Company who fired smokers says overweight people are next. [Archive]

SirFozzie

01-27-2005, 05:15 AM

CHICAGO, Illinois (Reuters) -- The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else.

A ban on tobacco use -- whether at home or at the workplace -- led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco Inc., which handles insurance claims.

The workers refused to take a mandatory urine test demanded of Weyco's 200 employees by founder and sole owner Howard Weyers, a demand that he said was perfectly legal.

"If you don't want to take the test, you can leave," Weyers told Reuters. "I'm not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here."

Next on the firing line: overweight workers.

"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," Weyers said.

He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 bonuses and plans to offer $45 vouchers for health club memberships.

The 71-year-old Weyers, who said he has never smoked and pronounced himself in good shape thanks to daily runs, said employees' health as well as saving money on the company's own insurance claims led him to first bar smokers from being hired in 2003.

Last year, he banned smoking during office hours, then demanded smokers pay a monthly $50 "assessment," and finally instituted mandatory testing.

Twenty workers quit the habit.

Weyers tells clients to quit whining about health care costs and to "set some expectations; demand some things."

Job placement specialist John Challenger said Weyco's moves could set a precedent for larger companies -- if it survives potential legal challenges.

"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue: rising health care costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual," Challenger said.

So far no legal challenges have been made to Weyco's policies.

Ragone

01-27-2005, 05:22 AM

This company is gonna keep pushing till someone pushes back..

BigDawg

01-27-2005, 05:24 AM

Ragone

01-27-2005, 05:27 AM

As bad as this may sound.. i bet the people who quit smoking/got healthy probably saved tons of money thanks to him :)

Raven Hawk

01-27-2005, 05:30 AM

If you notice, though . . . he never actually fired anybody for smoking. He just put the clamps on and they quit because they refused to test. This may be defendable in court. However, if I was suing, I'd go for "hostile work environment" or "harassment" rather than "wrongful discharge."

One thing to remember: Smokers are NOT a protected class. That doesn't mean that this guy isn't an asshole for what he is doing, but he may have legal ground to stand on.

Ben E Lou

01-27-2005, 05:30 AM

Why shouldn't a private company have the right to make a decision like this???

SirFozzie

01-27-2005, 05:31 AM

WOW ... I can see them banning smoking in the workplace but I can promise you their is NO WAY the court will hold up the smoking at home crapola. So if this guy decides that drinking PEPSI rots your teeth which will increase his dental plan coverage once his employees teeth start falling out so he BANS Pepsi or your fired...LOL

No company has any right or would it ever hold up in court that I cant EAT, DRINK, SMOKE any LEGAL substance at my home.

Sadly, it might just do so. Some things are protected against discrimination (age, sex, sexual preference, etcetera).

Most things aren't on that list.

A lot of states are "Right-To-Work" states (which is really a misnomer, it should be a "Right-To-Fire") which states that either side of a work contract can end the contract at any time, FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY WANT.

As long as it doesn't fall under the discrimination categories, they can do whatever they want.

Taco

01-27-2005, 05:32 AM

This year my company charged $600 to any employee who refused to take a health survey that asked questions about eating habits, drinking habits, family health history, exercise habits, etc. People were very worried that this data would be used against them in a future round of layoffs.

Raven Hawk

01-27-2005, 05:37 AM

Marc Vaughan

01-27-2005, 05:45 AM

Why shouldn't a private company have the right to make a decision like this???
A private company probably has the right to enforce what an employee does during work hours - but what they do at home imho (so long as its legal) should NOT be controlled by the employer.

If this is allowed then its infringing on the civil liberties of the employee's and is totally unfair imho, for instance consider that the employer decides that he is against drinking alcohol and that Football Matches encourage this - would you be so in favour of such decisions being allowed if they prevented watching Monday Night Football? ....

Looking along the lines he's going I'd expect drinking to be next in line after obesity and while my analogy is stretching things, its altogether possible ...

Ben E Lou

01-27-2005, 05:50 AM

A private company probably has the right to enforce what an employee does during work hours - but what they do at home imho (so long as its legal) should NOT be controlled by the employer.

If this is allowed then its infringing on the civil liberties of the employee's and is totally unfair imho, for instance consider that the employer decides that he is against drinking alcohol and that Football Matches encourage this - would you be so in favour of such decisions being allowed if they prevented watching Monday Night Football?If I wanted to watch Monday Night Football, I'd work somewhere else. It is a private business, not the government.

SirFozzie

01-27-2005, 05:57 AM

But what right does a private business have to tell its employees what it can and cannot do on its own time. Now I'd understand if they were paying the employees for this off time...

but they're not.

panerd

01-27-2005, 06:04 AM

The interesting thing about the moral police like this guy is they ultimatly get caught in a catch 22. Is he prepared if his wife is prone to premature birth to not have children, because that is probably the #1 cause of high health care in small business. What if he already had kids and his daughter becomes addicted to drugs or suicidal? Should his employees have to pay for her irregular behavior?

Maybe this guy is the "perfect" individual and nothing will ever happen to him. But it always seems to me that it is really easy to blame the smokers and then the overweight, but eventually everyone has some sort of problem that is driving the costs of health care up.

And on a completly unrelated note, maybe this is just the cynic in me. But if the United States banned smoking and junk foods does anyone honestly believe that the health care companies would immediately lower rates across the board? They will just find something else that is the root of their next rate hike.

Ragone

01-27-2005, 06:05 AM

But they are foz..

if their smoking/health issues increased insurance cost.. they will be paying for it in the long run, ultimately shutting down the company, or forcing them to dump health care coverage all together

Its the ultimate double edged sword

KeyserSoze

01-27-2005, 06:29 AM

And the people still ask why we (the Europeans) love the public health care system???
If this politic survives (for me) is a big blow against the workers. They have not the right what you can do in your free time (if its legal). These tests shouldnt be legal, since it allows the company to discriminate. If you dont take the overweights and the smoker, who will be the next hemophilics?? diabetics?? People who ates meat???
If someone makes his work ok. If he cant, he should be fired, but not by his outside habits (if they dont seems a problem to his work)

Ksyrup

01-27-2005, 06:32 AM

FBPro

01-27-2005, 06:41 AM

Blackadar

01-27-2005, 06:43 AM

Why shouldn't a private company have the right to make a decision like this???

The problem I have with this is two-fold.

1. It is totally repugnant to me that a company can try to restrict otherwise legal behavior on it's employees while they are away from company property. What's next? Fat people (obviously)? How about anyone who is into skiing? Or kyaking or any other "extreme" sport? How about computer games because they make you fat? How about swearing? Eating meat? Casual drinking?

And where does it turn from you "must not" do something to you "must do" something? Mandated doctors visits and annual checkups? Mandiated exercise programs? The ACLU commercial of not being able to buy that pizza starts to look like a realistic scenario.

The question of where does it stop is a very valid one. The movie "Gattaca" starts to be a very possible scenario.

2. I don't have faith that "market forces" can correct something like this. If they now get lower health-care costs, then other companies will adopt these same policies. And you have to work somewhere.

This again points to the dire need for a Constitutional Ammendment - The Right to Privacy.

Either that, or I'll just live "off the net" and turn to a life of crime. :)

jamesUMD

01-27-2005, 06:45 AM

Ksyrup hit it on the head with my thinking also. Just don't offer health care coverage for smokers period.

Ben E Lou

01-27-2005, 06:53 AM

The problem I have with this is two-fold.

1. It is totally repugnant to me that a company can try to restrict otherwise legal behavior on it's employees while they are away from company property.Me too, but I'd argue that they should have a right to do it.

And where does it turn from you "must not" do something to you "must do" something? Mandated doctors visits and annual checkups? Mandiated exercise programs?Again, if you don't like it, leave. There will be a company elsewhere that will have less restrictive policies. The "market" would find an equilibrium, I'm convinced.

2. I don't have faith that "market forces" can correct something like this. If they now get lower health-care costs, then other companies will adopt these same policies. And you have to work somewhere.Heh. I responded to the last part before I read this. :p I'm convinced that, for example, there are enough smokers that SOMEBODY would start a company that allows it.

Ben E Lou

01-27-2005, 06:56 AM

Fritz

01-27-2005, 07:06 AM

I agree with skydog, and have an almost identical point of view.

Northwood_DK

01-27-2005, 07:14 AM

If this was in their original contract I can agree. Then they knew what they got in to when they decided to sign the contract. He would properly get a problem getting anyone to sign a contract like that.

But as I understand that’s not the case here. He just makes up the rules as he goes.<O:p</O:p

Next he will demand everybody to wear red shirts, on or off work. He can do that, it’s his business.

You sign up for a job and not life.

