Not A Poet
Actually Chris, I did not give any examples. That question above was my first comment in this thread. I submit the following as justification.
...fire anyone who has a drink or two or three for lunch and returns to work.
Fairly common actually and quite justifiable.
Then the next thing is weight, Jim - because that's a proven health care burden - far more than smoking from the reports I've heard, far more than cancer, accidents, etc.
Can't really call this one too for off as there is some validity. Not sure about your statistic that overweight is far more dangerous than smoking though
Walking outside without a re-breather must also be banned, because of the health care concerns revolving around a polluted atmosphere (the irony that said companies are the largest contributors shouldn't go unnoticed).
Next, well, they'll definitely have to stop working people overtime, becaues of the health care concerns for exhaustion.
Oh, and also stop making people work hard at their jobs, because it's stressful and can require care for physcological help.
Actually, should probably require the cessation of all sex, period, because it costs a lot of money to have and raise a child from the health care perspective.
Too, to add to the list, should eliminate any machinery, vehicles, etc. as they are frequent causes of accidents which result not only in increased health care costs, but also in litigation. (Again, note the irony that if they spent a little more money up-front on realistic safety programs and training, this could be drastically reduced).
An additional thought, Jim - should that same company also be allowed to refuse employment to someone based on gender, race, religious preference, etc?
Should an employer be able to refuse someone a job if they're taking pain medication? Anti-depressants? If they drink beer at night? Should they be able to refuse someone a job if they're a Republican? A Democrat? A Wiccan? Should an employer be able to refuse someone a job if they like to climb mountains on the weekend? Race cars? Bungee jump?
Off the wall!
... accidents caused by deer every year are far more expensive then smokers
Relevant or ridiculous?
As a former employer as well as employee, I am well aware of the costs of health insurance. And although some companies make the employees pay for it, all certainly do not. In the incident cited, we don't know which was the case. Since the cost to the company was given as the reason, I think it fairly safe to assume the company was paying. Small companies that try to provide that costly benefit to their employees are to be commended. Their costs per employee far exceed those of larger companies. Anything, within reason, that they can do to reduce the costs so as to continue providing the benefit seems perfectly reasonable to me. The alternative is to no longer provide insurance. Many, if not most, individuals cannot even purchase health insurance and, if they can, the cost can be entirely prohibitive. I like the idea of having that benefit. And, like Jim said, if you would rather smoke than have that perfect job at that particular company then look elsewhere. Where is the impinging on your rights there?