Employer provided health insurance

I have a question about a situation in my office that I think will spark some good conversation.

I have worked for this company for almost two years now, and everyone FT in the office has had their health insurance covered by the company. Recently we hired some new people, and two of them are now covered, but one of them is not. The reason is that our employer gets a substantial discount on our health insurance policy because none of us are smokers, and the new hire who is not being covered is a smoker.

Is this even legal (RE: discrimination against smokers)? Is it morally acceptable? Discuss.

Legal? Dunno. Morally acceptible? Absolutely.

My company's solution was to ban smoking on the premises.

You're gonna get people in here whining about employers dictating what you do on your own time, maybe some sniveling about privacy and one or two hysterical uses of the word "slavery," BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO FUCKING WORK THERE. Until that changes, there's no real objection to a policy like this that doesn't amount to "I am owed a job, and it is my right to dictate terms to my employer." WRONG!!

Interesting question. Are FT employees offered a contract? If so, does the contract specify that the employer offers health insurance? If so, and the new hire/smoker's contract is missing that paragraph, your employer could be in deep shit.

Or they could claim that they offered the smoker insurance and he/she refused it. Muzzy situation.

How has it been determined that everyone in the office is REALLY a non-smoker??

I have worked and received health coverage for over 20 yrs. For myself and family. Never had to fill out a questionnaire, ever.

This sounds totally bogus.

Are you stating that the employees pay no premium whatsoever?? That the company pays 100% of the health insurance??

All they can do is look for preexisting, smoking-related illness and enforce a "no smoke breaks" policy, I'd imagine. It's tough for a habitual smoker to go 8 hours without one.

That's how it was when I started with this company. Of course, that went away over the years. It's still pretty cheap, but no longer free.

Well I smoke but don't need to smoke while at work. If I wanted a cig I would wait till lunch time and take a long walk away from the building. That is, if I had to hide it.

I'm inclined to agree, but there are some things that bother me. IMHO the least that could be done is if the employee has to find an individual policy, the employer could supply the amount that is paid on the non-smokers policies towards it. But then there's the whole deal that people like me can't even qualify for individual policies. I think my employer could provide a policy for the employee, but charge the difference between the smoker and non-smoker, but I'm not sure if my employer has to buy in bulk if you will, and they wouldn't provide a policy for one individual who is a smoker.

People in my building just walk across the street to the Kwik E Mart. Major victory for the anti-smoking Nazis.

Sounds like a question for an employment/labor lawyer.

Which I am not.

Here is a lawyer question for you though. How do you specialize in law. Do you have to take a test in say employment/labor and it goes on your license or is it dependent in what you did in university or is just up in the air depending on your employer?


Edit: I hope I remember to come back and read this, as it is something I would like to know the answer to.

Smoking is a choice, not a right. That person could quit smoking and have the same health insurance as everyone else.

Well, no. I can't agree with that. Smoking is a right. The right to any action should be assumed, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. That includes deciding whether or not you wish to permit smoking at your place of business.

Smoking is not a right, it is a something we can choose to do without violating the law. It is most definitely not a protected right.
http://www.gaspoftexas.com/smokingisnotaright.html

I don't give a fuck what the courts say. My rights (smoking) are only limited by the rights of others (prohibition on private property). The right to smoke and the right to prohibit smoking on your property are not mutually-exclusive. They just can't be exercised on the same spot.

I'm not sure you understand my point, here. My asserting something is a right should not be taken to mean the absolute, unconditional freedom to do it anytime, anywhere.

I realize what you mean, I think we're merely arguing semantics on a subject we agree completely on.

So smoking is a right reserved to the Feds? Because if it's not, it's reserved to the people.

Did they also ban eating at work for the overweight people? Obesity has proven to be right up there with smoking as a cause of illness. People always want someone to hate and discriminate against, whether its skin color, religion, smoker or whatever. Just whomever its PC to hate at the moment.

There is no "need". One doesn't imply the other. The fact that they take action against tobacco smokers doesn't require them to take action against MJ smokers as a display of consistency or something. The employer can be as inconsistent and arbitrary as he wants because, again, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK THERE.

But in the context of voluntary interactions between private parties, there is no obligation that it make sense to the outside observer or anyone involved. Only that the participants consent to those conditions.

Just to point out though, you can't breathe in skin colour, religion, or fatness.

You CAN breathe in smoke.

Like a "pissing" and "no pissing" zone in a swimming pool.

Of course, if the employer wanted to, they could create specalised well ventilated smoking rooms, but I imagine it's easier just to say "fuckit, go smoke outside" or whatever.

You're confusing "rights" with "powers".

The Fed has no rights, it only has powers. People have rights AND powers.

Not analogous. What you eat doesn't affect my health. But the guy in the next cubicle blowing smoke all over the place can at least give his fellow employees a hacking cough, whether you believe the data on secondhand smoke or not.

Smokers break their workday down into "How much longer before I can sneak out for a smoke?" They also statistically take more sick days than nonsmokers, though I'm not sure how their data stacks up against obese people with comorbid conditions that make them call in sick more often than people who are not overweight.

This is just another bullshit way for people to control the freedoms of others. I suspect smoking and many other habits will end under Obama health care. Smoking, chewing, drinking, donuts, fried chicken, motorcycling, skiing, skateboarding, auto racing, etc. Government health care is the final link to the government having complete control of our lives.

I've got to agree, that was annoying. Being at work, seeing people allowed out for 5 minute smoking breaks every hour, and not being allowed a 5 minutes "do what the hell I like break". In one place, we weren't even allowed to have a coffee on our desks

I actually knew a kid who started smoking because she was pissed off that the smokers in the office got more breaks than she did.

No. It isn't. You.Don't.Have.To.Fucking.Work.There.

But we're not talking about government policy here. We're talking about private insurance, offered by private employers.

He's just got this kneejerk "Obama" thing going on. I wonder if it's covered by his insurer?

Just go stand with the smokers to bullshit while they light up.

Or retire to the bathroom for a wank every couple of hours. :dildo:

Oh, and I also support employers telling their employees to "wear less fucking perfume, you're suffocating us all. If you desperately need to wear that much, either wash more, or bring in a medical note."