Fritz

01-27-2005, 07:24 AM

I think if he can show how not wearing red shirts adversly affects his company, then he may have reasonable request.

panerd

01-27-2005, 07:25 AM

OK, I don't want to hire Catholics because on the average they have more children, hence higher dependent care costs. Black males life expectancy is lower so there is a greater chance my company will have to burden the costs. Women with small breasts have lower self-esteem and may in turn die sooner.

So I am going to only hire athiest white women with big breasts. Do you think anyone will have a problem with this?

Fritz

01-27-2005, 07:39 AM

I dont really have a problem with a private company not hiring Catholics, Blacks, or women with small breasts.

That said, your post is mostly crap.

Bee

01-27-2005, 07:47 AM

Subby

01-27-2005, 07:51 AM

It doesn't really matter if you don't have a problem with it since that type of hiring practice is illegal...

You are such a dicktaster sometimes...

Fritz

01-27-2005, 07:54 AM

It doesn't really matter if you don't have a problem with it since that type of hiring practice is illegal...

You are such a dicktaster sometimes...

so is oral sex in Virginia

QuikSand

01-27-2005, 07:55 AM

Dola:

I know that this is an area of fundamental disagreement that Blackie and I have, so I'm not going to argue back and forth with him about the particulars of it. Here's the bottom-line principle for me: Freedom for the individual also should extend to the guy/gal who starts a business. He/she should be able to run it the way he sees fit, so long as he/she does not defraud his/her clients, customers, or employees.

I think for the sake of completeness, you probably ought to also include a matter of societal harm. We probably don't want employers to do things that untowardly pollute the environment, for instance -- another classic case where there probably are no market forces available to properly correct the societally undesirable behavior. I'm not suggesting that there is a "societal" element to the employment arrengement between a private employer and its current or future employees (I'm not arguing that this issue is germane to this case) but that this might help complete your statement above.

Gary Gorski

01-27-2005, 07:59 AM

I'm with Skydog here - its a private company so why can't the owner make whatever rules he wants to make? Its HIS company. There at least seems to be some reasoning behind it other than money in the fact that he wants employees to be healthier people. Look at what he's done with the obesity issue - he's paid for people to speak to the employees, he setup a bonus system to reward employees for being healthier and he's planning on setting up a voucher system for a health club - its not like the guy is saying I hate fat people so all you fat people either lose weight or get out. He's providing them with help and avenues to address their obesity.

In the end though I think its his company so it should be his rules the company operates under. If he decides that people are more productive earlier in the day and sets the working hours as 6am - 3pm instead of 9-5 then what? You either show up at 6 or you don't work there, right?

BTW, don't think there are not owners of private businesses that take advantage of people on the opposite end of the spectrum. I know a couple of business owners who hire people they KNOW are heavy alcoholics and/or drug users yet keep them employed because they can pay them a low salary because other companies won't hire them because of their drug or alcohol problems.

WrongWay

01-27-2005, 08:07 AM

Insurance companies have always openly discriminated against Smokers. And, now with all the data coming in on obesity this should be the next catgory they start looking at. In the future There should be an overweight box to check on all your health and life insurance forms.

Should companies be forced to pay the extra for employees who engage in dangerous behavior? Or should they be allowed to pass the cost along to the employees who are selecting this type of lifestyle. Should you as an employee have your wage lowered to pay for your smoking/overweight co-workers insurance?

Think about it!!! By getting these high risk employees off the books, your companies insurance rates will decrease and overall profit margins will increase. What this means is more money for the workers that are still with the firm.

miked

01-27-2005, 08:13 AM

What's the big problem. It's a proven fact that overweight people and smokers increase the burden on health care costs. The guy is offering them incentives to become more healthy and it's his company. Why should a company be forced to pay higher health care costs because they have some unhealthy people?

I do think though that we will be seeing more of the positive re-inforcement than negative. A lot of companies are offering incentives to employees who go for their 6 month dental cleanings on time, take their medication, etc. Like I said in an earlier post, about 25% of health care costs for companies are due to patient noncompliance. I'd be really interested to see data on how much overweight/smoking employees cost a company...

lighthousekeeper

01-27-2005, 08:16 AM

A private company probably has the right to enforce what an employee does during work hours - but what they do at home imho (so long as its legal) should NOT be controlled by the employer.

...

But if you look closely on the smoking issue, the boss is not controlling what happens when the employees are not at work. He is simply stating that when employees are at work during work hours, their bloodstreams cannot process nicotine. The employee is free to smoke at home on his own free time as long as he can somehow rid his body of nicotine in time for the drug test (which I assume happens during work hours).

:p

JonInMiddleGA

01-27-2005, 08:28 AM

I suspect I'm one of the most militant smokers around FOFC. For example, I won't even go through the drive-thru of a no-smoking fast food joint, I don't dine (and therefore rarely shop) in counties/municipalities with smoking bans, etc.

That said, I believe if it's this guy's company, he ought to be able to hire/fire as he sees fit.

In this particular instance, what "he sees fit" causes me to wish somebody would knock him in his fuckin' head with a large blunt object ... but I still believe he should have every right to base his hiring/firing decisions on whatever he see fit.

WrongWay

01-27-2005, 08:30 AM

Q: How much are you willing to pay, out of your own salary, every week so that 300lb coworker can eat at McDonalds everyday?

lighthousekeeper

01-27-2005, 08:31 AM

JonInMiddleGA

01-27-2005, 08:35 AM

I didn't think any fast food places still allow smoking.

That's a county/city/state thing far more than a franchise thing.

Off-hand I can think of only one across-the-board non-smoking chain (and this incidentally is the one exception to my won't-go policy, because of my 6 y/o), which is Chik-Fil-A.

Otherwise (I'm trying to think here to see if I'm missing one), it's all determined on a store-by-store/franchisee/location basis ... McDonalds, Burger King, Hardees, Wendy's, Taco Bell/KFC/Pizza Hut, Krystal, Dairy Queen -- all of those, I know aren't company wide.

lighthousekeeper

01-27-2005, 08:36 AM

Q: How much are you willing to pay, out of your own salary, every week so that 300lb coworker can eat at McDonalds everyday?

I really don't think that question would lead to any useful conclusions. You could turn the question around as well: How much is fatso willing to pay to save your skinny ass life? Health care is based on the collective agreement that we contribute money to help not only ourselves but others as well. We're all mortal and for the most part [i]all[i/] rely on health care at some point to prolong our useless lives.

KeyserSoze

01-27-2005, 08:42 AM

I think these is opening a gate that somebody someday will pay costly.....

What is the diference between hire non smokers and hire people with better gens??(more productive, more healthier...) And this day we will know all men aren´t created equal

Aylmar

01-27-2005, 08:44 AM

What about people who have cancer in their family history? Isn't there a (slight and unproven, I think) higher chance that they might develop cancer themselves and therefore cost the company a bunch of money in health costs? Diabetes? High cholesterol? Neither one of those are strictly limited to fat people. If we're cutting health care costs, let's cut costs. No sports outside of work. I don't want my healthcare to pick up the tab for the rotator cuff that you tore during your summer softball game last year...etc...

Blackadar

01-27-2005, 08:49 AM

Q: How much are you willing to pay, out of your own salary, every week so that 300lb coworker can eat at McDonalds everyday?

I could understand if our insurances rates were different, but what you eat for lunch is none of my business.

Just take the next logical step. How would you feel about having to take a pre-employment drug screening that also screended for *potential* issues? Like heart disease? And then being denied a job because of it?

"I'm sorry, Mr, WrongWay, you have a 42% chance of congenital heart disease over the next 10 years. Your job application is denied."

On the one hand, it's his company and he can do with it what he wants. On the other, I think that people have a right to earn a living without fear of getting terminated because of what they do - legally - off work hours that really has no tangible effect on the organization. When you have a family that counts on your paycheck, it makes a big difference on your viewpoint.

albionmoonlight

01-27-2005, 08:50 AM

I tend to agree with the people who say that the market can control hiring/firing decisions. If I were king of the world, I would replace Title VII (the "private compaines cannot discriminate against women and minorities" law) with something vastly different that allowed much more freedom to hire/fire as a company sees fit.

But, to me, this is not about a private company deciding to hire/fire at will at all. This is about the insurance industry dictating who gets coverage and who does not. Let's assume (since it is true in this country) that you need health insurance in order to obtain adequate health care. Let's also assume (since it is true in this country) that you need a full time job with a health insurance benefit in order to afford health insurance.

The end result of all of Weyer's plan is that people who we perceive are likely to get sick (smokers, overweight people, people with disease in their family, people with a previous history of disease, people with high cholesterol, people who fail genetic screens, people who engage in dangerous hobbies, people who use drugs, people who have depression, people who are likely to get pregnant, people who engage in unprotected sex, etc.) will not have access to health insurance and, therefore, health care.

