Hiring Smokers Banned In South Florida City

My name is URL

A South Florida city has banned the hiring of employees who smoke or use tobacco products in an effort to save on insurance.

Delray Beach City Commissioners made official Tuesday a policy that refuses city agencies the right hire a person who has smoked in the year before employment.

The ban is meant to help save the cash-strapped city on health insurance premium fees. Human Resources director Bruce Koeser told NBC 6 that each smoker costs an extra $12,000 in health and disability-related costs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/delray-beach-florida-bans_n_1933172.html

What say ye about this idea? Should public sector agencies be forbidden from hiring smokers?

I think it's quite possibly one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard, but I'm guessing I'll be in a minority there =p

I'm a smoker, but would it not make more sense to actually ban tobacco than ostracise people using a legally available drug? Where do such ideas end? Madness

cloptrop

Bloody flo rida and his gangster rap pals with their crazy ideas.

Millicent

Do they ban everyone who drinks? Anyone who eats fatty food? What a stupid policy.

MagicMarker

On the one hand I can understand the decision. But on the other where is the line drawn? Should they ban fat people? Diabetics? Should you be made do a bleep test before being hired for a desk job?

Biggins

Not justifying the policy but they have boiled everything down to economics - it all comes down to the bucks with them.
Many other cities/states might now do similar in cash strapped times.

Humans out - spreadsheet financial figures win again!

Chucken

...just dont tell the insurance companies then. D'oh

Biggins

Chucken wrote: »

...just dont tell the insurance companies then. D'oh

You would get away with that some of the time but with some job applications also requiring maybe a physical health check (and there something might show up), if one lied on their application alone, that might get them into trouble too?

BrokenArrows

Well if the council is paying for medical insurance for that person then I agree with it.

Chucken

Biggins wrote: »

You would get away with that some of the time but with some job applications also requiring maybe a physical health check (and there something might show up), if one lied on their application alone, that might get them into trouble too?

You do realise I was joking right?

Biggins

Chucken wrote: »

You do realise I was joking right?

Yea - but there was a possibility some have/would try I'm guessing.
Even in jest, you raise a good point.

Rented Mule

Part of this comes down to health costs.

The other is the time it takes a smoker to leave their desk and go outside to the 'designated smoking areas' and then back to their desks. In many cases (not all) it does cut down on productivity.

babaracus

Smoking saves the health service and the State a fortune.

Smokers die younger.

The assumption that smokers cost the health service money is based on the ridiculous assumption that non-smokers cost the health service nothing. Go to a doctors surgery and it is full of 80 year old non smokers who have a list of ailments and prescriptions as long as your arm. They also claim the pension for about 20 years more than smokers.

If everybody gave up smoking tomorrow short term health service costs would decrease before rapidly increasing to a level far above that when 30% of the population smoked. Plus smokers pay €6-70 a day in extra tax for the privilege.

Smoke - It is your national duty. We are the true patriots.

*This post was sponsored by Silk Cut: For that smooth tobacco taste nothing beats it.

Neewbie_noob

cloptrop wrote: »

Bloody flo rida and his gangster rap pals with their crazy ideas.

Can't believe I'm the first one to give this gentleman the "thanks" he deserves! :eek:

Yakult

I'd be more worried about their obsession with fatty foods than smokes.

My name is URL

Neewbie_noob wrote: »

Can't believe I'm the first one to give this gentleman the "thanks" he deserves! :eek:

I thought he was talking about feminine sanitary napkins

'Flo Rida'

Biggins

I ask cos' I don't know - does any armies, police forces, etc (anywhere) have such like policies - smokers get shoved down or off the list?

Just wondering.

dj jarvis

babaracus wrote: »

Smoking saves the health service and the State a fortune.

Smokers die younger.

The assumption that smokers cost the health service money is based on the ridiculous assumption that non-smokers cost the health service nothing. Go to a doctors surgery and it is full of 80 year old non smokers who have a list of ailments and prescriptions as long as your arm. They also claim the pension for about 20 years more than smokers.

If everybody gave up smoking tomorrow short term health service costs would decrease before rapidly increasing to a level far above that when 30% of the population smoked. Plus smokers pay €6-70 a day in extra tax for the privilege.

Smoke - It is your national duty. We are the true patriots.

