Smoking Bans in the Workplace

[tommyt654]

Welcome to the future of the world run by big business and insurance companies,bottom line is if they even think it will have any affect on the way you perform they think their entitled to have a say in it as long as they employ you. Thats why I have always backed big unions like UAW in the past and future as they won't allow control over issues like these to turn workers against companys. Bottom line is its all about the almighty dolla,once again. Personally I'd quit smokin, gain about 40-50 lbs ,start eating beans like crazy and begin farting all over the work place,then when they complain just say, I was never like this when I was 50 lbs lighter and smoked, You reap what you sow,So get used to it, it is what you wanted a healthier me and beans are very high in fiber and nutrients. What are they gonna do then LOL

[Cubsfan]

I don't see a problem with this. It's the employer's right to be able to say what you can and can't do on company property. It's the worker's right to get another job (or start a business and allow people to do anything they want on your property)

[Cochese]

And that's my personal worry. Why can we descriminate people who partake in a LEGAL habit? What about discriminating against people who are fat? Whether it's genetics or gluttony, being heavier is considered the greater health risk over tabacco.

Do we want to take a step back regarding how much control companies have over their worker's lives? Do we want to example who they are allowed to discriminate against? We don't allow discrimination against pregant women. Obviously they're different than smokers (or smokeless tobacco users). BUT- they do cost companies money when they take a 30-60 day maternity leave. What about ugly people? Or handicapped people? If you work in an office and it takes you 2 minutes to grab a copy from your printer- or if you need more ergonimic accomodations- that costs the company money.

I know I'm being hyperbolic- but it's to prove a point. It just seems arbitrary to me to limit worker's freedoms on some things, but not others (even if they legally can do so- which they absolutely can).

How would you weed out people who were overweight when even the BMI scale is abstract and inconclusive? Because BMI is currently the leading metric when determining obesity rates. To a point, anything 30-39.9 for anyone 20 and over is obese, and 40+ is morbidly obese. If someone is considered obese, but takes no medication and requires no accommodation at work...should there be any discrimination? I don't have any studies to back me up, just the thousands of charts I've looked at and trends at my employer I've seen - once you have lung disease, there's not a whole lot of fixing that.

There are certain companies and benefit programs that offer decreased premiums or increased employee benefits for quitting smoking or going to the gym on a regular basis. You ask why it's okay to discriminate against smokers. The answer's easy - the war on tobacco has been going on a lot longer than the war on obesity. There are many more studies on tobacco and productivity than there have been on obesity and productivity. Give it a few years the way our country is trending, and you'll see more emphasis on being more healthy in general.

And pregnancy? I won't even touch that one. Go to a NOW meeting and suggest that and see how many male appendages you come home with.

[JimD]

While I don't like discriminating against some minorities while protecting others, I do see a logic in making people pay for their own choices. If you choose to smoke and pay the same for health insurance as a non-smoker, you are being subsidized by the non-smoker. If you are overweight, same thing. So far our company is providing incentives for talking to counselers and they pay for physicals, kind of (tests they think are wise, not what your doctor says are necessary). My BMI is in the normal range and the only thing they could find on my health screen to complain about was my "good colesterol" was a little low because my total was about 140 (ratio was quite good). But I get no credit for any of that, I am still supposed to talk to the counselor. All you get is some credit towards your deductable. I've spent less than $100 so far this year. Their deductable credit wouldn't do anything for me anyway. A free health screen is nice, even if I have to listen to somewhat silly talk from a nurse.

We seem to be drifting towards health care costing more if you make riskier choices. But that is tricky because is being overweight really a choice? To some degree it is and to some degree it may not be. That kind of thing makes it tricky to say you should pay more if you make "bad" choices.

Jim

[leehljp]

I could care less about the 2nd hand smoke, quite frankly. I also suspect a lot of people that claim some sort of allergy are just using a convenient excuse because they dislike the smoke, not from any genuine sensitivity to it. Certainly we're all sensitive to it, to a degree. Some people act like they're going to need to go to the E/R, though. A lot of drama, IMHO.

My dad was ultra sensitive to second hand smoke. As a kid, when I would go with him often and we would go into businesses in which there was a lot of second hand smoke, he would conduct his business and we would leave. If he spent more than about 2 or 3 minutes in there, there was a predicitability that I watched a hundred times from the time I was a young kid until I basically stopped riding with my dad. (50's and 60's) That predicitability was that within 10 to 15 minutes, he would have to pull over and he would throw up. As I wrote this was not a "sometimes" thing, and it was back when smoking was a "man" thing. There was no way around the smoke, and the reaction was a sure thing for him - and just about every business smelled of smoke.

