GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-26-2013, 09:28   #26
fnfalman
Chicks Dig It
 
fnfalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California & New Mexico, US
Posts: 54,774


You can also pay 100% of your health insurance too. That way the company won't have to subsidize your health insurance and doesn't have squat to say about what you eat or how you are.
__________________
Can you dig it?
fnfalman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:43   #27
Dennis in MA
Get off my lawn
 
Dennis in MA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Taunton, MA
Posts: 52,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
The real solution - (if allowed or possible) is to pay people a salary - then they buy their own health insurance - life insurance - food - transportation - clothing - retirement - what ever the hell else they want and need.

Companies made a BIG mistake when they went down the fringe benefits road. Bad for companies - bad for the county.
I'll concur with this.

Fringies started as a way to pay people without other people finding out what you REALLY paid them. But I'm on board with just paying people and no more special bene's. I think the "we don't pay taxes" folk would be in for a "I'm responsible for my own life" reality check right quick.
__________________
The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
Dennis in MA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 09:47   #28
Angry Fist
Lifetime Membership
The Original
 
Angry Fist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 24,402
I will only hire the right people for the job. If they are the type who will always be out of shape, or pose medical or insurance liabilities, then why should I hire them. I'm in it to make a buck, and hopefully help others make money too. I should have the right to run my business, and my employees as I see fit.
__________________
I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, s**t-kickers, Methodists, and the GTDS.
Angry Fist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 10:18   #29
Atlas
transmogrifier
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 14,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angry Fist View Post
I will only hire the right people for the job. If they are the type who will always be out of shape, or pose medical or insurance liabilities, then why should I hire them. I'm in it to make a buck, and hopefully help others make money too. I should have the right to run my business, and my employees as I see fit.
As it should be.
__________________
June 28, 2012: the day the American republic died.

Uncontrolled, unaccountable government spending + Graduated income-tax = SLAVERY
Atlas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 12:22   #30
ChiTownPicaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by CourtCop View Post
The current US obesity rate is 35.7%. Do you really want more than 1/3 of the country unemployed and sucking on the the government tit?

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
I believe it is higher for overweight people.

No I don't. They should not get any money from the government. If they lose their jobs, it would not be because they were laid off but because they were harming the company and costing the company money. So no unemployment for them.
ChiTownPicaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 12:23   #31
ChiTownPicaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fracball View Post
So it's all about the bottom line, eh?

My employer has wellness testing where they collect and record basic health information. They also have health fairs and mandatory driving training for all employees regardless of whether you drive a company vehicle or not.

But my employer will not do anything about coworkers that surf FB, youtube and chat all day on company owned computers!
That doesn't cost the company nearly as much money.
ChiTownPicaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 12:24   #32
ChiTownPicaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revvv View Post
I'm pretty sure some of, if not all of, what is being requested is an invasion of my privacy. My cholesterol, BP, bmi, etc is my business. My wife can't even get this info from my doctor unless I approve.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
It is not an invasion of privacy. They are asking for it, not demanding it. If you don't want to share it, then you don't want to work there.
ChiTownPicaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 12:27   #33
ChiTownPicaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCHADENFREUDE View Post
I see the disability roles swelling soon. My question is this. Are those fat people doing their job? Do you want to send them home to sit on their couch and collect a check that we all pay for? Or do you want them to get up and go to work and help pay for all the able body people sitting at home already?

I think both sides of the political spectrum need to get out of people's life's. If any person uses more health care than some guy in an office says is the usual than they should pay more for it. That would be if you are fat, cancerous, kidney disease, etc. If you are fat and use no insurance you are costing no one anything. If your fatness starts to eat away at you then you have to pay for it. That would be personal accountability.
Those unhealthy people are costing someone money and miss work more.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150026/un...3-billion.aspx

http://www.wellsphere.com/healthy-ea...rk-more/533922

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1016568.html

Sorry but the fatties are affecting the bottom line.
ChiTownPicaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 12:50   #34
Mushinto
Master Member
 
Mushinto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne, Florida, USA
Posts: 12,050
As long as they do the same for drinkers, I might get on board.

Otherwise, it is a stupid way to impose your fake values on someone else.

I am not a fan of fat people, but there is not real evidence that they cost employers more money than, smokers, drinkers, gay people, senior citizens, black males between 14 and 29, skiers, or any other group that may contain people who are considered high risk based on some non-sense average.

Oh, and let's make sure we do not hire any diabetics, or people with a history of heard disease, or a family history of cancer ... Do I need to go on?
__________________
ML

Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. Be kind, always.
Mushinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 14:04   #35
Revvv
Senior Member
 
Revvv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
The real solution - (if allowed or possible) is to pay people a salary - then they buy their own health insurance - life insurance - food - transportation - clothing - retirement - what ever the hell else they want and need.