I understand that the adverse selection problem requires insurance companies to adjust rates. But for generations, we have modeled employer group health coverage on the assumption that one who is healthy enough to get hired for a job is also healthy enough for the group health plan. It is against public policy to start denying health care to people who will become sick. The end result is that they die on the streets or we end up paying for their care through Medicaid.

So I am all for a rule that says generally--employers can hire/fire who they want, provided however, that such a hiring/firing decision is not motivated solely or primarily by a desire to influence group health insurance rates.

Or we could just adopt socalized medicine, but I see the above proposal as a less radical solution.

Ben E Lou

01-27-2005, 08:58 AM

I think for the sake of completeness, you probably ought to also include a matter of societal harm. We probably don't want employers to do things that untowardly pollute the environment, for instance -- another classic case where there probably are no market forces available to properly correct the societally undesirable behavior. I'm not suggesting that there is a "societal" element to the employment arrengement between a private employer and its current or future employees (I'm not arguing that this issue is germane to this case) but that this might help complete your statement above.At some level, I'd agree that it is a proper function of government to protect its citizens from harm via excess pollution.

QuikSand

01-27-2005, 09:08 AM

The end result of all of Weyer's plan is that people who we perceive are likely to get sick (smokers, overweight people, people with disease in their family, people with a previous history of disease, people with high cholesterol, people who fail genetic screens, people who engage in dangerous hobbies, people who use drugs, people who have depression, people who are likely to get pregnant, people who engage in unprotected sex, etc.) will not have access to health insurance and, therefore, health care.

Fair argument.

I think, though, that many people would separate this list of issues into two groups. Matters of behavior or preference constitute nearly all of that list -- smoking, exercise, diet, hobbies, drug use, etc. Matters of pure physiology -- inherited medical tendencies, etc -- might be a different matter.

I think you might well argue that it's not inherently wrong for people who engage in health-wise risky behavior might find themselves paying more for their health care. Since, in this country, payment for health care is essentially a matter for private insurance companies -- it stands to some reason that they might have a say in this, even if the eventual end, as you describe, results in a perceived wholesale discrimination.

albionmoonlight

01-27-2005, 09:27 AM

Fair argument.

I think, though, that many people would separate this list of issues into two groups. Matters of behavior or preference constitute nearly all of that list -- smoking, exercise, diet, hobbies, drug use, etc. Matters of pure physiology -- inherited medical tendencies, etc -- might be a different matter.

I think you might well argue that it's not inherently wrong for people who engage in health-wise risky behavior might find themselves paying more for their health care. Since, in this country, payment for health care is essentially a matter for private insurance companies -- it stands to some reason that they might have a say in this, even if the eventual end, as you describe, results in a perceived wholesale discrimination.
That is a very hard line to draw, however. How much of diabetes, for instance, is based on lifestyle choice, and how much of it is based on genetics? Same thing with weight and cholesterol. Most people agree that both genetics and lifestyle play a part in these common diseases. One would need to sort out these thorny issues to draw any sort of a workable test between "lifestyle" sickness and "genetic" sickness. Your idea makes sense in theory, but I wonder how it could operate in practice at all (except in the clear cut cases of smoking, drug use, etc.).

And while insurance companies are private companies, I have no problem with highly regulating them. I view them much like utilities--they provide something that we, for all practical purposes, cannot live without. Insurance has always been a highly regulated industry, in part for that reason. I think that they should have less freedom as a private business than, say, a grocery store or a textbook printer. They provide a service (again like utilities) that is almost quasi-public, and I have no problem treating them as such. To the extent that they are not there, we (through the government) end up picking up the tab anyway.

miked

01-27-2005, 09:30 AM

Gattaca...not just a movie :p

Buzzbee

01-27-2005, 10:26 AM

But, to me, this is not about a private company deciding to hire/fire at will at all. This is about the insurance industry dictating who gets coverage and who does not. Let's assume (since it is true in this country) that you need health insurance in order to obtain adequate health care. Let's also assume (since it is true in this country) that you need a full time job with a health insurance benefit in order to afford health insurance.

The end result of all of Weyer's plan is that people who we perceive are likely to get sick (smokers, overweight people, people with disease in their family, people with a previous history of disease, people with high cholesterol, people who fail genetic screens, people who engage in dangerous hobbies, people who use drugs, people who have depression, people who are likely to get pregnant, people who engage in unprotected sex, etc.) will not have access to health insurance and, therefore, health care.

I understand that the adverse selection problem requires insurance companies to adjust rates. But for generations, we have modeled employer group health coverage on the assumption that one who is healthy enough to get hired for a job is also healthy enough for the group health plan. It is against public policy to start denying health care to people who will become sick. The end result is that they die on the streets or we end up paying for their care through Medicaid.

I disagree with this. What I expect would happen is that smokers, the obese, drug users, etc. would still be hired, but they would either have lower salaries and a "normal" health plan, or they would be hired with higher salaries and a minimal or no health plan. A health plan is part of a worker's overall compensation. If a company has to pay more for health care, they'll be willing to pay less in salary. Likewise, if the employee is willing to accept less or even no health care coverage (provided by the company), a company might be willing to pay a higher salary. Therefore to assume that the people in the list you posted would be without healthcare is IMO a little off base.

Of course you would assume that those people who make a higher salary with little or no coverage would use a portion of that to provide their own healthcare, but we know that would not always be the case. However, it would then be a matter of personal choice, not employment conditions.

Marc Vaughan

01-27-2005, 10:42 AM

What's the big problem. It's a proven fact that overweight people and smokers increase the burden on health care costs. The guy is offering them incentives to become more healthy and it's his company. Why should a company be forced to pay higher health care costs because they have some unhealthy people?
But at least in the case of Smokers they also pay more tax via. the cigarettes than is actually incurred by health services looking after them (at least in the UK).

Besides thats a social issue for society and not something for an individual company to look at, unless its hitting them via. health schemes etc. - in which case simply cap the premium that the company gives to a set amount.

Marc Vaughan

01-27-2005, 10:44 AM

But if you look closely on the smoking issue, the boss is not controlling what happens when the employees are not at work. He is simply stating that when employees are at work during work hours, their bloodstreams cannot process nicotine. The employee is free to smoke at home on his own free time as long as he can somehow rid his body of nicotine in time for the drug test (which I assume happens during work hours).
:p
Ahhh but last time I looked Nicotine isn't an illegal drug and as such it isn't something which a company should be controlling the use of (debates about whether cigarettes and alcohol would be legalised is released for the first time today are quite valid imho :D ... but they are currently legal, cigarettes not for long imho).

With regards to the testing, what happens if someone has a smoking spouse and hence has it in their system via. secondary smoking?

Marc Vaughan

01-27-2005, 10:46 AM

I'm with Skydog here - its a private company so why can't the owner make whatever rules he wants to make? Its HIS company. There at least seems to be some reasoning behind it other than money in the fact that he wants employees to be healthier people. Look at what he's done with the obesity issue - he's paid for people to speak to the employees, he setup a bonus system to reward employees for being healthier and he's planning on setting up a voucher system for a health club - its not like the guy is saying I hate fat people so all you fat people either lose weight or get out. He's providing them with help and avenues to address their obesity.
So let me get this straight - in a similar fashion you'd agree with ...

"Racist employers being able to discriminate freely against coloured workers?"

Just asking, exactly the same situation - different rule base being given, however allow one with that arguement and you allow all ... thats the harsh truth of allowing the removal of civil liberties from society ...

Marc Vaughan

01-27-2005, 10:50 AM

Religion, sex and race are protected legally against discrimination. Smoking is not.
But some distinctions aren't protected in law in America which are socially repugnant to the majority of people:

Ie. discrimination against people because of their background (ie. a University only taking people in from wealthy backgrounds), discrimination against people because of their physical abilities (ie. not allowing disabled people to have a fair chance to get a job they're able to do), birth place (ie. not allowing someone a fair chance at a job because they were born in a place that the employer doesn't like) ....

My basic argument remains though if you remove the principle and allow violations of peoples lifes outside work there is in theory no limitation placed upon this, for example what about an alcoholic boss who requires that people go out drinking with him as a direct contrast to the chap in the article?

albionmoonlight

01-27-2005, 11:15 AM

I disagree with this. What I expect would happen is that smokers, the obese, drug users, etc. would still be hired, but they would either have lower salaries and a "normal" health plan, or they would be hired with higher salaries and a minimal or no health plan. A health plan is part of a worker's overall compensation. If a company has to pay more for health care, they'll be willing to pay less in salary. Likewise, if the employee is willing to accept less or even no health care coverage (provided by the company), a company might be willing to pay a higher salary. Therefore to assume that the people in the list you posted would be without healthcare is IMO a little off base.

