PDA

View Full Version : Smokers may have to pay to go to work......


Seldomfitforpurpose
16th Dec 2014, 21:38
Wonder if this might catch on over here


Arizona county to vote on proposed hiring ban on smokers | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/16/arizona-county-to-vote-on-proposed-hiring-ban-on-smokers/?intcmp=latestnews)


whilst the health care costs may not be the same sort of issue I do wonder if and when someone will look at the lost productivity of employing smokers.

con-pilot
16th Dec 2014, 21:44
If left unchecked, the next will be drinkers of booze.

'You can drink adult beverages and work here, but if you do, you will have pay a 100 dollars a month to work here.'

Then they can go for the overweight.

Then they can go for the meat eaters.

Then they can go for....

Fox3WheresMyBanana
16th Dec 2014, 21:50
The problems of not having a national health service. I await developments with interest.

con-pilot
16th Dec 2014, 22:23
We do have a national healthcare system here, it's called Obamacare.

Doesn't seem to be working all that well as of yet I'll have to admit.


Well, unless you're poor, then someone else pays for it, then you're good to go. Kind of like it works over there.

Or unless you are rich, then you pay for private health care. Again, kind of like it works over there. :p

Katamarino
16th Dec 2014, 22:58
Only difference is that here in the US the cost is three times as high, and the results slightly worse!

galaxy flyer
16th Dec 2014, 23:04
The problems of not having a national health service. I await developments with interest.

Could you explain that, please?

If you have a "national" plan, the costs of smoking is spread over the entire population, forcing non-smokers to pay for smokers. OTOH, a "national" plan opens the possibility of the non-smokers using their political power to unjustly force smokers to stop. Then, Katy bar the door, the government will try to ban all kinds of non-PC life styles--Bloomberg trying to ban large sweetened drinks.

No, the risks and costs should be borne by those incurring them. When a third party (employer or insurer) is involved, a mutual agreement, voluntary consent. That might mean no county job, but no one has a right to that.

GF

Katamarino
16th Dec 2014, 23:49
If you have a "national" plan, the costs of smoking is spread over the entire population, forcing non-smokers to pay for smokers.

Solved in the UK, as an example, by taxing cigarettes to a level whereby they more than pay for the extra costs to the health service.

Much more difficult, though, with things like food and alcohol where normal amounts are fine (or even essential :ok: ) but excess causes health problems. I certainly don't know how the costs could be fairly accounted for in those less black and white situations.

con-pilot
17th Dec 2014, 00:06
Solved in the UK, as an example, by taxing cigarettes to a level whereby they more than pay for the extra costs to the health service.


Really, I'd like to see some proof of that, as cigarette cost more in New York City than what I paid for a pack in London not that long ago.

Besides that, I've been told that nearly 40% of all cigarettes sold in the UK are not taxed, but smuggled in from Europe. I know that I was able to buy ďcheapĒ cigarettes in some Pubs.

galaxy flyer
17th Dec 2014, 00:07
So, it's correct to "charge" smokers more than their smoking-related burden? That's not fair. In NYC, cops were trying to enforce taxation law on a man trying make a meager living by avoiding those taxes. They killed him. I guess that'll control health costs.

GF

pigboat
17th Dec 2014, 00:15
Solved in the UK, as an example, by taxing cigarettes to a level whereby they more than pay for the extra costs to the health service.
The authorities did the same thing in Canada. That set up a billion dollar a year cigarette smuggling business where one worth a fraction of that existed before.

Pappa Smurf
17th Dec 2014, 00:18
I smoked all my working life and never had any sick days caused by smoking.Actually the times I gave up for a period I would always get the flu a few times requiring time off.
Had plenty of days off because of party mode the night before,or injuries caused by leasure time activities.
You don't tell the boss you smoke when you go for a job.
Some places in Aus you need a drug and alcohol test as part of employment.
Also weight to height,so no obese workers in certain industries.

Next will be if your a sports fan as this courses lots of sickness ,especially if your a cricket fan,which seems to occur on a Friday when a test match is on.

Neville Nobody
17th Dec 2014, 00:29
The likes of production figures are well down with smokers, everybody knows companies where smokers congregate outside for at least 10 minutes out of every hour. 16% less productive?
Nobody can deny the long term health effects from smoking.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
17th Dec 2014, 01:19
GF - intended as a neutral comment. Having a National Health Service also has problems, one of which you point out.
I'm just interested in how far Governments take things to their logical conclusion. The charging of smokers for health coverage in public employment by a small jurisdiction is logical.
In the UK, the tax on cigarettes more than pays for smokers ailments treated by the NHS. The same is true in Canada, though fire risks are not properly weighted.