Companies made a BIG mistake when they went down the fringe benefits road. Bad for companies - bad for the county.
Isn't this how it's supposed to be. Anything else is socialism.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Revvv is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 14:05   #36
Revvv
Senior Member
 
Revvv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTownPicaro View Post
It is not an invasion of privacy. They are asking for it, not demanding it. If you don't want to share it, then you don't want to work there.
That would be demanding.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Revvv is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2013, 22:54   #37
Mushinto
Master Member
 
Mushinto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne, Florida, USA
Posts: 12,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
The real solution - (if allowed or possible) is to pay people a salary - then they buy their own health insurance - life insurance - food - transportation - clothing - retirement - what ever the hell else they want and need.
Actually, it is much cheaper to pay for employee benefits, than it is to give them the money in salary and expect them to buy their own.

-- Wages are taxed by the feds, while money spent on benefits is not.

-- Wages are calculated at time and one-half for overtime, and benefits do not figure in overtime.

-- If an employee's retirement is based on their salary, then the value of the benefits is not calculated into their pension.

-- Companies would have to pay higher salaries to part time workers who often receive the same salary as full time workers, but not the benefits.

Quote:
Companies made a BIG mistake when they went down the fringe benefits road. Bad for companies - bad for the county.
I'm sure you are quoting someone who is envious of another person's employment package. I'm sure that person would like to see that other worker's compensation package somehow find its way into his own. That my friend is re-distribution of wealth and is the hallmark of socialism
__________________
ML

Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. Be kind, always.
Mushinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 01:00   #38
captainstormy
Senior Member
 
captainstormy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 3,939
Send a message via ICQ to captainstormy Send a message via AIM to captainstormy Send a message via Yahoo to captainstormy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mushinto View Post
As long as they do the same for drinkers, I might get on board.

Otherwise, it is a stupid way to impose your fake values on someone else.

I am not a fan of fat people, but there is not real evidence that they cost employers more money than, smokers, drinkers, gay people, senior citizens, black males between 14 and 29, skiers, or any other group that may contain people who are considered high risk based on some non-sense average.

Oh, and let's make sure we do not hire any diabetics, or people with a history of heard disease, or a family history of cancer ... Do I need to go on?
Exactly, I really don't think that people want to go down this road.

If employer's start firing employee's based on their risky behaviors that could lead to any sort of insurance claims or time off work, then almost nobody would have a job.
__________________
I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them. - John Bernard Books(John Wayne in The Shootist)
captainstormy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 01:03   #39
Atlas
transmogrifier
 
Atlas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: north of the equator
Posts: 14,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by captainstormy View Post
Exactly, I really don't think that people want to go down this road.

If employer's start firing employee's based on their risky behaviors that could lead to any sort of insurance claims or time off work, then almost nobody would have a job.
So the economy would collapse and it would be the end of civilization as we know it?
__________________
June 28, 2012: the day the American republic died.

Uncontrolled, unaccountable government spending + Graduated income-tax = SLAVERY
Atlas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 01:23   #40
ChiTownPicaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revvv View Post
That would be demanding.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Ok. But they have the right to ask. If you say no, then they have the right to find an employee who will work with them and not cost them as much.
ChiTownPicaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 01:30   #41
ChiTownPicaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mushinto View Post
As long as they do the same for drinkers, I might get on board.

Otherwise, it is a stupid way to impose your fake values on someone else.

I am not a fan of fat people, but there is not real evidence that they cost employers more money than, smokers, drinkers, gay people, senior citizens, black males between 14 and 29, skiers, or any other group that may contain people who are considered high risk based on some non-sense average.

Oh, and let's make sure we do not hire any diabetics, or people with a history of heard disease, or a family history of cancer ... Do I need to go on?
Actually there is evidence that obese people do miss work more often. See the articles I posted a few posts above. The company has to take losses because fatties are staying home and not working. They also are more likely to get sicknesses such as diabetes, cancer, and sicker. There is real evidence that they cost the employers more money.

The same for smokers.

http://ash.org/papers/h100.htm

http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/smokers.htm

There are many companies that try to get rid of smokers but big gub'mint socialists say that they have the right to smoke on their off time and can't be fired for it. It is unfortunate they are not always able to fire them.

