13 ms·

The definition of working hours are the hours when the employer can tell you what to do. If they want to say you can't smoke at night then it's no longer free t

by im3w1l 7y ago

The definition of working hours are the hours when the employer can tell you what to do. If they want to say you can't smoke at night then it's no longer free time and they should be paying overtime.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
Exactly. They could just as well say no rock climbing or mountain biking on personal time for the same reason (presumably health insurance cost is what's behind this move) though obviously that would be harder to enforce. Companies having a financial incentive to care about what you do when you're not on the clock is just another reason that we shouldn't have coupled healthcare to employment. Not granting smoking breaks or prohibiting employees from smelling like smoke is one thing but disallowing it entirely is too much intrusion into employee's lives.
droopyEyelids 7y ago
You're proposing new labor laws with this idea. Thats good! However, you shouldn't confuse what makes intuitive sense with the laws governing your country.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  You're also confusing something: that plenty of legal things are not socially tolerated. If a company came out saying 'sorry, we don't hire feminists'... they might... face consequences. Even if that is legal. Right now U Haul is going after an easy target, since most people hate smoking - but the idea that just because it's legal it won't have any consequences is silly. Companies can be boycotted, they could get grilled in congressional hearings, new laws can be passed, and because of incendiary behavior they can get scrutiny for the non-incendiary behavior (see Shkreli) and other negatives can happen. The law is supposed to codify what makes sense, and when it doesn't, it many times will soon. Many times that includes nailing someone to the wall to set an example. I hope enough people call their lawmakers to pressure the system into dragging the U Haul executives who made this decision through the coals. This 1984 style 'we are going to see everything you do' is getting out of hand.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    You and OP are both right. Smoking is bad, but labor laws should protect your job from arbitrary dismissal for legal activities outside of work.
    - magduf 7y ago
      Maybe, but the problem is that smokers cost the company a lot more than non-smokers, due to this country's strange expectation that your employer should subsidize your health insurance. If we didn't have this idea that your ability to afford health insurance should be tied to full-time employment, then this shouldn't be an issue. But I can see that companies have a very good argument for discriminating against people who willingly choose to harm their bodies and incur higher healthcare costs. If we as a society don't want companies forcing their will on employees for things they do off-hours, then maybe we as a society should change the way healthcare insurance is handled.
      - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
        I agree with healthcare insurance being changed. I will say, just because it costs them more money doesn't mean they should legally be able to act on that. Many times someone from a certain religion might cost an employer more than someone who doesn't need religious prayer breaks. But legally employers can't act on that. I'm not saying smoking = religion, but I am saying information available to make logical decisions != the ability to act on that information. Just saying we've already made the decision that we will legally restrict companies from acting on certain pieces of information and therefore we can expand this existing framework to protect other life choices (eating fatty foods, skiing hobby, driving a sports car, having kids, etc)
        magduf 7y ago
        >Many times someone from a certain religion might cost an employer more than someone who doesn't need religious prayer breaks. But legally employers can't act on that. They can't act on that, specifically because we have a law that prevents them from doing so. Religion is a "protected class" in employment, along with a few other things (race, gender, etc.). Smoking is not a protected class, so employers are free to discriminate all they want. Do you really want to spend your time writing to Congress to have them pass a law making smoking a protected class? >having kids, etc) I'm not sure, but I think having kids is already a protected class. If it isn't, it probably wouldn't be that hard to get that law passed. Getting it passed for smokers would not be so easy. Personally, if Democrats took this up as a major campaign issue, instead of focusing on more important things, I probably wouldn't vote for them any more.
tnel77 7y ago
I’m not willing to find a source to back up this statement, but I’d be willing to wager that employees that don’t have nicotine in their system are, on average, healthier than their nicotine consuming coworkers. Pretty much every business is interested in lowering their healthcare costs. Regardless, doesn’t seem like U-Haul should be able to tell you to not use a legal substance during your personal time.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- rtkwe 7y ago
  > Pretty much every business is interested in lowering their healthcare costs. My company does this by just charging people who smoke an additional couple dollars every paycheck for their healthcare.
  - lightbyte 7y ago
    Do they also charge people who drink, are overweight, don't exercise? Seems odd to only single out smoking.
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      Those things are bad for your health, obviously, but aren't as easy to charge for since they aren't binary. How would you decide if someone was 'overweight' or didn't exercise? You couldn't base it on weight, because some people have a lot of muscle. How many hours do you need to exercise? What counts as exercise? How intense does it have to be? Do you charge someone who is 100 pounds overweight the same as someone who is 200? Or 10? Smoking is binary, so you can easily price for it.
      - humbledrone 7y ago
        Smoking is not binary either; there's a world of difference between a couple cigarettes a week while at the bar vs. a pack a day every day.
kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
Then those employees can pay higher insurance premiums.
- selectodude 7y ago
  ...they do. Do you think your insurance company asks you if you smoke because they want to bum one?
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    Employers also carry some of the burden. By making their pool healthier U-Haul gets a better deal.
    - Clubber 7y ago
      That reminds me of the time Papa John said he wouldn't give his employees health insurance because it would cost an extra 14 cents a large pizza. Heaven forbid.
      - pkaye 7y ago
        I believe the raised the prices but then cut the hours below threshold to provide health insurance.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - swozey 7y ago
    Is this a common question and I'm just not remembering it? I can't recall one time in the last 10-15 years where I've had a company insurer ask if I'm a smoker. I just pick PPO/HDHP from a list of options. I did this a month ago and don't remember it at all.
  - giobox 7y ago
    While my Dr of course wants to know, my employment based health insurance plans in the US have never once asked if I was a smoker. They don't really ask anything, other than "which plan would you like?" - if you pay for it you get it. Happy to be corrected by someone who knows more, but my understanding is the major deciding factor in the cost of a workplace plan is average age of the workforce at the company, basically little else. For companies I've worked for, the individual health of those who work there was not factored at all. I'm willing to bet that if you tell the insurer "we don't hire smokers" you likely get a better price though.
mfer 7y ago
I'm not sure this works out. I know that people who operate heavy machinery in some states are tested to make sure they never, even in their free time, ingest certain things. Even legal ones. In their case it's done (IIRC) because of the impact those things can have on decision making and it's a safety issue. These situations can even be required by insurance companies to have coverage for the machinery operation. While the case is different it does show a precedent for dictating some lifestyle choices as a matter of employment.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  Yeah if it impacts your ability to do your work more than a little that's a different thing.
- ProAm 7y ago
  Pilots cannot consume alcohol 8 hours prior to flying for example.
  - spiorf 7y ago
    The survival of hundreds of people has more value than freedom of an individual in his free time. One should not be allowed to put other people at risk for fun/entertainment/whatever. Profit for a business, on the other hand, must not have more value than freedom of an individual. Otherwise, taking this to the extreme, it means slavery. Max profit for no freedom.
    - ProAm 7y ago
      I mostly agree, but U-Haul is also directly involved with transportation that can affect hundreds. But I strongly suspect they are just trying to lower their insurance premiums and costs of employees not at work/downtime due to health related illness
      - rubyfan 7y ago
        Corporate employers generally pay a big chunk of healthcare plans and the large size of the pool is helpful in keeping overall risk and cost lower. As long as people expect to get their health care from their employers then employers will have a say in lifestyle decisions of their employees.
zebraflask 7y ago
Well, I suppose we can all add U-Haul to the list of companies that make absurd decisions that damage their brand. Not dinging anyone who works there, but if you work for a budget trucking company and can't have a cig after what, I am assuming, isn't a great job in the first place?

