Buh.

[rowyn]

There are many ways to respond to the high cost of health care. But I can't say that I care for this one. O_o

I'm glad I don't work there. And bully for the four people who refused to take the test; I hope they find a better company to work for soon.

I won't say "there oughta be a law" or "Weyco shouldn't be able to do this", because I don't believe in laws to control who a company hires and fires, or why. But I will say: I sure hope market forces clobber them hard.

Comments

[jim-lane.livejournal.com]

Since you were here in Florida, we passed a law (now in effect) that absolutely BANS smoking in businesses (the only exceptions being tobacco shops). Even our Elks Lodge, a *private* organization *not* dealing with the public, must adhere to the law, since we employ bartenders in our lounge, and sometimes in our catering-banquet-size kitchen. Were *all* the workers volunteers, we could have smoking in the lodge; have *one* paid employee, NOBODY can smoke in the building.

This also affected the dealership where I work. If you remember, when you stepped into the office area you were hit by "essence of cigar" (grin!); the owner lived in his office upstairs (near mine) and chain-smoked Cubans (hard to keep 'em lit, and they wiggle, scream and curse in Spanish a lot...). Nowadays, he smokes OUTSIDE, often sitting in his vehicle right near the patio ramp. Even though the smoke nearly killed me, I still think it's WRONG to ban the business owner from indulging in a LEGAL activity in his own business.

ALL the public bars, private clubs and organizations (with paid employees), even the hotels/motels were required to totally ban smoking inside the buildings. It hurt business at first, but the employees -- even the smokers -- mostly agree it's for the best. The bar patrons griped, but since there was nowhere they could go to smoke and drink -- other than their homes -- they've pretty much returned. The restaurant patrons LOVE it, since there's no longer an issue with "smoking or non-smoking" sections.

It's just sad that it had to come down to passing a law to see it happen...

As for insurance companies denying coverage to "risky" groups--- They already do this for people who engage in "risky" sports. I, too, see it expanding to ANY alcohol use, "lifestyle" choices, ALL active sports and activities; in effect, ANYTHING the insurance companies deem to be contrary to their maximum profits.

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

ALL the public bars, private clubs and organizations (with paid employees), even the hotels/motels were required to totally ban smoking inside the buildings.

This isn't entirely accurate. Smoking is permitted in bars that don't sell food (as a certain small percentage of their take). However, it is not permitted in restaurants with full bars.

In case you couldn't have guessed, I voted against the ban. Fat lot of good it did though.

Oops!

[jim-lane.livejournal.com]

Thanks! Good catch! You're right about the bars; I'd forgotten the that detail of the law. It was even a "sticking point" issue with our Elks Lodge bar, as well as several local public ones. One local bar tried to slide under the enforcement radar by letting bar patrons order food from a take-out joint next door---that the bar owners just happened to own---and the food would be delivered by employees to the bar patrons, who never had to leave their bar stools. Worked for a few weeks, then the bar owners got slapped down by the State enforcement folks.

We simply set up a nice area outside our Lodge for the smokers, who, after grumbling for a while, decided the Lodge bar benefits outweighed the inconvenience of smoking outside. Nowadays, people (like me) who avoided the bar due to dislike/allergy to smoke can now enjoy an "adult beverage" with friends in comfort, especially when we have live musical entertainment.