*This post was sponsored by Silk Cut: For that smooth tobacco taste nothing beats it.

i read once, that phillip morris and the polish ministry of health done a survey on the very subject that you posted about.

it was to see would it be cheaper to have people smoke or not,
the conclusion was that it saved the government money to let people smoke rather than not - but not by much ( not sure on the exact amount )

smokers are a net benefit to the state - pay a fortune in taxes, take less pension and die sooner ( but add the caveat, that i would imagine a smokers last few months are very costly to the health service - lots and lots of visits , drugs and scans towards the bitter end )

but as for the Florida law im in 2 minds , one - its stupid becasue you would also have to include all other activities that are harmful to your health.

but........... i had 2 heart attacks at the age of 37 due to smoking - so this law could have prevented this , i suppose they should just ban feckin smokes and be done with it - but they wont , to much revenue to lose

3ndahalfof6

smoking certain type smokes can enhance work productivity, but the one good thing that might come of this is, they will find the next cause of high insurance claims,

until it gets to the stage, you are only employable if you are a robot, some places are doing this already.

babaracus

dj jarvis wrote: »

i read once, that phillip morris and the polish ministry of health done a survey on the very subject that you posted about.

it was to see would it be cheaper to have people smoke or not,
the conclusion was that it saved the government money to let people smoke rather than not - but not by much ( not sure on the exact amount )

smokers are a net benefit to the state - pay a fortune in taxes, take less pension and die sooner ( but add the caveat, that i would imagine a smokers last few months are very costly to the health service - lots and lots of visits , drugs and scans towards the bitter end )

but as for the Florida law im in 2 minds , one - its stupid becasue you would also have to include all other activities that are harmful to your health.

but........... i had 2 heart attacks at the age of 37 due to smoking - so this law could have prevented this , i suppose they should just ban feckin smokes and be done with it - but they wont , to much revenue to lose

Think about it for a second.

All those hip replacements, all those people getting 10 years of nursing home care for Alzheimers, pensioners riddled with diabetes, arthritis, angina, survivors of several non smoking related cancers etc. etc. All costing the State a fortune and all signing on for the State pension for 25 years.

A smoker gets his 3 months of treatment before pension age and shuffles off this mortal coil. Who costs the health service more?

Not the smoker.

There has been research done and I can dig it up if required but a simple think about it should reveal that logically a smoker who dies at 65 is a bargain for the State, especially when he has been paying ridiculous taxes on smokes all his life.

dj jarvis

babaracus wrote: »

Think about it for a second.

All those hip replacements, all those people getting 10 years of nursing home care for Alzheimers, pensioners riddled with diabetes, arthritis, angina, survivors of several non smoking related cancers etc. etc. All costing the State a fortune and all signing on for the State pension for 25 years.

A smoker gets his 3 months of treatment before pension age and shuffles off this mortal coil. Who costs the health service more?

Not the smoker.

There has been research done and I can dig it up if required but a simple think about it should reveal that logically a smoker who dies at 65 is a bargain for the State, especially when he has been paying ridiculous taxes on smokes all his life.

i agree with you , but i do remember the amount saved was not huge , im not sure what variables they used , but i did raise a eyebrow when i read it

maybe it was just that it was the polish health service 10 odd years ago , rather than a "western" health service and the costs that they incur

but im sure in my post i was making the same point as you , was i not ?

dj jarvis

here is a very similar report done for the Czech republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Finance_Balance_of_Smoking_in_the_Czech_Republic

same crowd again , phillip morris

babaracus

dj jarvis wrote: »

i agree with you , but i do remember the amount saved was not huge , im not sure what variables they used , but i did raise a eyebrow when i read it

maybe it was just that it was the polish health service 10 odd years ago , rather than a "western" health service and the costs that they incur

but im sure in my post i was making the same point as you , was i not ?

You were, apologies, I was just trying to reinforce my point for the non-believers out there.

ProudDUB

babaracus wrote: »

Think about it for a second.

All those hip replacements, all those people getting 10 years of nursing home care for Alzheimers, pensioners riddled with diabetes, arthritis, angina, survivors of several non smoking related cancers etc. etc. All costing the State a fortune and all signing on for the State pension for 25 years.

A smoker gets his 3 months of treatment before pension age and shuffles off this mortal coil. Who costs the health service more?

Not the smoker.

That's just being silly. Not every smoker is diagnosed with lung cancer and is dead 3 months later, done and dusted. My 70 year old aunt (who smoked for 40 years) is back and forth to her doctor pretty much every week with her emphasymia, asthma, chest infections, smokers coffee, weak heart etc etc all of which her doctor blames on her smoking. She is getting a LOT more than 3 months worth of treatment & there are a lot more like her around too !

But back to the US, more and more States are getting like this, especially the one where labour laws favour the employers and not the employees. A friend of mine was let go from her job (as a claims adjuster for a large insurance company) because she was a smoker. She wasn't flat out told that was the reason for being let go, but being in the insurance biz she could read between the lines as to what was what.

The way it works is that all employees have to go for a mandatory health screening every year. There is no use lying about smoking, as there are blood tests that can reveal traces of nicotine in your system. The insurance company tabulate the smoker/non smoker results, as well as keeping track of all other people with health issue who are potential high risks for big ass insurance claims down the road. They report the results back to the company (who is their client) when quoting them health insurance rates for the following year. To lower the costs, the companies then weed out those employees who are high risk for insurance claims. Easy peasy really for companies in states with shyte labour laws which unfortunately for my friend, she lived in !