Fort Worth Considers Ban On Hiring Smokers

If a new policy is adopted, smokers in Fort Worth, Texas, may no longer be eligible to work for the city, WFAA is reporting.

In reevaluating its health care strategy, Fort Worth's human resources department is looking at some private business models, including that of Baylor Healthcare System, one of the state's largest employers which stopped hiring smokers as of Jan. 1, according to the Dallas Morning News.

"Certainly we put tax-payer dollars into health care for our employees, and anything that might benefit the health to make our employees more protective and healthy, we're going to take a look at," Betsy Price, the mayor of Fort Worth, told WFAA.

The proposed ban in Fort Worth is one of many measures employers are taking or considering in order to discourage employees from smoking. In November, The New York Times reported that, in the last two years, the number of health insurance policies that penalize employees with higher premiums for unhealthy lifestyle choices has doubled.

According to the Times, Home Depot, Safeway, and General Mills all now demand higher premiums from certain workers. Wal-Mart recently started demanding a $2,000-a-year surcharge from some of its employees who smoke.

And in December, the New York Post reported that smokers working for PepsiCo were outraged over having to pay $50 per month for their habit, a fee that would be waived if they took a four to six week anti-smoking course.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, smoking and secondhand smoke cost the U.S. $193 billion in health bills and lost productivity annually.

Regardless of what smoking costs the country or an individual employer, some argue that penalizing smokers sends the wrong message, when the focus should be on helping them quit. As Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health, told USA Today in January, "These policies represent employment discrimination. It's a very dangerous precedent."

Sure enough, some city employees in Fort Worth are unhappy about the potential ban.

"I feel like the next thing they want to do is take DNA samples to figure out if anybody is going to have any kind of diseases going forward," Vince Chasteen, president of the city's employee association, who has been smoking for 41 years and working for the city for 30, told WFAA.

Comments

[biancophotoman]

03:27 PM on 10/03/2012

I want people who drink to be fired from their job....liquid lunch.......come back drunk...I don't have to put up with drunk people in the work place...........how about that?

[econ1]

05:34 PM on 05/14/2012

"These policies represent employment discrimination. It's a very dangerous precedent."

Over weight people will be next.

[Freida Payne]

08:43 PM on 04/23/2012

Besides the ILLEGAL TOBACCO DRUG (yes, still ILLEGAL to POISON PEOPLE, no matter how slowly you do it!) KILLING 5,000,000 addicts and another 650,000 INNOCENT people (who breathed toxic tobacco smoke) around the world, EVERY YEAR, 90% of the crime is committed by smokers and 90% of suicides are smokers. Additionally, 90% of alcoholics are smokers.



BAN THE ILLEGAL TOBACCO DRUG, NOW AND PROSECUTE THE CRIMINAL TOBACCO PUSHERS, TOO!



http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventcrime.htm

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventcrime.htm

http://medicolegal.tripod.com/preventsuicide.htm

[Yvette67]

08:04 PM on 04/19/2012

What a slippery slope this will be - next thing they will ban diabetics, arthritics, alcoholics, psychotics, manic-depressives, obesity, etc., etc. - - all of these are costly as well -

Charge the tobacco companies 10 cents for each pack (or 20 cigarettes) that is sold and pool the money.Then pay an amount from the pool, to each health insurance company in proportion to volume of insureds they cover - the charge MAY NOT be passed on to the consumer. Or go to a single payer insurance system and continue to charge the tobacco companies

[nanblan]

04:46 AM on 04/20/2012

How about doing away w/ Obamacare & letting people purchase private insurance based on their own needs? Forget about socialized healthcare because it WILL be a slippery slope. Not only the disorders/diseases you've listed would be screened; what about everyone at higher risk for certain cancers due to their relatives having had and/or died from it? We all know medical research will soon be able to tell if a person has a particular gene - or is a "carrier," thus having a greater propensity for the disease. Some types of cancer are hard to treat, such as colon, & often involve expensive treatment & surgery. Are these employers going to ban these people from being hired as well? How is this different from excluding those w/ pre-existing conditions from buying healthcare? Also, isn't this the same as the dreaded rationing of care - a definite reality w/ Obamacare? How hypocritical of those who support it. The whole thing espouses discrimination big time, and is a perfect example of what's in store for all of us if w/ Obamacare, & it would only be the beginning. I doubt there are many people w/o a disposition to something likely causing increased future healthcare costs. All these people would eventually end up in the E.R. to get care, which by law we must provide. Last, they'd also end up filing for unemployment or welfare, thus causing higher costs to us anyway.

[Yvette67]

12:06 PM on 04/20/2012

I will disagree that a single payer system or Obamacare will screen those with propensity to or preconditions for - it will do the reverse and cover everyone
We can not have health care that is just for people who can afford it - As you said, we are forced to pay for it anyway though emergency care and welfare. Actually if preventive care were available to everyone emergency use and welfare would, over time decrease.
My Canadian cousins have no issue with their medical care system - Scare tactics are always used when something new is proposed.

[mes7]

03:56 PM on 04/19/2012

Next thing you know they will be banning Bar-B-Que Restaurants because of the smoke inside of them. In many of the older ones the walls have turned color from the years of smoke inside the building.The only place to win the James Beard Foundation Award for best BBQ in the country fits all the above, you can cut the smoke with a knife when you walk in the door. :)

[barrada nicto]

05:11 AM on 04/20/2012

What if avoiding all those kinds of indoor pollutants is part of the path to living to 150?