The 36,125 fires caused by smokers cost Canadians $433 million in property damage over a 10-year period (1988-1997). In 1997 the Conference Board of Canada said it cost employers about $2,565 more per year to employ a smoker than to employ a non-smoker.

galaxy flyer
17th Dec 2014, 01:51
This, from Steve Landsburg's blog

If you asked me to make the best possible argument in favor of the police action that led to the death of Eric Garner, it would go like this:

Cigarettes are taxed.
You canít have taxes without enforcement. In this case, the enforcers are the police.
Where there are enforcers, there will be confrontations.
When sellers refuse to cooperate, the enforcers have only two options: Walk away, or resort to violence.
Enforcers who walk away soon lose their credibility and their effectiveness. This is more than doubly important for a police officer, who needs that credibility when he confronts far more dangerous criminals.
Therefore, we cannot fault the police for resorting to violence.
Violence is sometimes catastrophic. Thatís sad, but itís not news.
If you asked me to make the best possible counterargument, it would go like this:

You could say exactly the same thing about a protection racket.
That is, every protection racket needs an enforcer. When shopowners donít pay up, the enforcer has only two options: Walk away or resort to violence. To walk away would sacrifice credibility. Therefore we cannot fault the enforcer for resorting to violence. Sometimes violence gets pretty messy. So it goes.

The force of that reductio ad absurdum depends on the analogy between taxation of cigarettes and the demand for protection money. I think that reasonable people can disagree about the depth of that analogy.

But the lesson remains that every law must occasionally be enforced through potentially catastrophic violence, or, to put this more succinctly, all legislation is deadly. Violence is part of the cost of making laws, and itís a cost the makers of new laws would be well advised to contemplate.

Something to think about

GF

Mr Optimistic
17th Dec 2014, 04:49
I hang on for an extra 30 mins or more to partially compensate. When its needed I just give the company more time. Last night I was there til 8, overtime not claimed. I admit some people do take the piss, especially contractors who claim every minute as paid.

Mac the Knife
17th Dec 2014, 06:40
So long as you have tobacco/cigarettes legally and freely available (after being heavily taxed by the Government/State), and the act of smoking tobacco is not in itself illegal, then Pima County may have a problem enforcing this.

If you really, really want to stop the consumption of tobacco products then you have to go the whole hog, fines for possession or use , jail sentences for selling growing or trafficking, border and port controls for smuggling, etc., etc. This will be very expensive.

Shutting down the American tobacco producing/processing industry will also be very costly - see Tobacco Profile - Agricultural Marketing Resource Center (http://www.agmrc.org/commodities__products/specialty_crops/tobacco-profile/)

Still, it IS probably possible given enough money....

The US tried a similar experiment with the Volstead Act and the Eighteenth Amendment - with results that were largely negative.

There are many things that people do that "are bad for them" and of which others disapprove.

Trying to legislate all of them out of existence may not be such a good idea.

Mac

Seldomfitforpurpose
17th Dec 2014, 07:56
The likes of production figures are well down with smokers, everybody knows companies where smokers congregate outside for at least 10 minutes out of every hour. 16% less productive?
Nobody can deny the long term health effects from smoking.

One of my good ladies bug bears when working as a manager with our County Council, she knew that the best part of an hour a day per smoker was lost to smoke breaks which is a criminal waste of public funds.

ExXB
17th Dec 2014, 08:12
Smoking is an addiction, and all smokers are addicts.

95% of you will agree with this statement and 5% will disagree. Many smokers will insist that they are not addicted and they can give up at any time.

So, I'll ignore the 5%, I'm not going to change their minds - and they can give up at any time.

The approach to tobacco addiction should be;


Addicts need to be helped to overcome their addiction. Patches, drugs and even e-cigarettes should be part of a comprehensive effort to help the addicts;
New taxes on cigarettes, and company profits of anyone in the distribution chain, need to be enacted to in part cover the cost of curing addictions and to be a disincentive for people to carry on producing and distributing this product. A 20% point increase per year for 10 years would be a great disincentive;
New taxes need to be implemented to replace the taxes that will eventually be lost (choose your favourite villain);
Use of tobacco products in public to be illegal and subject to on-the-spot fines and seizure. i.e. if you are caught smoking in public you pay $100 and you lose every cigarette in your possession. Use of tobacco products in other places to be tolerated, except around children;
Raise the legal age to buy, possess and use tobacco products to 21 immediately and by an additional year for each year that passes;
Production, import and distribution of tobacco products should be made illegal, in 10 years time. This gives tobacco companies, growers, workers an opportunity to change to different business models (other than killing half of their customers);


Probably a few other things to be added but the objective is to help addicts become clean and to discourage the business. Such measures should be implemented as widely as possible, to reduce the amount of smuggling.

