is also a heath risk. So is exposure to the sun... So is parachuting, and motorcycle riding!!!

I personally am tired of people screaming discrimination concerning acts of private industry as if everyone has rights in another's company. The real discriminator is government! Criminalizing acts of free people is tyranny, no matter how you cut it. This is where the problem started in the first place. While I can live without being hired by this company, I cannot live with the government walking into my place of business and telling me what I can and cannot do with it. The real crime is not private industry selecting whom it considers the best employees; the real problem is government forcing the hand of private companies to compel it to perform acts it deems as the correct acts. Most of these folks have credentials from elite schools and cannot even balance their own checkbooks. It is now wonder that they cannot balance the 'States,' either! Criminalizing tobacco use in the work place is likely the genesis of this move. You only have to peel the skin of the onion back to see the centroid of the problem.

When you give people sick days they often take them! When you pay for their insurance they often utilize it. If employers based compensation on performance of the individual and could freely fire who they wish without the interference of lawyers and the government, we would not see this problem arise. If one could smoke in ones office and work around it, they would not be walking a half mile to smoke a cigarette five times a day (due to legislation) and that problem too would be avoided. Now, this is a course of action based on what they percieve as problem employees that they cannot get rid of without consequences. If the company could simply rid itself of employees that it does not desire, and accommodate those it does, there would be no need for moves such as this. The legalese associated with the firing, hiring and compensating of employees, telling what employers can do in their workplaces, such as sweeping tobacco bans, has caused this problem; not the cigarette, the cigar or otherwise. Just a little food for thought.

-Piggy

[/quote

Well said!!