Comments on: Employers’ war on smoking goes ballistic

By: Pamela

Pamela — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:42:19 +0000

I work at a care facility in California and they just made it no smoking policy on work grounds they didnt give us any kind of warning just one day we came to work and they said we are a no smoking facility just like that. No time to adjust no warning nothing I feel this is wrong

By: Mel

Mel — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:54:42 +0000

We charge more if the spouse smokes too. Not a legal issue.

By: Lajgirl

Lajgirl — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:11:34 +0000

What about a non-smoking employee who covers a smoking spouse? If a spouse smokes and suffers realted health problems, that could affect premium charges as well. Can the employer charge the employee more because a spouse’s choice will affect insurance coverage for all the employees?

By: KEME

KEME — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:46:28 +0000

I hear a lot of the non-smokers complaining about the risk to their health from second-hand smoke. I do not drive, it is bad for the environment and is potentially killing our planet. Driving causes smog which causes health problems and global warming. Theoretically, if you drive to work, you are endangering your health, mine, and everyone elses. Can we put restrictions on this? Should your premiums be higher?
The point is that individuals need to start thinking about eachother and not just themselves. Lets make America as a whole better instead of saving a dollar or two here and there for ourselves. Every man for himself is the mentality that is killing our country. Everyone has faults, but we do not need scapegoats. We need to work as a whole and quit picking on minorities to conform to the ideal.

By: K Zapata

K Zapata — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:45:56 +0000

After reading many of the above comments, I think that the original point of the article has been buried.
Yes, insurance is offered. Yes, non-smoking employees get a benefit. NO, people who FALSIFIED the information on the insurance form SHOULD NOT go unpunished!
Obviously those 39 people recognized a financial benefit to denying a habit of tobacco use. Too bad they didn’t find their integrity to be more important than the incentive!
But, in this world of half-truths and grey area, what does personal integrity mean anymore?? I’m sure there is a lawsuit out there, somewhere, waiting to prove that integrity isn’t worth anything, so why bother!

By: Michelle G

Michelle G — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 14:16:24 +0000

We have a policy of no smoking during working hours with the exception of our lunch period. Even then you cannot smoke on the company premises whether owned or rented. As a smoker, I had no problem with this change after the first couple of weeks (adjustment period). It makes me smoke less. The company is trying to help employees get healthier not just with smoking but eating smart, excercising, etc. but they don’t force it down our throats as they let us know that there are resources available to help us if we want it. With this said, our health care costs for our branch are not due to smokers but from things such as diabetes, allergies, etc. I think designated smoking areas are fine. If you do like smoking then avoid those areas. I think people talk more about smokers when we should be concentraing on many areas and not just smoking such as obesity which causes of many various health issues such as diabetes, heart attacks, etc.

By: Lee

Lee — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:02:59 +0000

My husband and I pay, in part, toward premium costs, co-pays for office and prescription, along with annual deductible to meet, through his employer. We just received notice that we must submit to an online, HRA (Health Risk Assessment) in order to be ‘participate’ in their new, full medical coverage. The catch then came, stating if we decided to decline participation, we would be required to higher costs toward the premium.

Under previous wellness initiatives I have ever participated in, HRA’s were required, but reported to independent wellness professionals that confidentially put information in a software program to provide a baseline for participants, of their health, with suggestions on behavioral options. The reports were not given to a insurance company, nor the employer, but rather sent confidentially to the employees homes.

Under HIPPA, are we REALLY required to do this? The State we reside in is Michigan, neither of us smoke or have any other serious illness. I guess this is a matter of principle. Anyone know where I might be able to find out more about OUR rights, if any.

Thanks.

By: Call her the diet cop | HRBlunders.com

Call her the diet cop | HRBlunders.com — Mon, 12 May 2008 10:01:45 +0000

[...] HR Blunders ran a story about how companies are cracking down on employee smoking even off the job, many of our readers [...]

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 09 May 2008 22:18:22 +0000

It has also been said that those who don’t learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

The tactics used were not isolated to the 1940s and 1950s or the Nazis. They exist in our political discussions today concerning immigration, the war on terror, healthcare, family values, etc. A group is selected as the scapegoat (illegal aliens, muslim extremists, smokers and fat people, gays and lesbians, etc.), license is given to vilify and dehumanize the group, laws are passed and a movement occurs that punish the group, and the original problem goes unaddressed and unsolved.

Unfortunately, when we don’t really look at and solve problems, everybody loses….

By: Robert Brown

Robert Brown — Fri, 09 May 2008 21:50:05 +0000

It has been said the first person to analogize an argument with Nazi loses….