Here are more articles on obesity and the cost to healthcare:

http://mashable.com/2012/06/01/obese...s-infographic/

The above article says that smokers and drinkers don't cost the company as much. So you won't get behind it until they do the same for drinkers? I understand your logic, but the fatties are costing us more. So why not get rid of them? Only Obama and the socialists would not want corporations to be able to fire them for the costs of their company. It makes good fiscal sense.
ChiTownPicaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 02:42   #42
samurairabbi
Dungeon Schmuck
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
Companies made a BIG mistake when they went down the fringe benefits road. Bad for companies - bad for the county.
Actually, it was ORIGINALLY a smart move; it originated during WW2. Wages were subject to freezes, but company paid health insurance was not, nor was it taxed as employee income
It therefore became a way to attract workers without crossing the law. When the war.ended, that wartime temporary measure simply stuck around.
__________________
Samurai Rabbi
samurairabbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 04:21   #43
Kingarthurhk
Isaiah 53:4-9
 
Kingarthurhk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 7,575
Quote:
Originally Posted by M2 Carbine View Post
If they are going to insist in getting into your private life then go all the way.
Fire an employee that uses a cell phone while driving.

Definitely fire dopers.

Fire employees that don't eat enough fresh fruit.

Fire employees that drive too old a (unsafe) car.

Fire an employee that doesn't get enough sleep.

Of course fire everyone when they reach the age of 50.

Fire any woman with big boobs and a nice butt. She is a distraction that may get someone hurt while looking at her.


No, I'm really tired of people, government, work, whatever getting into peoples private lives.

As a pilot it was my responsibility to maintain decent enough health to fly but I think such as that is the limit.
Interesting. The usual consensus around here is private business can do whatever they please, whenever they please, to whomever they please.
__________________
Glock 17, 19, 20SF, 21C, 22, 26, 27, Glock E-Tool, Glock knife
Quod ego haereticus appellari sequere Jesum.
Kingarthurhk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 06:56   #44
sarge83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: KY
Posts: 1,434
I predict that lawyers will have a field day with some of these companies under the ADA act in the near future.
sarge83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 10:20   #45
ChiTownPicaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 655
Why do you think the ADA will come into play? Being an obese fattie and/or a smoker is not a disability. These are lifestyle choices.

It is shameful that people might support the gub'mint in stopping these kinds of business practices. The market needs less regulation. (Not to say you were supporting the gub'mint.). The idea that a company cannot just fire the fatties because they are fat is frightening when we know they are hurting the bottom lines of their employers. If I was brought to court I would point out that they are legally bound to make as much money for their shareholders and this is one way to do so.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
ChiTownPicaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 10:30   #46
devildog2067
Senior Member
 
devildog2067's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 15,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Revvv View Post
Our health isn't the source of the Country's financial distress.
Actually, it pretty much is. Medicare is going to bankrupt our country.
devildog2067 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 10:32   #47
devildog2067
Senior Member
 
devildog2067's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 15,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z71bill View Post
The real solution - (if allowed or possible) is to pay people a salary - then they buy their own health insurance - life insurance - food - transportation - clothing - retirement - what ever the hell else they want and need.
Yup.

Quote:
Companies made a BIG mistake when they went down the fringe benefits road. Bad for companies - bad for the county.
It wasn't up to the companies. The US government instituted wage controls during WWII. Offering benefits was one of the ways that companies got around that--it was something else they could offer to a prospective employee, but didn't count against the salary cap. The whole problem started with government interference in the labor market.
devildog2067 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 11:09   #48
Chesafreak
Senior Member
 
Chesafreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chesapeake, VA
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by M2 Carbine View Post
If they are going to insist in getting into your private life then go all the way.
Fire an employee that uses a cell phone while driving.

Definitely fire dopers.

Fire employees that don't eat enough fresh fruit.

Fire employees that drive too old a (unsafe) car.

Fire an employee that doesn't get enough sleep.

Of course fire everyone when they reach the age of 50.

Fire any woman with big boobs and a nice butt. She is a distraction that may get someone hurt while looking at her.


No, I'm really tired of people, government, work, whatever getting into peoples private lives.

As a pilot it was my responsibility to maintain decent enough health to fly but I think such as that is the limit.
I agree about keeping the government out of our private lives. However, nobody owes you insurance. Insurance is not a guaranteed civil right. Insurance companies are in business to make a profit and an obese person or smoker is more likely to cost them more to insure you.

You CAN keep the insurance companies out of your private life... don't buy insurance. But be prepared to pay a fine (tax) to the IRS. I am def. against the fine, but all for insurance companies charging you more (or less) for your lifestyle choices. Sometimes you just have to take responsibility for your actions.

Last edited by Chesafreak; 03-27-2013 at 11:17..
Chesafreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 11:27   #49
Mushinto
Master Member
 
Mushinto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne, Florida, USA
Posts: 12,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by devildog2067 View Post
Actually, it pretty much is. Medicare is going to bankrupt our country.
Interesting, that of all the money our government spends, you would single out medicare as the culprit.
Mushinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 11:29   #50
devildog2067
Senior Member
 
devildog2067's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Near Chicago, IL
Posts: 15,766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mushinto View Post
Interesting, that of all the money our government spends, you would single out medicare as the culprit.
Not really

The Okie Corral
devildog2067 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:59.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,049
258 Members
791 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42