Some people will continue to smoke regardless, but at least the addicts would be hiding in basements and dark alleys.

MagnusP
17th Dec 2014, 08:58
ExXB, while your intentions are good, they are likely to pave us a new road to Hell. The problem with escalating taxation on tobacco is that you boost the demand for smuggled (and generally counterfeit) substitutes, containing all sorts of toxic nasties on top of the tar and nicotine in legitimate products. Estimates are 40% in Scotland. You still get the usual smoking health issues, plus a raft of new ones because of the toxicity of the fakes.

teeteringhead
17th Dec 2014, 09:01
One has heard of companies in the City (of London) who pay smokers (a little) less, on the principle that several times a day they are hanging about outside with a fag (British English!! = cigarette) and so not working.....

Discuss.......

teeteringhead
17th Dec 2014, 09:11
One has heard of companies in the City (of London) who pay smokers (a little) less, on the principle that several times a day they are hanging about outside with a fag (British English!! = cigarette) and so not working.....

Discuss.......

charliegolf
17th Dec 2014, 09:11
Tell smokers who work for you that you understand their addiction. Tell them that they may clock out and back in again any amount of times in a day they have agreed with you as a maximum, be that once an hour, twice or whatever. The accounts department does the rest. Make it the smoker's duty to ensure his or her personal productivity remains high. Give no further concession.

CG

PS: In the days when smoking was allowed on school premises, not one staff member ever took a break outside a break. That's 3 a day- same as everywhere, I'd say.

Fareastdriver
17th Dec 2014, 09:36
About twenty years ago the company I worked for introduced a smoke free working envionment. There was a room set aside where smokers could go for a smoke.

Before then I was consuming about twenty cigarettes a day, of which about ten would be at my desk. After that a couple of us would take a smoke break in the room when we felt like it. This room soon became the busiest room in the block and I realised that because of my desires, combined with joining somebody else's desires, that my consumption had risen to 30 plus a day.

The time taken to smoke an extra ten cigarettes plus the transit time must have been at least an hour lost to the company multiplied by the number of smokers.

All this because one person had the statuary right to insist on it.

lasernigel
17th Dec 2014, 10:03
Really, I'd like to see some proof of that, as cigarette cost more in New York City than what I paid for a pack in London not that long ago.

Pack of the cowboy reds about £9 now

From Tax Revenue from Tobacco Ľ Tobacco Manufacturers' Association (http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/)

"2012-13 In £ Billion 9.7 (Excise) 2.6 (VAT) 12.3 (Total)"

From Do Taxes On Smoking Pay for Smoking Diseases? (http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2008/10/do-taxes-on-smoking-pay-for-smokers-diseases.html)

"According to a recent report in the BBC, smoking costs the NHS 2.7 billion pounds a year."

Smokers don't live as long so less of a burden on pensions as well.

I served my Queen and country for nearly 13yrs. Paid taxes all my life. Think I should be able to dictate when I live and die.

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2014, 12:28
So which county in the U.S. will institute a ban on hiring fat people? Hm? Oh, wait a minute. That wouldn't quite work out too well would it. (for what should be obvious reasons)

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2014, 12:39
I get a kick out of this talk about "lost productivity" incurred by us smokers. To which I ask this: What about "lost productivity" incurred by those many employees who go from cube to cube, or office to office, running their gums about such work topics as: the weather, the football game last night, what kind of shopping is going to be done the coming weekend, etc.? I think workers who run their mouths talking about everything but work-related topics far outnumber us smokers.

As for me? I smoke perhaps 5 cigarettes per day. (an 8 hour work day.) I ensure each cigarette I smoke takes no longer than 5 minutes to do so. So 5x5 = 25 minutes. I do not take lunch and eat while I work. And I stay an extra 30 minutes per day in compensation. Do the aforementioned blabber mouths compensate for their verbal diarrhea?

And as for the health effects of smoking? I smoke less than a pack a day. On occasion perhaps a bit more.

last night I did a 4.5 mile run on the treadmill in 41 minutes.

next question?

Shaggy Sheep Driver
17th Dec 2014, 12:40
especially contractors who claim every minute as paid.

That's as it should be. I used to use a lot of contractors in the IT business. They got paid for the hours worked; unlike my full time staff they did not get paid holidays, sick pay, pensions, a career path, paid days off if the dog died, etc. And as soon as I didn't need them they were down the road. Suited me and them - why shouldn't they be paid every minute they work? That was the deal!