That was not an allergy that caused a stuffy runny nose for him, but it caused him to throw up almost every single time he was in second hand smoke more than a couple of minutes or so. Needless to say I always had a negative impression of smoke and even second hand smoke. My dad as a big man 6'4" and 220 - 230, no weakling for sure.

[mpc]

The company I work for is doing much the same thing as what CocheseUGA posted. Encouraging a "healthy" lifestyle to reduce health insurance costs to the company. They're providing a health screening service (or you can have your own doctor do it) and then, based on the results, make suggestions on diet, lifestyle, etc. changes that you might consider. To get employee participation they are reducing the employee's weekly health care pay deduction for those that complete the screening process - just the screening process itself, you don't have to actually obey any of the suggestions. At least not yet... maybe it'll get more onerous in a few years. Previously just filling out a questionnaire (that included "I don't know" as a valid answer to things like "total cholesterol level=___") was enough for the credit... now you need real answers to everything via the screening or having your doctor submit the results. It's handled by a 3rd party company so my employer (supposedly) won't know any person's individual results - only which employees did or did not complete the screening process.

As for the total non-smoking ban... I happen to agree with it. There are a lot of other "employees can't do's" as part of the employment agreement: wasting time on the Internet during work hours, no alcohol consumption during work hours (even at lunch off premises), using company computers for personal businesses, etc. When I first hired in smoking was allowed inside the buildings - and was fairly common. Then it became "outside only" for a couple years. This looked bad to customers visiting the plant: they'd see groups of people standing around doing nothing on company time and often had to walk past these groups to get into the buildings. So the next step was to make designated smoking areas away from the building doors. Then a total smoking ban on premises. Other than the health care screenings though there aren't (yet anyway...) tests for tobacco or alcohol use off-hours. As long as you're sober when arriving for work. Illegal drug use can get you in trouble but there is no recurring drug testing for general employees. Just a test as part of the hiring process. There may be drug/alcohol/tobacco tests for certain high-risk jobs; I don't know for sure. I hate being around smokers - second hand smoke irritates my nose and I don't want my health affected by someone elses habits; it can also be a distraction at work. It's a courtesy thing if nothing else, not that different from expecting co-workers to bathe regularly/follow basic hygiene principles, to stay home when sick rather than spreading it around, etc. Not all that different from turning off cell phones in theaters: just being considerate of other folks around you.

mpc

[Pappy]

I am a smoker and have to weigh in on the side of the smokers.

At one time I went out of my way to be considerate of non smokers in public places. Then came separate smoking areas and people sitting near the border would comment and complain loudly. I started doing everything in my power to annoy them.

As has been said, smoking is legal. To restrict smoking inside and in all but designated areas is fine. To ban it from the property completely is going to far. If someone complains about the residual smell on a smoker's clothes, what is next? Ban smoking on your way to work or on lunch breaks?

What about those that come in functional but obviously hung over. They may be sober, but their productivity is still diminished. Can the employer ban drinking on all nights preceding a work day?

[chopnhack]

BigguyZ's touched on it, but I will take it a little further. This is no conspiracy mind you, it is all about money (as tommy already said).

Has anyone else noticed some of the questions you are asked when taking out an insurance policy? They want to know about your personal activities. They want to know if you drink, if you work late, if you scuba dive.... They don't ask if you do crossword puzzles! They carefully select what they ask to assign risk to you as an individual! The purpose of insurance was always to spread the risk as a pool!! But the insurance industry wants yet even higher profits and to be able to do that they have to mitigate their risks to a higher degree of specificity, tightening the bolts down if you will... Another reason why these social networking sites, blogs etc. that can tie your name to your online activities are a bad thing. If your insurer finds out about your past time, you may become uninsurable or pay a much higher rate. Think about it, its not as ludicrous as it first sounds, is it?

[cwsmith]

I haven't read through every post, so I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes. It's been a few years since I retired (2003), so I don't know what's going on there at the moment. But in the late 90's my employer inacted a no-smoking ban through-out the plant. I think it was executed in all the facilities, but I don't know that for sure.

But here, you were not allowed to smoke in any of the buildings, including the shop areas. At first they banned smoking in the offices, but a year or so later it was widened to include the shop too.