by im3w1l 7y ago

The definition of working hours are the hours when the employer can tell you what to do. If they want to say you can't smoke at night then it's no longer free time and they should be paying overtime.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

Exactly. They could just as well say no rock climbing or mountain biking on personal time for the same reason (presumably health insurance cost is what's behind this move) though obviously that would be harder to enforce. Companies having a financial incentive to care about what you do when you're not on the clock is just another reason that we shouldn't have coupled healthcare to employment. Not granting smoking breaks or prohibiting employees from smelling like smoke is one thing but disallowing it entirely is too much intrusion into employee's lives.

droopyEyelids 7y ago

You're proposing new labor laws with this idea. Thats good! However, you shouldn't confuse what makes intuitive sense with the laws governing your country.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
You're also confusing something: that plenty of legal things are not socially tolerated. If a company came out saying 'sorry, we don't hire feminists'... they might... face consequences. Even if that is legal. Right now U Haul is going after an easy target, since most people hate smoking - but the idea that just because it's legal it won't have any consequences is silly. Companies can be boycotted, they could get grilled in congressional hearings, new laws can be passed, and because of incendiary behavior they can get scrutiny for the non-incendiary behavior (see Shkreli) and other negatives can happen. The law is supposed to codify what makes sense, and when it doesn't, it many times will soon. Many times that includes nailing someone to the wall to set an example. I hope enough people call their lawmakers to pressure the system into dragging the U Haul executives who made this decision through the coals. This 1984 style 'we are going to see everything you do' is getting out of hand.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  You and OP are both right. Smoking is bad, but labor laws should protect your job from arbitrary dismissal for legal activities outside of work.
  - magduf 7y ago
    Maybe, but the problem is that smokers cost the company a lot more than non-smokers, due to this country's strange expectation that your employer should subsidize your health insurance. If we didn't have this idea that your ability to afford health insurance should be tied to full-time employment, then this shouldn't be an issue. But I can see that companies have a very good argument for discriminating against people who willingly choose to harm their bodies and incur higher healthcare costs. If we as a society don't want companies forcing their will on employees for things they do off-hours, then maybe we as a society should change the way healthcare insurance is handled.
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      I agree with healthcare insurance being changed. I will say, just because it costs them more money doesn't mean they should legally be able to act on that. Many times someone from a certain religion might cost an employer more than someone who doesn't need religious prayer breaks. But legally employers can't act on that. I'm not saying smoking = religion, but I am saying information available to make logical decisions != the ability to act on that information. Just saying we've already made the decision that we will legally restrict companies from acting on certain pieces of information and therefore we can expand this existing framework to protect other life choices (eating fatty foods, skiing hobby, driving a sports car, having kids, etc)
      - magduf 7y ago
        >Many times someone from a certain religion might cost an employer more than someone who doesn't need religious prayer breaks. But legally employers can't act on that. They can't act on that, specifically because we have a law that prevents them from doing so. Religion is a "protected class" in employment, along with a few other things (race, gender, etc.). Smoking is not a protected class, so employers are free to discriminate all they want. Do you really want to spend your time writing to Congress to have them pass a law making smoking a protected class? >having kids, etc) I'm not sure, but I think having kids is already a protected class. If it isn't, it probably wouldn't be that hard to get that law passed. Getting it passed for smokers would not be so easy. Personally, if Democrats took this up as a major campaign issue, instead of focusing on more important things, I probably wouldn't vote for them any more.

