Quote:
Originally posted by ChefTyler:
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueSky:
[b]
Quote:
Originally posted by ChefTyler:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by Yasha:
the reason for companies to not want to hire smokers is quite easy, it costs the company more on health insurance to cover a smoker than a non-smoker. thus they choose not to do it.
Guess you missed my whole post, huh?[/b]
I think the most obvious example that fits your theory is obesity. Doesn't seem like as great as risk as smoking but it's arguably at least in similar territory for long-term health implications.

Still, I favor tobacco-free environments simply because it's far more pleasant and more fair (see my earlier post ref smoke breaks). Plus I tend to agree about taxing the s**t out of cigarettes with proceeds going to cancer research or something similar. [Smoking] (Don't worry, no risk to virtual smoking. laugh )[/b]
Agreed regarding the obesity. Cigarettes are taxed out the ass already.
As far as the "extra" breaks, I got that line a lot when working in restaurants from the few people who didn't smoke. My advice to them was simple, take the same number of breaks as the smokers (if you get flak about it from the boss, explain it calmly) otherwise shut it. Seemed to work out ok as most people can see that it's the same.
The same? How? I'm working and you're out smoking? Some people go smoke for 10-15 minutes EVERY HOUR. And they're not staying late to make it up, and they're not taking a short lunch. And I'm going to just tell the boss, "Well boss, these smokers are taking extra breaks so I'm going to as well"? Sorry, that really wouldn't work.

Besides, in my experience (corporate) what would happen if everyone took the extra breaks is that they'd crack down and start watching everybody to make sure they're at their desks.

I'm curious. Add it up for a year - what do you spend on cigs annually? I'll bet the answer is a shocker.