The company also started a health program so anyone so inclined could break the habit. I believe they even covered the whatevers under our health insurance and they held classes, etc.

I'm not a smoker... watching my Mom and Dad exercise that filthy habit was enough to keep me out of it, even as a young teen. The house was always a haze and the ceiling above where they normally smoked was always smoke stained. We never owned a car that didn't have a hole burned in the front seat and in almost every room of the house there were multiple ash trays. My Dad finally succumbed to lung cancer when he was in his mid-70's.

But for all of that, I think this anti-smoking thing is sort of overdone. Smokers have a problem, IMHO. They need help, but they certainly shouldn't be forced into it. But on the flip side, we non-smokers should not have to put up with secondary smoke for any reason whatsoever. I was glad to see it banned at work, because so many times I'd leave a meeting practically gagging from the lack of clean air.

In our company you could still go outside for a cigarette break. I find that okay, and guess it's a nice accommodation. But I also felt it rather cruel that we didn't provide some kind of shelter for them during winters and other foul weather.

I personally think it's a real crime that cigarettes cost so much money... you want to ban it, okay... but let's not have the government make money off of it. I think that's a sad commentary on our society... taxing the heck out of so called "sin" habits. If it's bad, nobody should be profitizing.

The other mixed-attitude that I have is simply that on one hand I'm glad smoking is banned, but I don't like the heavy handed way some management addresses such issues. In our dept, some of the girls would step out the back service door for their cigarette breaks... and then our manager would simply slam and lock the door on them, which forced them to walk all the way around to the front of the building in the winter cold, in order to get back into the building. Personally the guy was a jerk, and certainly no gentleman.

On the other hand though, us folks that took a so-called coffee break most always just grabbed a cup and returned to our work. Management would not put up with loitering around the coffee machine; and, coffee breaks were definitely limited, unless you took your coffee and continued to work.

Yet, smokers seemed to be always outside... because they couldn't smoke inside. You'd see them leave their desk several times in the morning and again in the afternoon. Still to this day, I see the same handfull of people almost always out on the sidewalk whenever I drive by. I wonder when they get their work done and why they are allowed out there so often.

CWS

[leehljp]

I am a smoker and have to weigh in on the side of the smokers.

At one time I went out of my way to be considerate of non smokers in public places. Then came separate smoking areas and people sitting near the border would comment and complain loudly. I started doing everything in my power to annoy them.

As has been said, smoking is legal. To restrict smoking inside and in all but designated areas is fine. To ban it from the property completely is going to far. If someone complains about the residual smell on a smoker's clothes, what is next? Ban smoking on your way to work or on lunch breaks?

What about those that come in functional but obviously hung over. They may be sober, but their productivity is still diminished. Can the employer ban drinking on all nights preceding a work day?

Don,

I don't like second hand smoke, but can and do tolerate it better than many, including how my dad handled it as I mentioned on the first page of this thread. While my dad got very sick from it, it never stopped him from doing business in such environments. I agree with you that it is legal and that total banning is going too far.

"Community" as we once had in America is slowly dying out. "Community" is tolerance of differences of opinons and beliefs. We are now moving to a point that "Every one must be like me" which is a nice way of saying "SELFISH". I, Me, Mine, My way for anything and everything around me. It is nice to group into like mindedness (as we gathered around the venerable BT3X00 ) but then demanding it is going too far. Intolerance for the most part is rooted in pure selfishness.

[tommyt654]

Lots of thought provoking answers here as I would have thought happened. I do recognize this is a profit deal for the insurance companys in the 1st place. It's all to easy to forget the billions of dollars govco wasted sueing the tobacco industry and the billions they had to pay our govco to ensure that this problem was taken care of. Getting millions off the nicotine high was supposed to be the answer, but as usual govco got there greedy hands on the funds and they dissappeared to who knows where. I am a smoker, I chose to do so as it is my right and I do so with the idea that I won't force anyone to be around me when I do. I never smoke around my grandchildren and my 1 daughter has given it up as she claims(highly suspect).But I see this as a choice and liberty given to us as individuals.The insurance companys and non-smokers have chosen to single us out, whats next? We as woodworkers have more than likely inhaled more carcinogens in our lifetime than we will ever get thru 2nd hand smoke yet we will complain about it here as if its a major issue(not singeling anyone out btw).Its not nearly as much about health as it is about money,if it was they would offer up and readily agree to alternatives such as insurance coverage to pay for the patch and such, nicotine as itself is not a known carcinogen tho recent testing show possible increase's in labs rats that it can increase the size of cancerous tumors ,its all the other things in tobacco that make it bad. So why not cover those addicted to it and allow them to have coverage to help them instead of practicing intolerance. Its funny the insurance will pay for those who cannot readily perform by paying for viagara,yet they won't pay for the patch to help those who they claim really need help and complain about it in the workplace as if its not the same thing. Is a satisfied individual not more productive as a whole whether it be thru nicotine or the alternative. Society as a whole must quit the whining and childlike bickering and move onto other things that are readily more important like alzheimers/cancer/etc and get over the smoking issue as its IMHO all to easy to avoid by simply walking in another direction.

