5 ms·

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,

by 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.
      - skyyler 7y ago
        And there's a world of difference between not inhaling smoke vs only inhaling smoke when you're drinking. Inhaling smoke isn't good for you.
        adrusi 7y ago
        How do you know that? (Also, if true, that still makes smoking not a binary)
        humbledrone 7y ago
        > Inhaling smoke isn't good for you. Sure. Neither is being overweight, which is just as measurable as nicotine use. (Probably more measurable, since you can't easily lie about being overweight.)
      - andrepd 7y ago
        Funnily enough, there isn't (that is, there is some, but not so much as you would thing). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865193/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865193/ It's the reason I've personally ceased my "smoking when drinking" habit.
        jdsully 7y ago
        That study is for “4-7 cigarettes per day”. Still quite heavy.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    There are (or were I haven't checked recently) various freebies to encourage exercise and stuff but no direct discounts or fees.
  - astura 7y ago
    My company gives bonuses for exercising.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Usually in the form of a discount for non-smokers
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    I can't remember exactly how it's set up but they're effectively the same thing.
JamesBarney 7y ago
This is also true of young people, slim people, exercisers, teetotalers. With many of these attributes having a larger impact on health than nicotine itself.(sans smoking)

by tnel77 7y ago

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.
    - skyyler 7y ago
      And there's a world of difference between not inhaling smoke vs only inhaling smoke when you're drinking. Inhaling smoke isn't good for you.
      - adrusi 7y ago
        How do you know that? (Also, if true, that still makes smoking not a binary)
      - humbledrone 7y ago
        > Inhaling smoke isn't good for you. Sure. Neither is being overweight, which is just as measurable as nicotine use. (Probably more measurable, since you can't easily lie about being overweight.)
    - andrepd 7y ago
      Funnily enough, there isn't (that is, there is some, but not so much as you would thing). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865193/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865193/ It's the reason I've personally ceased my "smoking when drinking" habit.
      - jdsully 7y ago
        That study is for “4-7 cigarettes per day”. Still quite heavy.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  There are (or were I haven't checked recently) various freebies to encourage exercise and stuff but no direct discounts or fees.
- astura 7y ago
  My company gives bonuses for exercising.
cortesoft 7y ago
Usually in the form of a discount for non-smokers
- rtkwe 7y ago
  I can't remember exactly how it's set up but they're effectively the same thing.

JamesBarney 7y ago

This is also true of young people, slim people, exercisers, teetotalers. With many of these attributes having a larger impact on health than nicotine itself.(sans smoking)