Of course you would assume that those people who make a higher salary with little or no coverage would use a portion of that to provide their own healthcare, but we know that would not always be the case. However, it would then be a matter of personal choice, not employment conditions.
A couple of responses. ERISA and related law give companies tax breaks for providing group health plans (otherwise, there would be no incentive to do it). Therefore, the 1-1 trade off between not paying health coverage and giving more salary would not work quite that simply. Of course, one could always change the mechanics of the law to make such a plan feasible. Heck, it would probably provide more work for lawyers, and that's never a bad thing:D

However, I think that your idea ignores the reality that the U.S., in leiu of provding socialized medicine, has developed a system of employer provided group coverage that is the safety net for the vast majority of people in this country. It is not as simple as giving someone less money if they are allowed to use the parking garage at work. Changes of this nature really challenge the whole way health care is provided in the U.S.. We can't cut people out of the loop and call it "personal choice."

Specifically, these people are being cut out specifically because they present more of a health risk. If any of them try to get health insurance on the private market, they will not be able to afford it. Not unless the increase in salary is so great as to eliminate (and then some) any savings that the company would realize in not providing them coverage. Taking away my health insuranance and giving me an extra $500/month does not really leave me with a choice if health insurance costs me $2000/month.

Finally, the employers and insurance companies realize the savings with ideas like this, but we end up paying the freight. As long as Medicaid/Medicare exist, the cost of people unable to find insurance will be paid by us.

This thread exhibits some of the problems with the fact that health insurance and employment are linked in this country. If we had it to do again, I don't know if we would have made that choice. But we need to deal with the world we have, not the world we wish we had (short of extreme solutions like socalized medicine or the elimination of programs like Medicare/Medicaid).

I am enjoying this discussion.

Gary Gorski

01-27-2005, 11:48 AM

So let me get this straight - in a similar fashion you'd agree with ...

"Racist employers being able to discriminate freely against coloured workers?"

Just asking, exactly the same situation - different rule base being given, however allow one with that arguement and you allow all ... thats the harsh truth of allowing the removal of civil liberties from society ...

Would you rather have companies hiring who they wanted rather than either giving mock interviews or bottom of the line, menial jobs with no chance in hell for a promotion to minority groups? I hate to say it but even with anti-discrimination policies people get passed over for jobs and promotions ALL THE TIME because of race, religion or sex.

Racist employers DO discriminate against workers of differing races whether they be black, hispanic, asian or anything else. That's what racist people do - the only difference is that they find some b.s. reason to get around it. And by the same token there are employers who treat all races equally not because they have to but because they're smart enough to realize that they need the best man or woman for the job regardless of their gender or race.

Do you really think that employers treat all races the same because a law says they have to have X amount of that race employed in their business? A racist is going to be a racist no matter what laws you put in front of him or her - they'll just employ X amount of people in the "grunt" jobs and leave them there until they quit.

Wouldn't it be better to just let people hire whomever they want and let things shake out in the marketplace? Certainly I would not advocate passing over a candidate because of their race but the companies who refuse to hire an intelligent, hard-working person simply because they are of a different race will be the company wondering why the company that did hire that person makes more money than his shop. We're not in the stone age here - there are plenty of employers that realize its how well the person can do the job that matters and not what color their skin is and those companies will continue to be the most successful but they are also the ones who already hire people because of their skills and not because of quotas and laws.

CamEdwards

01-27-2005, 11:50 AM

FYI, Marshall Manson, who's one of the guys at the Center for Individual Freedom, will be on the show at nranews.com at 3:20 Eastern time. I'm kind of curious on his take. CFIF is a fairly libertarian group, so I could see him siding with Skydog and those who believe the company has a right to do this. However, they're also big believers in privacy, so I can see him siding with the folks (like me) who believe a company doesn't have a right to fire someone over what they legally put into their body outside of the workplace.

Loren

01-27-2005, 12:17 PM

Have to finish reading all the replies laters but as far as the main story, I like what the man's doing and would fully support him. He gave the employees an option..and as far as those saying he shouldnt be able to tell people what they can do at home, fine but cant their coming to work smelling of smoke somehow tie into dress code/hygeine rules? BEcause, sorry but it's yukky. I used to smoke and you dont realize how bad it smells until you quit, and you do smell it on EVERYTHING.. He's doing them a favor in the long run and hopefully saving his company some money regarding insurance rates. I'd back him up on the overweight issues as well, look at all he's doing, he's not going around firing people, he's bringing in people to help his employees..I would think that unless an employee was just out to sue him for money they would simply appreciate and take advanatage of all that he's offering them..
I dont see how race ties into this at ALL(this man is dealing with straight out health issues), except to say that whether there are laws or not, employers have all types of prejudices(not just racial) just like everyone else. Come on, I know for a fact that I have a greater chance of being hired down here for a job when I stick my maiden name on my resume (maiden name yells -Mexican-, married name is wayyy white), just like I know I have a greater chance at being interviewed if the owner's a man :rolleyes: ..

Suicane75

01-27-2005, 12:18 PM

stevew

01-27-2005, 12:20 PM

Suicane75

01-27-2005, 12:21 PM

I am buying my own fuckin island and aint nobody else allowed to come. Some of this talk is frightening.

Aylmar

01-27-2005, 12:23 PM

Depends on the health issue whether or not race can be a factor, doesn't it?

According to the American Diabetes Association website:

Diabetes is more common in African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.

In general principles, I agree with SkyDog and others. It's his company, he can do what he likes. But I think that it's a serious issue that merits discussion. If you start screening new hires due to health problems (scratch that, POTENTIAL health problems), there is the possibility of opening up a breadth of discriminatory tactics disguising themselves as "protecting my business from increased health care costs".

JonInMiddleGA

01-27-2005, 12:31 PM

Let's also assume (since it is true in this country) that you need a full time job with a health insurance benefit in order to afford health insurance.

Umm ... I just have to point out that this is not an absolute. I'd bet I'm not the only example around here of insured-outside-of-workplace, maybe not even the only example in this thread. It's probably the majority of cases that are tied to work, but it's not all.
(I'm fairly confident you know that & acknowledge it as a given,etc., but it just seems important enough to me to say outright).

So I am all for a rule that says generally--employers can hire/fire who they want, provided however, that such a hiring/firing decision is not motivated solely or primarily by a desire to influence group health insurance rates.

Now right there, I don't know if we could possibly be more in agreement on something.

JonInMiddleGA

01-27-2005, 12:32 PM

I am buying my own fuckin island and aint nobody else allowed to come. Some of this talk is frightening.

Just make sure your isn't too close to my island, m'kay?
;)

sabotai

01-27-2005, 03:23 PM

Umm ... I just have to point out that this is not an absolute. I'd bet I'm not the only example around here of insured-outside-of-workplace, maybe not even the only example in this thread.

Nope, I'm also insured outside of the workplace. My insurance company is called "My Credit Card, My Bank Account and the Cash That's In My Wallet". And I haven't had any problems getting access to health care with it.

As for my stance, I'm 100% with SkyDog on this one (as I'm sure most know by now). There are other ways of ensuring protection for the employees than federal and state labor laws.

EDIT: And for those trying to come up with "doomsday hypothetical situations", you can stop. None of them are going to work. People like me, SkyDog, etc. beleive it's a fundamental right for person to run their company how they want to. No hypothetical situation is going to get us to go "Well...maybe in that case.".

albionmoonlight

01-27-2005, 04:06 PM

EDIT: And for those trying to come up with "doomsday hypothetical situations", you can stop. None of them are going to work. People like me, SkyDog, etc. beleive it's a fundamental right for person to run their company how they want to. No hypothetical situation is going to get us to go "Well...maybe in that case.".
What if an employer fired only people who beleive that an employer has a right to fire whomever it wants? http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_thinking.gif

JonInMiddleGA

01-27-2005, 04:30 PM

What if an employer fired only people who beleive that an employer has a right to fire whomever it wants?

I think that's called Civil Service
;)

sabotai

01-27-2005, 04:38 PM

What if an employer fired only people who beleive that an employer has a right to fire whomever it wants? http://www.fof-ihof.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/icon_thinking.gif

Is that what they call irony?

lynchjm24

01-27-2005, 05:07 PM

And on a completly unrelated note, maybe this is just the cynic in me. But if the United States banned smoking and junk foods does anyone honestly believe that the health care companies would immediately lower rates across the board? They will just find something else that is the root of their next rate hike.

I underwrite health insurance for a living. Medical trend is a mathmatical fact. HMO rates need to be files with state insurance agencies and are actuarially sound.