[cabinetman]

Rule #1...Boss is always right.
Any questions refer to Rule #1.

.

[Cochese]

Lots of thought provoking answers here as I would have thought happened. I do recognize this is a profit deal for the insurance companys in the 1st place. It's all to easy to forget the billions of dollars govco wasted sueing the tobacco industry and the billions they had to pay our govco to ensure that this problem was taken care of. Getting millions off the nicotine high was supposed to be the answer, but as usual govco got there greedy hands on the funds and they dissappeared to who knows where. I am a smoker, I chose to do so as it is my right and I do so with the idea that I won't force anyone to be around me when I do. I never smoke around my grandchildren and my 1 daughter has given it up as she claims(highly suspect).But I see this as a choice and liberty given to us as individuals.The insurance companys and non-smokers have chosen to single us out, whats next? We as woodworkers have more than likely inhaled more carcinogens in our lifetime than we will ever get thru 2nd hand smoke yet we will complain about it here as if its a major issue(not singeling anyone out btw).Its not nearly as much about health as it is about money,if it was they would offer up and readily agree to alternatives such as insurance coverage to pay for the patch and such, nicotine as itself is not a known carcinogen tho recent testing show possible increase's in labs rats that it can increase the size of cancerous tumors ,its all the other things in tobacco that make it bad. So why not cover those addicted to it and allow them to have coverage to help them instead of practicing intolerance. Its funny the insurance will pay for those who cannot readily perform by paying for viagara,yet they won't pay for the patch to help those who they claim really need help and complain about it in the workplace as if its not the same thing. Is a satisfied individual not more productive as a whole whether it be thru nicotine or the alternative. Society as a whole must quit the whining and childlike bickering and move onto other things that are readily more important like alzheimers/cancer/etc and get over the smoking issue as its IMHO all to easy to avoid by simply walking in another direction.

From the latest numbers I've seen, 2/3 of companies 200 employees or greater do offer it in their benefits. Unfortunately smaller companies check in at about 1/3. I found it interesting how you separated cancer from smoking, though.

Smoking (or tobacco) is now a major secondary diagnosis I have to code for, in part by the mandatory cessation education hospitals have to give for every patient.

Sent from my cm_tenderloin using Tapatalk 2

[tommyt654]

" I found it interesting how you separated cancer from smoking, though"

Really, That may very well be true,but its a diagnosis,often maligned and casually used if the individual has smoked or lives with someone who does. Very little is actually known about cancer and while they continually are varying degrees of research going on for it there have yet to be other than the common treatments(radiological,etc) very few advances in recent yrs. Lung cancer agreed carrys the stigma attached to it from smoking, however many other forms of cancer are not readily associated with smoking as a deciding factor. Its readily easy to blame it on smoking yet I have know many folks who never smoked and developed other forms,prostrate,testicular,stomach,liver,etc the list goes on. While as I stated nicotine is not a known carcinogen many other elements in the air we breath, the water we drink,the food we eat on a daily basis are, yet we continually oppose EPA regulation for things like coal, frackingwater contamination etc ,for the almighty dolla while knowing very little about the future consequences or ramifications of chemicals we are all exposed to daily. Yes its easy to single out us smokers as scapegoats as we are so very prevalent as the bad guys in society while corporations continue to dump chemicals into the air we breathe and the water we drinkAlso FWIW I personally know a gent who never smoked a day in his life or was ever around it as far as he knew yet was diagnosed with lung cancer,He worked for Lockheed for 30 yrs,wonder how he got that

[Knottscott]

Everyone's at risk of getting cancer, but is there really any doubt that smoker's have a higher rate of cancer, heart, and lung disease?