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2014, 12:46
PS: con-pilot

Yes, cigs. here in NYC are expensive. (As they are in most of NY) Almost prohibitively so, to the tune of $10-$12/pack.

That's okay by me though. I buy my "pipe tobacco" online, as well as tubes, and have an electric machine to make my own. Cost? Oh, about $1/pack. :ok:

ExXB
17th Dec 2014, 13:03
rgbrock 1,

If you quit it would be even cheaper (about $1 a pack) and you would feel much, much better. Why not give it a try?

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2014, 13:05
ExXB:

Because I enjoy smoking, that's why.

vulcanised
17th Dec 2014, 14:13
Never mind us smokers - what about the mobile yakkers?

rgbrock1
17th Dec 2014, 14:21
vulcanized:

Ah yes. Forgot all about those. Incessantly yakking on their cell phones half the live-long day at work. (Which seems to happen quite often where I work and usually by those citizens of a certain sub-continent.)

ExXB
17th Dec 2014, 16:42
ExXB:

Because I enjoy smoking, that's why.

Of course you do. I believe you ! Really, I do.

Addiction does this to people, I bet you couldn't quit, even if you wanted to.

Ancient Observer
17th Dec 2014, 16:52
I do not know why a local Government organisation, even an American one, should pick on smokers.

From my time at work, we all knew who the slackers were. Pick on the slackers first. Then the fat folk. Then those that can always find an excuse for a sickie. Then pick on the types who have other problems attending.
Then............oh, you get the idea.

Seldomfitforpurpose
17th Dec 2014, 20:10
It would seem common sense is breaking out this side of the pond as well


BBC News - Car smoke ban 'to start in October' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30513439)

Lonewolf_50
17th Dec 2014, 20:16
So which county in the U.S. will institute a ban on hiring fat people? Hm? Oh, wait a minute. That wouldn't quite work out too well would it. (for what should be obvious reasons)
Nowhere south of I-10.
The wages of sin may be death, but the wages of a diet of Mexican food (well, Tex Mex anyway) is for damned sure a swelling waistline.

Leaders in type 2 diabetes nationwide: check out the counties between the Rio Grande and the line from El Paso through San Antonio to Houston.

mikedreamer787
18th Dec 2014, 04:53
Incessantly yakking on their cell phonesNot just yakking but WhatsApping and other live messaging. Females are the worst offenders.

As for smokers losing productivity by having to duck outside for a quick one, why not cure the problem by declaring certain sections for smoking. That way no one has to duck out for a quick anything. Then there's always the smoking room idea - small strategically-located rooms throughout the building.

Worked ok in the 40s 50s 60s and the first chunk of the 70s.

Seldomfitforpurpose
18th Dec 2014, 08:09
Not just yakking but WhatsApping and other live messaging. Females are the worst offenders.
.

Is it just non smokers who yak and what's app etc :ok:

Dan Gerous
18th Dec 2014, 10:28
Ah smokers, pariahs, scum of the earth. Please keep buying them though, they need the taxes. If governments are so concerned about peoples health, they should just ban it outright. (I'm a non smoker, but other folk smoking never really bothered me.)

mikedreamer787
18th Dec 2014, 10:32
If governments are so concerned about peoples health,

Name one government or even one health minister who is actually concerned about the health of any constituent whosoever in any electorate?


they need the taxes.What about those who get their smokes tax free? :rolleyes:

Octopussy2
18th Dec 2014, 12:12
I'm not a smoker but, trust me, I have no problem finding ways to waste time at work (Pprune being a great example).

Some people are more productive than others. To single out smokers is to miss the point.

If anything, it may be that a short break and 5 mins inhaling their drug of choice produces 55 minutes of better work (not that I would recommend smoking as an aid to productivity, of course).

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2014, 12:16
ExXB wrote:

Addiction does this to people, I bet you couldn't quit, even if you wanted to.

To which I respond (as I do to all who say the same thing): whether or not I can quit or wish to quit is, at the end of the day, entirely none of your business.

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2014, 12:20
charliegolf wrote:

Tell smokers who work for you that you understand their addiction. Tell them that they may clock out and back in again any amount of times in a day they have agreed with you as a maximum, be that once an hour, twice or whatever

Can we do the same for the blabberers too? Once their pie holes open up and start talking about such lofty topics as who won which game last night can we clock them out, and then back in again when they finally shut the f**k up?

Or, what about the fat slobs who spend more time in the cafeteria than anywhere else, can we clock them out too?

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2014, 12:23
mikedreamer wrote:

Worked ok in the 40s 50s 60s and the first chunk of the 70s.