There are many reasons for medical trend outpacing inflation in general. These are two small ones, and they aren't reasons I've ever seen a major carrier place the blame on in the grand scheme of things.

lynchjm24

01-27-2005, 05:17 PM

One of the interesting things I've seen from HIPAA is that many groups do not want to receive reports on who their large claimants are. By not knowing who is incurring the largest claims they cannot be sued later on for discriminating against these employees.

Keep in mind that you can have a parent with 2 children that are hemophilliacs, these claims can run into the million + a year claim range. Most stop loss insures won't even quote on a group that has a claim like this - so many times the group can't get excess loss insurance on those members leaving them liable for the entire claim year after year.

Buzzbee

01-27-2005, 06:15 PM

A couple of responses. ERISA and related law give companies tax breaks for providing group health plans (otherwise, there would be no incentive to do it). Therefore, the 1-1 trade off between not paying health coverage and giving more salary would not work quite that simply. Of course, one could always change the mechanics of the law to make such a plan feasible. Heck, it would probably provide more work for lawyers, and that's never a bad thing:D
The incentive to offer a health plan, other than tax breaks, is to attract quality employees. Furthermore, I believe that the cost to adminstrate health plans offsets, or nearly offsets, any tax breaks given for providing them. Also, I never said there would be a 1-1 trade off.

However, I think that your idea ignores the reality that the U.S., in leiu of provding socialized medicine, has developed a system of employer provided group coverage that is the safety net for the vast majority of people in this country. It is not as simple as giving someone less money if they are allowed to use the parking garage at work. Changes of this nature really challenge the whole way health care is provided in the U.S.. We can't cut people out of the loop and call it "personal choice."

I would agree that the majority of workers get healthcare through their employer. However, I think you overestimate the dependence of workers on company provided healthcare. Are you telling me that someone who is self-employed simply can't afford health insurance? Furthermore, I believe that the vast majority of employer provided group coverage isn't paid 100% by the company. Employees contribute to that coverage, even if it is a small percentage. I'd be curious to see some actual numbers regarding how many Americans have insurance through their employer. I'd also be curious to see how many Americans simply don't have healthcare coverage.

Specifically, these people are being cut out specifically because they present more of a health risk. If any of them try to get health insurance on the private market, they will not be able to afford it. Not unless the increase in salary is so great as to eliminate (and then some) any savings that the company would realize in not providing them coverage. Taking away my health insuranance and giving me an extra $500/month does not really leave me with a choice if health insurance costs me $2000/month.
So a company should be forced to employ and cover someone who you just stated will cost that company more? Just because of the employees CHOICE to smoke or do drugs? Perhaps if they can't afford the health insurance because they choose to smoke, they might change their behavior in order to be able to afford healthcare. The insurance companies charge more because they are a higher risk due to their own choice to smoke. Taking away your health insurance and giving you an extra $500 does leave you a choice if your health insurance costs you $2000 a month. You can CHOOSE to quit smoking, therefore making you less of a risk, resulting in lower rates.

Finally, the employers and insurance companies realize the savings with ideas like this, but we end up paying the freight. As long as Medicaid/Medicare exist, the cost of people unable to find insurance will be paid by us.

I agree with this. On a side note, I wonder if healtcare costs would be so high if individuals had to pay them rather than large corporations?

This thread exhibits some of the problems with the fact that health insurance and employment are linked in this country. If we had it to do again, I don't know if we would have made that choice. But we need to deal with the world we have, not the world we wish we had (short of extreme solutions like socalized medicine or the elimination of programs like Medicare/Medicaid).

I am enjoying this discussion.

lynchjm24

01-27-2005, 07:19 PM

The insurance companies charge more because they are a higher risk due to their own choice to smoke. Taking away your health insurance and giving you an extra $500 does leave you a choice if your health insurance costs you $2000 a month.

I agree with this. On a side note, I wonder if healtcare costs would be so high if individuals had to pay them rather than large corporations?

That not exactly how group health insurance works. Depending on the state and size of the group they can be rated in many different ways. For example in NY, HMO's are community rated - meaning the entire pool of group members is used to come up with the rates. The majority of companies over about 50 employees are experience rated and their rates are set based on how the group has utilized their plan in the past. There is not a direct link between the percentage of employees who smoke and the group's rates. There may be higher claim experience which would drive the rates up, but the overall demographics of a group and the industry it is in would drive the rates much more then the claim effects of smoking in most cases.

Where are there a lot of claims? Young women and older men. Young women because they utiliize their insurance and because they are having babies. Young men avoid doctors and don't utilize nearly as much as women. Older men are more chronically ill then older women and they have higher claims because they avoid preventive care which lowers early detection.

The worst demographic is under 65 retirees. They aren't medicare eligible and many retirees under 65 are retired because of their health. Nothing will take a group's rates up quite like retirees under the age of 65.

As for your second thought you are going to find out as HSA's grow in popularity. They have gotten off to a slow start but will pick up steam because they give a huge immediate savings by pushing the burden from employer to employee. There are many drawbacks, but clearly the consumerism that is seen immediately creates a huge first year savings. I do think the HSA is clearly a superior product to the HRA. I doubt many of you have come across a Health Reimbursement Account, but it's a plan that has a large deductible - say $1,250 for a single person and comes with a $500 employer fund that goes towards that deductible and rolls over into the next policy year if not used.

Dutch

01-27-2005, 07:32 PM

Health Nazi's. Almost as bad as the real thing. Except you are forced to live through the entire ordeal.

finkenst

01-27-2005, 07:53 PM

The way I would do this is have a sliding scale for what portion of health benefits would be paid by the company. There's no dispute that certain activities are unhealthy and lead to higher health-care costs. So, I'd say someone who smokes should pay 75% of the monthly premium versus a non-smoker paying 25% (or whatever the company's policy is).
Companies already do this.

I pay $x/month for my health/dental/vision benefits for being below a certain salary grade, single, under 45 years (i think) and a non-smoker.

If you're above a certain salary grade (aka, you make more than I do), you'd pay higher. Kids/spouse also raise the amount you pay. Smoking does as well...

this is already done. I don't have the numbers in front me at the moment... nor would i share them.

it is a self-insured company.

Craptacular

01-27-2005, 10:38 PM

One thing to remember: Smokers are NOT a protected class. That doesn't mean that this guy isn't an asshole for what he is doing, but he may have legal ground to stand on.
What he said, although I would add that this guy should be hung from his balls.

DaddyTorgo

01-27-2005, 10:42 PM

it's just...a slippery slope as others have mentioned. slippery slope from here to a "Gattica-esque" society.

Ragone

01-28-2005, 01:39 AM

I guess what it comes down to is..

Is it fair that our insurance premiums/costs continue to skyrocket because some people choose to lead a unhealthy lifestyle?

Just as much as it is their right to choose that lifestyle, its that guys right to choose to keep costs down. He doesn't have to offer health insurance(granted thats a crummy thing to do, and hard to keep employee's)

BigDawg

01-28-2005, 04:33 AM

Why shouldn't a private company have the right to make a decision like this???

So if your employer decided he doesnt want any MARRIED people because they tend to have children which would inflate his company supplied health care costs than goes out and PUTS THE SCREWS to any married employyes till they quit... I guess that be fine to you. Mr. Corperation making millions a year has to find a way to SQUEEZE another 1% proffit out of the company so lets SCREW the little guy as much as we can.

Companies will continue to TEST the boundries of our rights to gain that extra dollar as the working class in this country disapears into poverty.

BigDawg

01-28-2005, 04:44 AM

Why should the Federal Government allow people on income programs and/or medicare to continue to smoke? They aren't or are barely contributing anything to their own health care costs, yet will incur high ones. Cigarettes should have been taxed to the 10 dollar level years ago to offset the increased medicare costs, and to effectively price them out of the range of the people that are likely to be on health programs. But they own enough politicians to prohibit it from happening.

So lets find your VICE of choise and tax it into outerspace as well, not saying this is you but lets say you like to come home from work and relax with a nice glass of Rum and Coke, of course Rum is part of a bigger problem of Drunk Driving, Alcohalizum and the such which results in high health care costs so under your thinking we just tax a bottle of RUM 100$ a bottle.

While we are at it lets tax out of existance...
Cigs
Alcohal
All pronagrafy
and any other VICE the goverment deems BAD for us.

Lets also allow all employers disguard all employees that partisapate in any of the above. Dont worry we all be ROBOTS before to long.

BigDawg

01-28-2005, 04:46 AM

I am buying my own fuckin island and aint nobody else allowed to come. Some of this talk is frightening.

