• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Boycott Scotts Due to Smoking Policy

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
GoBucks89 said:
Did you really read the rest of the thread? We've been through this insurance stuff. The problem is solved by going to a policy that charges higher premiums to smokers.
Click to expand...

As I indicated multiple times throughout my post, I have been through the thread multiple times. I recognize that different premiums is one solution for dealing with the smoker/non-smoker issue, as you pointed out. However, that was not the point of the thread. The crux was, "Can Scotts tell employees what to do out of work?" Not how to best adjust insurance plans to deal with divergent social lifestyles. Maybe the question should be raised, " Did you really read the thread?"


GoBucks89 said:
And now we see the real reason for smoking bans and other such things: people just get annoyed by smokers. That's it. The insurance cost thing is just a red herring.
Click to expand...

No the health thing is a big damn deal. Just ask the thousands of diner waitresses who now have health issues related to smoking although they've never smoked a day in their lives. The not smelling like smoke thing - just an added bonus.
 
Upvote 0
AKAKBUCK said:
True, but gay sex is a choice, eh? (I'm guessing, again... as to gay vs. heterosexual sex with multiple partners... once again, if I'm wrong... reverse it, and that argument will work as well).

(PS... if we go down the "Being gay is/isn't a choice road, the dings are coming out... there are plenty of wrecked thread to argue that)
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. Engaging in risky sex (whether you're banging dudes or chicks) is a choice, but unless you're actually physically banging someone at the office, your workplace really has no way of regulating your sexual habits and any attempts to police them would be a waste of time and money. Smokers tend to have a need to smoke (often times at work) and you can test for chemicals making regulation pretty easy. However, you can take measures to substantially lower that risk. Smoking really doesn't have that capability (lower tar cigarettes and filters really don't do anything to help lower risks to your health).

Does it matter now? The risk is there. These people were smokers when they were hired just as the gays were flamers when they were hired.

Can the boss really say "You, stop smoking or you're fired" without also saying "You, stop taking it in the ass, or you're fired" or "You, stop eating at McDonalds or you're fired" and still be legally in line?
Click to expand...

Eh, I guess that would completely depend upon the contract one signs when hired and what the group health care insurer is mandating from them. My contract says that I'm bound to the current standards of my company (including that we're not allowed to smoke) and any future standards that may be enacted. Since, I have no clue what their contract says, I can't even speculate if they're being screwed or not.
 
Upvote 0
GoBucks89 said:
With health insurance, what you put on the application has to be true at the time that you receive a benefit. If it is found that you misrepresented something on an application, they can deny benefits. This is different from life insurance where is has to be true only at the time of application. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

I understand all too well. I'm scooter1369, not tg05.

Prove I was a smoker on that date...
 
Upvote 0
StooGrimson said:
Eh, I guess that would completely depend upon the contract one signs when hired and what the group health care insurer is mandating from them. My contract says that I'm bound to the current standards of my company (including that we're not allowed to smoke) and any future standards that may be enacted. Since, I have no clue what their contract says, I can't even speculate if they're being screwed or not.
Click to expand...

Of course the trump card here is that Ohio is a "fire at will" state. Companies that hold such a policy will find it upheld in court.
 
Upvote 0
scooter1369 said:
There goes any chance of ever getting laid again... :(
Click to expand...

My point was that it's been tried before, and it wasn't exactly a smashing success. :)

Bottom line for me is that if I want to engage in behavior I know to be 'risky' because I personally feel that the additional risk level is an acceptable price to pay for the pleasure I derive from such behavior, that is my right, so long as it doesn't create an imposition of risk, whether financial or otherwise, on others. Period.
 
Upvote 0
PrincessPeach said:
My point was that it's been tried before, and it wasn't exactly a smashing success. :)

Bottom line for me is that if I want to engage in behavior I know to be 'risky' because I personally feel that the additional risk level is an acceptable price to pay for the pleasure I derive from such behavior, that is my right, so long as it doesn't create an imposition of risk, whether financial or otherwise, on others. Period.
Click to expand...
same can be said for cocaine.
 
Upvote 0
scooter1369 said:
I understand all too well. I'm scooter1369, not tg05.

Prove I was a smoker on that date...
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is that it has to be true at the time you receive the benefit. In other words, they don't have to prove you were a smoker on that date. They only have to prove you're a smoker now (when you're in the doctor's office being told you have cancer or whatever), which can be done with a simple urine test.

This is different from life insurance where they would have to prove you were a smoker at the time of application. If they did manage to prove misrepresentation in this case, they would simply deduct the additional premiums from your insurance proceeds.
 
Upvote 0
tsteele316 said:
Scott's indicated that cost/benefit analysis supported this action due to increasing health care costs.

However, this is an action that is likely going to result in lawsuits. When Scott's is shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more to defend itself, it's going to shoot that argument in the foot.
Click to expand...


I would venture to guarantee they took that into account during their cost/benefit analysis
 
Upvote 0
GoBucks89 said:
What I'm saying is that it has to be true at the time you receive the benefit. In other words, they don't have to prove you were a smoker on that date. They only have to prove you're a smoker now (when you're in the doctor's office being told you have cancer or whatever), which can be done with a simple urine test.

This is different from life insurance where they would have to prove you were a smoker at the time of application. If they did manage to prove misrepresentation in this case, they would simply deduct the additional premiums from your insurance proceeds.
Click to expand...

There are ways around that too.
 
Upvote 0
BuckeyeFlorida said:
Not to mention lawsuits are short-term costs, unlike serious illnesses among employees which could cost millions for years.

Short term expense for a long term gain. IMO
Click to expand...

its a bit of a stretch to call years of litigation a short term cost.

if scott's were to produce numbers that could show some sort of cost disparity between the health care costs of smoking employees versus nonsmokers, then maybe i'll listen.

of course, the entire premise is built on the notion that the employee would be moderately healthy if they didn't smoke, which is also faulty reasoning.
 
Upvote 0
StooGrimson said:
I wholeheartedly agree with you on that. Engaging in risky sex (whether you're banging dudes or chicks) is a choice, but unless you're actually physically banging someone at the office, your workplace really has no way of regulating your sexual habits and any attempts to police them would be a waste of time and money. Smokers tend to have a need to smoke (often times at work) and you can test for chemicals making regulation pretty easy. However, you can take measures to substantially lower that risk. Smoking really doesn't have that capability (lower tar cigarettes and filters really don't do anything to help lower risks to your health).
Click to expand...

Teh NFL can't test for Human Growth hormone either... so the fuck what.

If the policy says, you can't engage in risky sex... and you turn up on a CDC syphillis list, they could then fire you and cancel your insurance.

The point isn't what they can and can't do... its should they be doing it?

People don't get banned from this board for being morons... but we could.:wink2:
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top