Smoking rooms, or areas, worked well in those times because that was back before most of the West became a bunch of whining, outraged pussies.

charliegolf
18th Dec 2014, 12:25
RGB said...

Or, what about the fat slobs who spend more time in the cafeteria than anywhere else, can we clock them out too?

In Europe, as of today, we now call them 'disabled', not FLUBs. In the case you cite, their desks will have to be moved to the cafeteria, and their pastries will be provided on prescription. BMI of 40 plus, and you're on the first class carriage of the gravy train.:ok:

CG

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2014, 12:31
charliegolf:

However, here in the US where much of the population is considered overweight, and way too much of the population is considered obese, the working place cafeterias would have no room left in which to feed anyone else, as there'd be an overcrowding of desks inhabited by the fattie crowd.

BillHicksRules
18th Dec 2014, 14:51
RGB,

To which I respond (as I do to all who say the same thing): whether or not I can quit or wish to quit is, at the end of the day, entirely none of your business.

Quite right. :D

It is your choice to poison yourself.:E

I only hope you do it responsibly and stay away from others (kids, spouse, pets, all other air-breathing creatures) to prevent passing on said poisons.:E

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2014, 15:41
BHR:

Well, thanks for the suggestions about whom to stay away from. I think.


the spouse smokes too, so no problem there. My 3 kids obviously do not. Which is why the Mrs. and I always smoke outside of the house. AT ALL TIMES. Whether the kids are with us or not.

No pets so no worry there either.

mikedreamer787
18th Dec 2014, 15:55
(kids, spouse, pets, all other air-breathing creatures)

The nazis say you can't smoke in front of the budgie or pet rat anymore? :confused:
What about flies and mozzies? They breathe air too.

that was back before most of the West became a bunch of whining, outraged pussies.

Yep true RGB. I was born too bloody late. :(

dazdaz1
18th Dec 2014, 16:03
RgBrock1

I've never married (hetro) although I drive a Peugeot 207cc In my home I'd tell guests and family GO OUTSIDE I'm going to have a cigarette.

rgbrock1
18th Dec 2014, 16:45
dazdaz:

You tell your guests to go outside when you light one up inside? I love it! I may well follow your example. "Friends, please get the f**k out. I'm in need of a cigarette."

radeng
18th Dec 2014, 17:01
A lot of these silly rules fall down eventually. If they needed a specialist in some subject and refused to hire someone because they smoked, they could well have a system down for many days while they found someone. I remember some time back a local firm who wouldn't allow any contractor on site if they didn't have the make of vehicle that particular company made. So they had a breakdown and the production line stopped. Technician appears to do the necessary work to fix it, and is told he can't bring his van into the factory but must park over the road because it's the wrong make of van and carry all his kit by hand.

Technician calls his boss, and disappears. Factory manager starts bleating and gets told that either the technician takes his van inside or they don't get the machine fixed and that they were going to be charged for the aborted visit.

Policy changed forthwith.......

Seldomfitforpurpose
18th Dec 2014, 22:23
ExXB wrote:



To which I respond (as I do to all who say the same thing): whether or not I can quit or wish to quit is, at the end of the day, entirely none of your business.


So you couldn't :ok:

Seldomfitforpurpose
18th Dec 2014, 22:25
the spouse smokes too, so no problem there. My 3 kids obviously do not.


How come if I may ask?

rgbrock1
19th Dec 2014, 12:57
sffp:

Why don't my 3 kids smoke? Well, my daughter is 13. I suppose someone of 13 years of age could smoke, it is a rarity. Thankfully.

My middle son is 16. He could very well smoke. However, he is also autistic.
Who becomes "offended" by various smells and/or odors. Of which cigarette smoke is number one.

My oldest son is in the US Navy and is very athletic. Smoking would be the last thing on his mind PLUS he usually gives me shit about smoking, albeit in a light-handed manner.

Toadstool
19th Dec 2014, 15:56
There are of course countless numbers of smokers who are also fat slobs, stuffing their chubby little faces with food in the cafeteria. I imagine that there are a lot of smokers who also sit around discussing sport or playing on their phones. :ok:

What do we do with these time wasters!!

last night I did a 4.5 mile run on the treadmill in 41 minutes.

next question?

Did you walk?? :-)

rgbrock1
19th Dec 2014, 16:14
Toadstool wrote:

Did you walk?? :-)

Uhhh, no. And, yes, that wasn't that great of a time.

Which I made up for last night by running a 5 miler, on the treadmill with incline set to 2, in 39 min 43 secs. :ok: Hooah.