Ocala.com Bloggers
- Broken News
- Bill Thompson
- Digital Editor
- Eric Barnes
- Frame 37
- Ocala.com Multimedia
- Marion Politics
- Newsroom
- Observations
- Naseem S. Miller
- OcalaDay
- Joe Byrnes
- Read My E-Mail
- Allen Parson
- Running Wide Open
- Joe Vanhoose
- Speaking of Business...
- Dr. Philip R. Geist
- The Bowling Blog
- Debbie Whitten
- The Green Zone
- Dave Rhea
- The Sports Blog
- Gregory Broome
- What is that?
- Newsroom
 |
Search Blogs
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Blog Archives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smokers need not apply
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Location: Blogs Now We're Talking |
 |
| Posted by: Joe Byrnes |
7/24/2007 5:14 PM |
This entry ran as a Wednesday column in the Star-Banner.
The city of Ocala is offering one more reason to tell your kids not to smoke, and, if you're a youngster, another reason to avoid the nasty habit.
This minor, local incentive is in addition to the obvious ones: the prospect of a long, lingering, painful death from heart disease or lung cancer and the daily waste of hard-earned cash, money that literally goes up in smoke.
Ocala's new reason to quit is this: If you do smoke, the city won't give you a job, not with the Police Department, Ocala Electric Utility or Public Works or as a clerk or manager in City Hall. City Manager Paul Nugent told me the fire department already doesn't hire smokers, because of the added dangers from smoke inhalation during firefighting.
Let me be clear. I'm an ex-smoker, and I know that smoking - though I still, absurdly, find it tempting at times - is a disgusting, odor-infusing, teeth-yellowing, face-crinkling, kiss-killing waste of life.
Some people appear to believe it gives them cachet as a sophisticated person or a rebel. I'm convinced, however, that most smokers above the age of 20 would like to quit. But smoking is an addiction and they find it hard to do so. In so many ways - at work and out in the public - nicotine addicts are, unfortunately, made to feel like outcasts.
Despite all my anti-smoking sentiments, I don't think the city should discriminate against smokers for the perfectly legal thing they do in their private lives.
The new policy, if ratified, will go into effect Oct. 1 and won't apply to existing employees. Nugent said it is intended to save health care costs in the long run by cutting down on expensive claims for medical conditions brought on by smoking. The city, he said, already has programs for its workers - whose average age is 48 - to promote healthy eating and help them quit smoking.
On one hand, taxpayers - and employers in general - shouldn't have to subsidize the health care costs associated with an employee's unhealthy habit.
On the other hand, the government has no business telling workers what to do in their private lives.
There are other risky practices that could result in health care costs, like extreme sports, motorcycle riding, drinking, sexual promiscuity. You don't see the city trying to screen applicants for those activities. A spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union in Miami made that point last week. He also told me that back in the mid-90s the Florida Supreme Court ruled cities can discriminate against smokers in their hiring practices.
That doesn't make it right.
Some private employers already have no-smoking requirements, but different expectations apply to the City Council. It is a government entity representing everyone equally within its jurisdiction - smokers and nonsmokers alike - and that includes offering all of them equal opportunities for a job.
By this decision to butt into their private lives, the city will lose the chance to hire some of the most qualified applicants.
Also, I wonder about enforcement. Nugent said applicants will be asked to indicate whether or not they smoke and a lie on the application can result in termination.
I can picture it now: The new city accountant holding her breath and hiding her cigarette under the table as another city official stumbles past her up to the bar.
Should Ocala institute a policy against hiring smokers? Consider this question an invitation to share your views by adding a comment to the blog.
Joe Byrnes can be reached at joe@ocala.com or (352) 867-4112. |
|
| Permalink |
Trackback |
Comments (4)
Add Comment
|
Re: Smokers need not apply |
By anonymous on
7/24/2007 6:48 PM |
| NO I don't think the City should descrimate against smokers. So many people believe that smoking alone increases health care costs. Smoking is a terrible habit and certainly does cause heart disease and cancer. However, there are so many other bad habits that are increasing health care costs as well. Look at how many people eat fast food loaded with so much fat and contain so many heart clogging ingredients. What you eat is just as bad for you as purposely filling your lungs with smoke. Do the research; what people are eating and drinking is killing thm as well, if not faster. Let's take a count of how many smokers the City has and how many are obese or overweight. Maybe they also should not hire anyone who is overweight because they too are a risk for rising health care costs. Look at the recent study showing that soft drinks are linked to heart disease. Know... How many soda machines are throughout the workplace in the City. If the City is going to choose healthier employees they they should probably have a weight scale in every office. |
|
|
Re: Smokers need not apply |
By anonymous on
7/25/2007 6:34 PM |
| Smokers should have a higher premium than no smokers. As a public employee I don't think I should have to pay<br> the same as smokers. They are driving up the cost of health care and cost due to lost time for health related issues and "smoke breaks: |
|
|
Re: Smokers need not apply |
By Sheena E on
7/25/2007 10:02 PM |
| No, Ocala should not institute a policy against hiring smokers. Saying it's because they present a greater health risk is ludicrous: what about all the obese people and their health issue costs? You can't say you're going to discriminate against one group of people - smokers - when you have others, obese people, those who drink heavily or smoke pot or are addicted to prescription drugs so on so forth. What if insurance companies rewarded those of us who don't smoke, don't stuff ourselves, those of us who exercise and take care of our bodies with lower insurance rates.... why not try REWARDS instead of punishments???????? |
|
|
Re: Smokers need not apply |
By D Brown on
8/2/2007 5:30 PM |
| I realize smoking is a habit not to get into. It does cause many health problems for the smoker and the people who breathe in second hand smoke.<br>On the other hand, I'm more concerned with other life habits that I would not want my child to learn. Like stealing, lying dating co-workers who are married, viewing porn on city computers, taking bribes, drug and alcohol abuse, to list a few.<br>If you are going to get tough, let's get tough on some real problems. <br>This smoking issue is fine, but I feel what people do on their personal time is nobody's business, after all it is legal under the law.<br>This is really getting into Big Brother is watching. What will it be next? If you believe in God your out? If you eat red meat your out of luck my friend.<br>This is way out of line. We have some very serious issues to deal with here, let's get off the soap boxes and make some good decisions. |
|
|
|
|
|