I am with you Suicane ... and on our island we allow personal freedoms, freedom to destroy ones body. Drinking, Smoking, gambling :D

Ben E Lou

01-28-2005, 04:47 AM

I am with you Suicane ... and on our island we allow personal freedoms, freedom to destroy ones body. Drinking, Smoking, gambling :DBut not the freedom to run your business the way you see fit, huh?

lynchjm24

01-28-2005, 07:14 AM

So if your employer decided he doesnt want any MARRIED people because they tend to have children which would inflate his company supplied health care costs than goes out and PUTS THE SCREWS to any married employyes till they quit... I guess that be fine to you. Mr. Corperation making millions a year has to find a way to SQUEEZE another 1% proffit out of the company so lets SCREW the little guy as much as we can.

Companies will continue to TEST the boundries of our rights to gain that extra dollar as the working class in this country disapears into poverty.

There are checks and balances against this. It would be awfully tough to successfully run a business without hiring married people. They are more stable, and usually are going to have more experience because they then to be older then single people.

Companies will just find creative ways for employees to share the cost of health insurance, the working class sinking into poverty is pretty far from a realisitic outcome.

lynchjm24

01-28-2005, 07:16 AM

So lets find your VICE of choise and tax it into outerspace as well, not saying this is you but lets say you like to come home from work and relax with a nice glass of Rum and Coke, of course Rum is part of a bigger problem of Drunk Driving, Alcohalizum and the such which results in high health care costs so under your thinking we just tax a bottle of RUM 100$ a bottle.

While we are at it lets tax out of existance...
Cigs
Alcohal
All pronagrafy
and any other VICE the goverment deems BAD for us.

Lets also allow all employers disguard all employees that partisapate in any of the above. Dont worry we all be ROBOTS before to long.

It seems the government needs to move money from Medicare and Medicaid into emergency spelling classes.

Blackadar

01-28-2005, 07:33 AM

But not the freedom to run your business the way you see fit, huh?

Here's the distinction you seem to fail to grasp in this case.

You should have the right to run your business the way you see fit.

You should not have the right to dictate my legal actions or hobbies, outside of work hours, when those actions have little to no demonstrable effect on your business.

That's the no bullshit summation of this situation.

It's the "demonstrable tangible effect" that should be the difference in these situations.

For example, it is reasonable for a sports team to not dictate to their employees that they should not participate in "extreme sports" because of the fear of injuries, which have a demonstrable effect on the business and the product on the field. It is reasonable for a company to fire their salesman, when that salesman has revealed that he's the leader of the local KKK chapter. Again, that could have a direct, negative effect on the business that is tangible and demonstrable.

Smoking? If there's higher incremental health care costs, then pass them on to the individual. You don't have to allow smoking breaks. But beyond those, what tangible effect does an individual smoking have on the business? Now this guy wants to go after fat people - an area where genetics clearly plays a large role in determining weight. What's next?

You are failing to grasp the difference between accommodation and discrimination. A business should not have to bow down to accommodation. It should not have the right of discrimination.

Ben E Lou

01-28-2005, 07:45 AM

Here's the distinction you seem to fail to grasp in this case.

You should have the right to run your business the way you see fit.

You should not have the right to dictate my legal actions or hobbies, outside of work hours, when those actions have little to no demonstrable effect on your business.

That's the no bullshit summation of this situation.

It's the "demonstrable tangible effect" that should be the difference in these situations.

For example, it is reasonable for a sports team to not dictate to their employees that they should not participate in "extreme sports" because of the fear of injuries, which have a demonstrable effect on the business and the product on the field. It is reasonable for a company to fire their salesman, when that salesman has revealed that he's the leader of the local KKK chapter. Again, that could have a direct, negative effect on the business that is tangible and demonstrable.

Smoking? If there's higher incremental health care costs, then pass them on to the individual. You don't have to allow smoking breaks. But beyond those, what tangible effect does an individual smoking have on the business? Now this guy wants to go after fat people - an area where genetics clearly plays a large role in determining weight. What's next?

You are failing to grasp the difference between accommodation and discrimination. A business should not have to bow down to accommodation. It should not have the right of discrimination.Just to clarify, I grasp the difference fully. I have no problem with either.

EDIT FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION: I have no problem with either being legal. I don't think it is right, but I believe in the right of the business owner to discriminate. It is HIS business, not the government's.

ISiddiqui

01-28-2005, 07:53 AM

The way I would do this is have a sliding scale for what portion of health benefits would be paid by the company. There's no dispute that certain activities are unhealthy and lead to higher health-care costs. So, I'd say someone who smokes should pay 75% of the monthly premium versus a non-smoker paying 25% (or whatever the company's policy is).
Except for the fact that that is illegal under ERISA ;). You can't charge people more for specific health factors. That's discrimination.

Oh, and the fact that this Michigan guy seemingly did so may cause a WHOLE lot of problems for him. I've been hearing that the Chicago office of the US Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, is seriously considering an enforcement lead of this moron.

QuikSand

01-28-2005, 08:09 AM

Except for the fact that that is illegal under ERISA. You can't charge people more for specific health factors. That's discrimination.

Oh, and the fact that this Michigan guy seemingly did so may cause a WHOLE lot of problems for him. I've been hearing that the Chicago office of the US Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, is seriously considering an enforcement lead of this moron.

There are two discussions happening here, which don't completely connect. Some people are discussing how the current law actually works (as above). Others are discussing matters a level beyond that, offering opinions on "how things ought to be" instead. For the latter group, arguing matters of fact about current law is missing the point -- the anti-intrusion argument isn't that discrimination of sorts is currently legal, but rather that perhaps it ought to be legal.

Hope that helps.

Ben E Lou

01-28-2005, 08:21 AM

Chubby

01-28-2005, 08:46 AM

EDIT FOR FURTHER CLARIFICATION: I have no problem with either being legal. I don't think it is right, but I believe in the right of the business owner to discriminate. It is HIS business, not the government's.
So if you applied for a job and the owner said "You'd have the job if you weren't black, sorry" you'd be fine with it?

Ben E Lou

01-28-2005, 08:51 AM

So if you applied for a job and the owner said "You'd have the job if you weren't black, sorry" you'd be fine with it?I wouldn't be happy about it in the least, but I happen to think it should be legal. I believe that the anti-discrimination laws were very necessary when they were passed, but that day has passed. The backlash today for "You'd-have-the-job-if-you-weren't-black" would severely limit this sort of behavior.

Chubby

01-28-2005, 08:56 AM

I wouldn't be happy about it in the least, but I happen to think it should be legal. I believe that the anti-discrimination laws were very necessary when they were passed, but that day has passed. The backlash today for "You'd-have-the-job-if-you-weren't-black" would severely limit this sort of behavior.
But would it down there? (I don't know, my grandparents lived in GA for a while and said they were amazed at the racism they heard from neighbors). Especially in non-major towns or suburbs wouldn't that sort of thing get ignored?

Ben E Lou

01-28-2005, 09:10 AM

But would it down there? (I don't know, my grandparents lived in GA for a while and said they were amazed at the racism they heard from neighbors). Especially in non-major towns or suburbs wouldn't that sort of thing get ignored?To be honest, I don't know. I actually had a conversation on another topic about racism in other places in Georgia at breakfast this morning. I have to admit that Northern/Central DeKalb County is, without question, the most liberal white community in all of Georgia, and probably all of the South, and I've lived here for over 10 years now, so perhaps my view is skewed. Heck, I'm a black man, married to a white woman, with a fairly high profile in the community, raising money from mainly whites to keep a non-profit running, and have had no problems whatsoever. That probably wouldn't happen in Hahira. :p

The flip side, however, is this: It's not like all of the black population of Georgia is concentrated in metro Atlanta. There are actually majority-black counties out in the sticks--all those blue counties in Southwest Georgia, for example. Point being, black folks have enough purchasing power even in the rural areas to raise a pretty big stink over those kinds of practices.

EDIT: In case you didn't know, Georgia is something like 30% black, and most of the other Southeastern states are somewhere in the 25-33% range.

sabotai

01-28-2005, 09:13 AM

Chubby, read what I wrote above. People like SkyDog (and me and many others) beleive it is an individual's fundamental right to run their company the way they want to. No "dommsday hypothetical" that you can come up with will change that and make us go "Well...maybe in that situation..."

Tekneek

01-28-2005, 09:21 AM

WOW ... I can see them banning smoking in the workplace but I can promise you their is NO WAY the court will hold up the smoking at home crapola.

This is that slippery slope that was introduced when it became fashionable to screen employees for drugs.

Tekneek

01-28-2005, 09:26 AM

Point being, black folks have enough purchasing power even in the rural areas to raise a pretty big stink over those kinds of practices.