[mes7]

11:32 AM on 04/20/2012

lol, there are so many indoor pollutants I don't think we have chance ! From everyday chemicals we use to smoke wherever it may come from. I breathed toner from copiers for years, it was unavoidable, the stuff is finer than talc powder. The result was black lung. I asked for years for a toxically report on it and never got one. The reply was always the same. It is not required by law ! Another words they had no idea.Tobacco is just the one the health industry has focused on the most. We are doomed ! lol

[melange1]

05:19 AM on 02/24/2013

Why would be want to live to be 150???

[headstrong]

03:04 PM on 04/19/2012

Makes sense to me. Smokers get sick a lot more, and miss more work. Who's the more productive employee?

[iam99]

02:25 PM on 04/19/2012

Imagine a world where the tobacco growers switched to growing food or hemp for the oil and fiber. Imagine also, people getting their demons (addictions) under control and the drop in insurance rates as overall health soared. One can dream.

[barrada nicto]

05:12 AM on 04/20/2012

Nice.

[rlj13]

12:39 PM on 04/19/2012

I think the government should either stop finding ways to overcharge smokers or make it illegal altogether and provide help for everyone addicted. States and the federal gov add to smoking taxes, but no one stopped tobacco companies from increasing the amount of nicotine they put in cigarettes.

[barrada nicto]

05:14 AM on 04/20/2012

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol. It won't likely work for tobacco.

Although if people had to grow their own it would probably be a much healthier drug.

[rlj13]

11:06 AM on 04/20/2012

Very true. I don't think prohibition will work either, I'm just sick of the obvious financial interests at work here.

[Kenz300]

12:26 PM on 04/19/2012

It seems that when you buy insurance if you are a higher risk by being a smoker or are obese you would pay more than someone that is not.

[shortguy54]

11:39 AM on 04/19/2012

The no-smoking fascists are seizing power everywhere. Run for the hills! (If the Forestry Service hasn't implemented a non-smoking policy yet.)

[Ken Koziol]

11:33 AM on 04/19/2012

Again everyone is missing the big picture here. If smoking is so bad for you then why does the government allow it in the first place, money thats why; tax money and lobbiest money.
Ban the production and sale of cigarettes.

[barrada nicto]

05:18 AM on 04/20/2012

And the memory of Prohibition. They tried outlawing alcohol ... a losing battle.

Government can try to modify behavior -- going further tends to be problematic.

[Ken Koziol]

11:27 AM on 04/19/2012

I think they would have a very big discrimination law suit if they did.

[MarkVA71]

10:38 AM on 04/19/2012

Nothing says fascism like controlling other people's lives to maximize profit.

[kco234]

11:29 AM on 04/19/2012

But I would argue that smoking shows a clear lack of intelligence. Businesses want to hire intelligent workers, not people who are doing something ridiculously idiotic.

[westcanguy]

03:13 PM on 04/19/2012

So does over eating, drinking alcohol and leading a lifestyle that doesn't include a certain amount of exercise on a regular basis. Should people who take part in any one of these three things also be scrutinized and not hired?

[bernikitty]

10:13 AM on 04/19/2012

i believe that competent adults have the right to destroy their health if they want to, but they don't have the right destroy other people's health with the second hand smoke and they are not entitled to extra breaks to indulge in their addiction.

(i remember being pregnant and being so annoyed that i had to try to hold my breath when i would hit pockets of cigarette smoke as i walked down the street. i longed for someone to invent a fish-bowl like helmet that smokers could wear to keep the smoke to themselves.)

[Tsvi1]

10:56 AM on 04/19/2012

Ok, let me put it another way.
Dont walk into pockets of smoke, go around them.
I mean, it was fair of nonsmokers to ban us from smoking indoors in public areas (I totally get that), but the street is fair game and this is completely ridiculous on your end.
Crossing the street takes two second, and where I live there are clear signs (and ashtrays) so the smokers congregate (which is also nice for talking so the public ashtray serves a good for you and us) and you know where you ought to avoid.
Also, you aren't about to get second hand smoke damage from street smoking, it is being indoors where the smoke doesnt go out for prolonged periods of time that causes damage. Merely not liking the smell is not the same as being against second hand smoking.

[bernikitty]

12:48 PM on 04/19/2012

so nonsmokers need to alter their behavior to accommodate your addiction? perhaps all sober people should stop driving on friday and saturday night so drunk drivers have the highways all to themselves too?

do you walk down the street smoking? do you give one thought to anyone unfortunate enough to be walking on the street behind being hit in the face by the trail of smoke you keep spouting.

actually the air on the street is NOT fair game. your right to do what you want doesn't trump the general public's right to be free from the health damaging effects of your addiction. if you had TB (an airborne infection) you would be forced to comply with treatment. WHY? because you would pose a threat to public health. more and more people are waking up to the real health risks of smoking. eventually the only place smokers will be able to indulge their habit is at home, where they can't hurt anyone but themselves. your health is your own, if you choose to wreck it, that is your choice.

the air in your home IS fair game, when you are home, in your own space and not exposing others including children to the damaging effects of cigarette, knock your self out.

[harleydakotadog]

09:51 AM on 04/19/2012

I took a flight too Fort Worth and had too sit next too two morbidly obese people who took up all 3 seats and was left too ride the arm chair stuffed in my crotch the whole flight as I had NO room in MY PAID for seat. I paid for a seat that I never got to sit in.