tnel77 7y ago

I’m not willing to find a source to back up this statement, but I’d be willing to wager that employees that don’t have nicotine in their system are, on average, healthier than their nicotine consuming coworkers. Pretty much every business is interested in lowering their healthcare costs. Regardless, doesn’t seem like U-Haul should be able to tell you to not use a legal substance during your personal time.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rtkwe 7y ago
> Pretty much every business is interested in lowering their healthcare costs. My company does this by just charging people who smoke an additional couple dollars every paycheck for their healthcare.
- lightbyte 7y ago
  Do they also charge people who drink, are overweight, don't exercise? Seems odd to only single out smoking.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    Those things are bad for your health, obviously, but aren't as easy to charge for since they aren't binary. How would you decide if someone was 'overweight' or didn't exercise? You couldn't base it on weight, because some people have a lot of muscle. How many hours do you need to exercise? What counts as exercise? How intense does it have to be? Do you charge someone who is 100 pounds overweight the same as someone who is 200? Or 10? Smoking is binary, so you can easily price for it.
    - humbledrone 7y ago
      Smoking is not binary either; there's a world of difference between a couple cigarettes a week while at the bar vs. a pack a day every day.

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago

Then those employees can pay higher insurance premiums.

selectodude 7y ago
...they do. Do you think your insurance company asks you if you smoke because they want to bum one?
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  Employers also carry some of the burden. By making their pool healthier U-Haul gets a better deal.
  - Clubber 7y ago
    That reminds me of the time Papa John said he wouldn't give his employees health insurance because it would cost an extra 14 cents a large pizza. Heaven forbid.
    - pkaye 7y ago
      I believe the raised the prices but then cut the hours below threshold to provide health insurance.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- swozey 7y ago
  Is this a common question and I'm just not remembering it? I can't recall one time in the last 10-15 years where I've had a company insurer ask if I'm a smoker. I just pick PPO/HDHP from a list of options. I did this a month ago and don't remember it at all.
- giobox 7y ago
  While my Dr of course wants to know, my employment based health insurance plans in the US have never once asked if I was a smoker. They don't really ask anything, other than "which plan would you like?" - if you pay for it you get it. Happy to be corrected by someone who knows more, but my understanding is the major deciding factor in the cost of a workplace plan is average age of the workforce at the company, basically little else. For companies I've worked for, the individual health of those who work there was not factored at all. I'm willing to bet that if you tell the insurer "we don't hire smokers" you likely get a better price though.

mfer 7y ago

I'm not sure this works out. I know that people who operate heavy machinery in some states are tested to make sure they never, even in their free time, ingest certain things. Even legal ones. In their case it's done (IIRC) because of the impact those things can have on decision making and it's a safety issue. These situations can even be required by insurance companies to have coverage for the machinery operation. While the case is different it does show a precedent for dictating some lifestyle choices as a matter of employment.

im3w1l 7y ago
Yeah if it impacts your ability to do your work more than a little that's a different thing.
ProAm 7y ago
Pilots cannot consume alcohol 8 hours prior to flying for example.
- spiorf 7y ago
  The survival of hundreds of people has more value than freedom of an individual in his free time. One should not be allowed to put other people at risk for fun/entertainment/whatever. Profit for a business, on the other hand, must not have more value than freedom of an individual. Otherwise, taking this to the extreme, it means slavery. Max profit for no freedom.
  - ProAm 7y ago
    I mostly agree, but U-Haul is also directly involved with transportation that can affect hundreds. But I strongly suspect they are just trying to lower their insurance premiums and costs of employees not at work/downtime due to health related illness
    - rubyfan 7y ago
      Corporate employers generally pay a big chunk of healthcare plans and the large size of the pool is helpful in keeping overall risk and cost lower. As long as people expect to get their health care from their employers then employers will have a say in lifestyle decisions of their employees.

zebraflask 7y ago

Well, I suppose we can all add U-Haul to the list of companies that make absurd decisions that damage their brand. Not dinging anyone who works there, but if you work for a budget trucking company and can't have a cig after what, I am assuming, isn't a great job in the first place?