Unless it is happening right in front of their faces, they may not even know it is happening. A better example would be the racist company that sells their products through a national chain. I suspect people would buy those products with complete ignorance of what kind of ethics the manufacturer actually has. This already happens everyday. People complain about China and the human rights violations, but there are few stores that don't sell something that was made in China.

I love the idea of market forces correcting these behaviors. I really do wish it were that way. I am learning, though, that the masses appear to be blissfully ignorant about the details and will accept almost any questionable business practice that gives them a discount.

Buzzbee

01-28-2005, 10:42 AM

Unless it is happening right in front of their faces, they may not even know it is happening. A better example would be the racist company that sells their products through a national chain. I suspect people would buy those products with complete ignorance of what kind of ethics the manufacturer actually has. This already happens everyday. People complain about China and the human rights violations, but there are few stores that don't sell something that was made in China.

I love the idea of market forces correcting these behaviors. I really do wish it were that way. I am learning, though, that the masses appear to be blissfully ignorant about the details and will accept almost any questionable business practice that gives them a discount.
Then the questionable business practice isn't very questionable to them, is it?

Tekneek

01-28-2005, 11:06 AM

Then the questionable business practice isn't very questionable to them, is it?

In some cases, but in other cases they are simply ignorant of something they would otherwise find objectionable.

ISiddiqui

01-28-2005, 11:10 AM

There are two discussions happening here, which don't completely connect. Some people are discussing how the current law actually works (as above). Others are discussing matters a level beyond that, offering opinions on "how things ought to be" instead. For the latter group, arguing matters of fact about current law is missing the point -- the anti-intrusion argument isn't that discrimination of sorts is currently legal, but rather that perhaps it ought to be legal.

Hope that helps.
I agree with that, but there is a reason that such things were deemed discrimination under ERISA. I guess part of what I posted was to make some people reconsider, because when the plan can decide which health conditions get X amount of coverage, you wander into some bad territory. Suddenly all the health conditions the executives suffer from get 100% coverage and all the conditions the rank and file suffer from get much less.

sabotai

01-28-2005, 11:41 AM

In some cases, but in other cases they are simply ignorant of something they would otherwise find objectionable.

Then I would say the blame would be on the consumer for not looking into the companies they buy from.

KWhit

01-28-2005, 11:52 AM

You're right. The average consumer has plenty of time to research the business practices of all the companies they buy products and services from.

Ben E Lou

01-28-2005, 11:56 AM

You're right. The average consumer <s>has plenty of time to research</s> doesn't care about the business practices of all the companies they buy products and services from.Fixed it for ya. :p

Blackadar

01-28-2005, 12:03 PM

Then I would say the blame would be on the consumer for not looking into the companies they buy from.

Much more easily said than done. As it stands, this is just an absurd statement in any post-industrial revolution economy.

For example:

Let's say it is legal for a store to not hire Jews. I don't want to frequent a store that won't hire Jews. (Never mind the inherent unfairness of not hiring people because they are Jews)

How do I know if the local hardware store is run by racists that won't hire Jews? There's literally thousands of businesses around me with no real way to check out almost any of them. There is no central database of who won't hire Jews. So how am I supposed to find out? Am I supposed to spend the time to research these businesses?

Take it one step further, how do they know that their distributors aren't racists? How do their distributors know the assemblers aren't racists? How do the assemblers know the manufacturers aren't racists? So on, so forth.

Again, it's a difference between discrimination and accommodation. Businesses should not have to accommodate. They should not be allowed to discriminate unless they have a compelling business reason to do so.

Tekneek

01-28-2005, 12:07 PM

Buzzbee

01-28-2005, 12:15 PM

Which defeats the argument that market forces will resolve these matters on their own. I'm just saying that currently the people are not capable of using their power against business. In the same way, it is a minority of the citizens that strive to keep the power of the government under check. Left up to the masses we would already be a police state.Of course market forces won't resolve employment matters when the market forces you are referencing are the consumer forces. However, as mentioned above, if a company decides it will only hire single employees, they could have a tough time remaining competitive in the marketplace due to a variety of factors. They might face pressure from married people to open up to couples. They might face extra costs due to the turnover caused by their single employees getting married and leaving the company. They might be less productive because their workforce tends to come to work hungover and wearing the same clothes they wore the day before. Don't look at the issue from a consumer standpoint, but rather a human resources standpoint and market forces very well could have an impact.

Loren

01-28-2005, 12:19 PM

But would it down there? (I don't know, my grandparents lived in GA for a while and said they were amazed at the racism they heard from neighbors). Especially in non-major towns or suburbs wouldn't that sort of thing get ignored?

the current anti discrimination laws ARE ignored in those small towns already..in small towns you dont have that many large businesses, everyone still hires who THEY want, and it's usually going to be mainly white. Good grief ever gone through Eastern Texas and going into Western Louisiana? (but you see it everywhere i guess) There still exists a literal seperation of color by the railroad track in most of these smaller areas.. Places I dont get down off the bus or car at :mad:
I still think one can say smoking at home DOES play a part in your job and could be tied into a dress code sort of rule...cuz it's yukky:)
Suicane does this position require frequent sitting on your lap assignments? :rolleyes:

JonInMiddleGA

01-28-2005, 12:47 PM

Am I supposed to spend the time to research these businesses?

That's entirely up to you, depending upon how much you care.

albionmoonlight

01-28-2005, 01:01 PM

There is no central database of who won't hire Jews. So how am I supposed to find out? Am I supposed to spend the time to research these businesses?
Good point. The "market" only works if consumers have enough information. Let's give it to them.

Let's replace Title VII (the "you can't discriminate" statutes) with reporting requirements:

All businesses over a certain size must keep track of the demographics (race, sex, age, pregnancy status, etc.) of those who get promoted, apply for a job, get hired, get fired, get demoted, etc. That data is then reported to the new EEOC, with harsh penalties for fraud (like with the SEC). The government takes no action to "punish" or "reward" employers based on these stats. It just makes them available to the public.

If Coke wants to fire all Hispanics tomorrow and say "we fired them because we hate them," it is free to do it. But the truth of the matter will be brought to light. These reporting requirements also will catch employers who have gotten good at creating glass ceilings for certain groups while still complying with current Title VII. Again--nothing will happen to make them stop, but any patterns will be brought to light, and they can explain it however they want.

For those who say that this will cost too much, I say that it probably won't cost as much as defending all of the frivilous Title VII lawsuits that exist today (though I have no way of knowing what would cost more).

And I can't see any market system working without something like this behind it. "Market forces" assume an educated public. This policy would go a long way toward making it happen.

Suicane75

01-28-2005, 01:43 PM

Suicane does this position require frequent sitting on your lap assignments? :rolleyes:

Im filing for sexual harrasment. I cannot post here with these lasivicious advances being foisted on me. It's bad enough when Sov does it.

Gary Gorski

01-28-2005, 02:00 PM

Much more easily said than done. As it stands, this is just an absurd statement in any post-industrial revolution economy.

For example:

Let's say it is legal for a store to not hire Jews. I don't want to frequent a store that won't hire Jews. (Never mind the inherent unfairness of not hiring people because they are Jews)

How do I know if the local hardware store is run by racists that won't hire Jews? There's literally thousands of businesses around me with no real way to check out almost any of them. There is no central database of who won't hire Jews. So how am I supposed to find out? Am I supposed to spend the time to research these businesses?

Take it one step further, how do they know that their distributors aren't racists? How do their distributors know the assemblers aren't racists? How do the assemblers know the manufacturers aren't racists? So on, so forth.

Actually this type of thing already exists - what happens is advocacy or watchdog groups spring up and alert like-minded people of companies that support certain actions. I'm not about to attempt to steer this debate into a morality argument but as an example I'm pro-life and there is certainly information available about which major corporations support abortion clinics or pro-choice groups. I'm sure that if there were no anti-discrimination laws that in this day and age if major corporations were running on racist policies that their actions would be very well known especially in the community that is being affected the most by the racism.

sabotai

01-28-2005, 02:19 PM

Much more easily said than done. As it stands, this is just an absurd statement in any post-industrial revolution economy.

Nope, not absurd.

Let's say it is legal for a store to not hire Jews. I don't want to frequent a store that won't hire Jews. (Never mind the inherent unfairness of not hiring people because they are Jews)

Who said life is fair?

As for you local business example, I can tell you from knowing a lot of people who work for and own small local businesses that they get away with a lot. If a small busniess owner in today's enviroment, and in just about any business enviroment, doesn't want to hire a Jew, they're going to get away with it. Unless there is a surge of Jewish applicants to their business and they all get rejected and the non Jews get the job. As it is, when a small business owner needs an employee, they're only looking for 1 or 2 people. They could use just about any excuse to not hire a Jew and get away with it, in ANY enviroment.

(Not to say I know anyone who won't hire Jews, just saying they can get away with a lot)

But there are plenty of journalists out there who report on businesses and products. How many people here read game reviews before buying a game? Holy shit, you're doing research! How many have said they're not going to buy from EA because they got exclusive rights to the NFL and they hate that they did it? Wow, you took information about a company and applied it to your future spending. That's amazing!

In an enviroment where the government doesn't come and save us from the bad companies, journalism on those companies will have an increase of demand and there will be a lot more information. Why do you assume that nothing will change if we give busniess the right to hire and fire who they want for any reason? You change one part, and the rest will follow. Demand for business journalism will increase in that enviroment because it will become more important to the consumer....

And if it doesn't become more important to the consumer, then I guess we have our answer as to how much people actually care. That is definately one thing easier said than done. People say they care about how businesses conduct their busness, but I wonder how many actually do. To me, running to the government to fix the things you don't like, rather than taking a proactive stance against the companies, shows that the person doesn't actually care all that much.

It kind of stinks of "having your cake and eating it to." You want copmpanies to do certain things, but you also really like the products and services they give. Instead of taking a stance and not buying from them in repsonse to them doing something bad, you'd rather keep buying from them while trying to get an external force to make them do what you want.

One more thing. You can say there's a difference between descrimination and accomedation all you want in response to posts here, but that's not going to change the fact that I think both should be legal. You keep saying it as we are "missing something". We're not missing anything just because we disagree with you. We know what discrimination is. I, personally, don't think it's fair or right, but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.

KWhit

01-28-2005, 02:39 PM

Fixed it for ya. :p
That's true too.

lynchjm24

01-28-2005, 02:40 PM

Except for the fact that that is illegal under ERISA ;). You can't charge people more for specific health factors.

No it isn't. There are many groups that currently charge smokers more then non-smokers. It might be related to the fact they are self insured - I can't think of a sponsor that I've worked with that has done it on a fully insured basis - but it's being done by many groups.

ISiddiqui

01-28-2005, 02:51 PM

No it isn't. There are many groups that currently charge smokers more then non-smokers. It might be related to the fact they are self insured - I can't think of a sponsor that I've worked with that has done it on a fully insured basis - but it's being done by many groups.
It's only if you have a bone fide wellness program with alternatives to paying the full premium. In essense, the plan advocated above would not fall within it. At most, smokers pay $30 more than non-smokers per month. Another more than that, and it would be a violation.

Blackadar

01-28-2005, 02:56 PM

Nope, not absurd.

Who said life is fair?

As for you local business example, I can tell you from knowing a lot of people who work for and own small local businesses that they get away with a lot. If a small busniess owner in today's enviroment, and in just about any business enviroment, doesn't want to hire a Jew, they're going to get away with it. Unless there is a surge of Jewish applicants to their business and they all get rejected and the non Jews get the job. As it is, when a small business owner needs an employee, they're only looking for 1 or 2 people. They could use just about any excuse to not hire a Jew and get away with it, in ANY enviroment.

(Not to say I know anyone who won't hire Jews, just saying they can get away with a lot)

But there are plenty of journalists out there who report on businesses and products. How many people here read game reviews before buying a game? Holy shit, you're doing research! How many have said they're not going to buy from EA because they got exclusive rights to the NFL and they hate that they did it? Wow, you took information about a company and applied it to your future spending. That's amazing!

In an enviroment where the government doesn't come and save us from the bad companies, journalism on those companies will have an increase of demand and there will be a lot more information. Why do you assume that nothing will change if we give busniess the right to hire and fire who they want for any reason? You change one part, and the rest will follow. Demand for business journalism will increase in that enviroment because it will become more important to the consumer....

And if it doesn't become more important to the consumer, then I guess we have our answer as to how much people actually care. That is definately one thing easier said than done. People say they care about how businesses conduct their busness, but I wonder how many actually do. To me, running to the government to fix the things you don't like, rather than taking a proactive stance against the companies, shows that the person doesn't actually care all that much.

It kind of stinks of "having your cake and eating it to." You want copmpanies to do certain things, but you also really like the products and services they give. Instead of taking a stance and not buying from them in repsonse to them doing something bad, you'd rather keep buying from them while trying to get an external force to make them do what you want.

One more thing. You can say there's a difference between descrimination and accomedation all you want in response to posts here, but that's not going to change the fact that I think both should be legal. You keep saying it as we are "missing something". We're not missing anything just because we disagree with you. We know what discrimination is. I, personally, don't think it's fair or right, but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.

I wrote a response, but it's not worth it.

The simple fact that you advocate that discrimination should be legal means you have no idea what it means to be discriminated against.

Thank you for playing.

sabotai

01-28-2005, 03:23 PM

I wrote a response, but it's not worth it.

The simple fact that you advocate that discrimination should be legal means you have no idea what it means to be discriminated against.

Thank you for playing.

Now that's an absurd statement. Give me a fucking break. Sorry if I have principles that I live by and don't act like a fucking hypocrit. I beleive someone has the right to run their business the way they want to. I will not go against that principle of mine just because some fuckwad might discriminate in his hirng or firings. It's HIS or HER company, not mine. I will not tolerate such acts by buying from those people who I know do that sort of stuff, but I won't go running to the government to make them do what I want like a fucking child running to his mommy or daddy.

As for never being discriminated against because I disgree with you, go fuck yourself asshole!! I have been discrimanted against. A lot! Don't fucking tell me what has and has not happened to me just because I happen to disagree with you on this. Your response is complete uncalled for. You clearly have a severe problem with people disagreeing with you that makes you act like an asshole. All through this thread I've seen people (most notebly SkyDog) try to have a conversation with you, but it's just met with you responding like SkyDog's some brainless moron. If you can't handle people not agreeing with you, then just do everyone a favor and just stay out of the fucking conversation.

Blackadar

01-28-2005, 03:32 PM

Now that's an absurd statement. Give me a fucking break. Sorry if I have principles that I live by and don't act like a fucking hypocrit. I beleive someone has the right to run their business the way they want to. I will not go against that principle of mine just because some fuckwad might discriminate in his hirng or firings. It's HIS or HER company, not mine. I will not tolerate such acts by buying from those people who I know do that sort of stuff, but I won't go running to the government to make them do what I want like a fucking child running to his mommy or daddy.

As for never being discriminated against because I disgree with you, go fuck yourself asshole!! I have been discrimanted against. A lot! Don't fucking tell me what has and has not happened to me just because I happen to disagree with you on this. Your response is complete uncalled for. You clearly have a severe problem with people disagreeing with you that makes you act like an asshole. All through this thread I've seen people (most notebly SkyDog) try to have a conversation with you, but it's just met with you responding like SkyDog's some brainless moron. If you can't handle people not agreeing with you, then just do everyone a favor and just stay out of the fucking conversation.

As I said, thank you for playing. Bye-bye. See you later.

QuikSand

01-28-2005, 03:46 PM

Well, there's more to this argument, actually.

Some would probably argue that discrimination should be allowed, on the grounds that an open marketplace of information available to consumers will ultimately mete out market-based punishments for those who discriminate in hiring practices or other elemens of their business practice. You might well disagree with this, either in principle or practice, but it's a perfectly valid and coherent viewpoint for one to hold.

Some others would probably go one step further. They might argue that laws banning discrimination, while presumably well-intended, simply create too much public intrusion into private affairs. The relationship between a private business and it current or prospective employees is a necessarily private matter -- and there is no compelling reason to impose any particular governmental standards or regulation on that private transaction. If you insist that it is a necessary government duty to end discrimination, then this is not an appropriate suggestion, as it would not necessarily bring about such an end -- but I don't think that initial premise is a universal one.

finkenst

01-28-2005, 09:03 PM

All businesses over a certain size must keep track of the demographics (race, sex, age, pregnancy status, etc.) of those who get promoted, apply for a job, get hired, get fired, get demoted, etc. That data is then reported to the new EEOC, with harsh penalties for fraud (like with the SEC). The government takes no action to "punish" or "reward" employers based on these stats. It just makes them available to the public.
I believe that most larger employers (fortune 500, anyone with more than 100 employess?.. something like that) do this to ensure they have diversity in the workforce (avoid lawsuits for discrimination?). I know that is a large success factor for my employer.

We know that diversity—be it in race, gender, ethnicity, global experience, cultural background, skills and abilities, or any other form—translates to more understanding, more ideas, and ultimately a better product. That's why we support and obey laws that prohibit discrimination everywhere we do business—not because we have to, but because it's the right thing to do. It's also why we've formed a Corporate Diversity Council, charged with making sure that we value and leverage the many talents and perspectives of our global workforce to improve our business.

they are very serious about it. We employees are asked about the diversity in our workplace every year in an annual survey.