Employer states I can't keep CCW in car

[JohnKSa]

This sounds a bit overly conspiratorial. Very very few businesses pay medical expenses directly. They may help pay for a third party insurance company to cover people but that is typically all. So finding excuses to terminate smokers simply to lower medical costs doesn't seem that would be very likely.

I don't know how common this is, but my employer self-insures. They have an insurance company administer the program, but the the actual funds for making "insurance" payments to medical providers come directly from the company coffers. I expect that this is only likely to be done when the employer is quite a large company.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I don't know how common this is, but my employer self-insures. They have an insurance company administer the program, but the the actual funds for making "insurance" payments to medical providers come directly from the company coffers. I expect that this is only likely to be done when the employer is quite a large company.

It's actually fairly common, in a variety of forms, with employers having as few as 1,000 (or even 500) employees. Of course, employers toward the smaller end of that range usually work out some form or risk sharing mechanism with the insurance company. There are a lot of reason why these arrangements are popular, but they are rather technical; and we're already wandering far afield.

Suffice it to say that many employers are very much aware of the morbidity risks and the morbidity costs their work forces represent for their medical plans.

[mack59]

The smoking ban was strictly enforced however and a pattern of smokers being terminated from employment, even if they complied with the rules, seemed to indicate that if you were older or a smoker or had a history of health issues - that you were not long for employment - probably to due with an unofficial/unstated policy of lowering health care costs for the company (some employees caught on and started trying to hide the fact they smoked)...

"This sounds a bit overly conspiratorial. Very very few businesses pay medical expenses directly. They may help pay for a third party insurance company to cover people but that is typically all. So finding excuses to terminate smokers simply to lower medical costs doesn't seem that would be very likely."

Mid-sized company - self-insured except for catastrophic coverage - so company paid regular medical - and it wasn't just smokers - but also older employees and employees with regular health problems. So I am sure it did save them lots of money. And lots of companies go the self-insured with catastrophic coverage only route.


Quote:
...Companies of any size are run by lawyers and accountants - lawyers want to limit liabilty and accountants want to maximize profits - so if you are a potential liability or you may cut into profits - then you will be terminated - it doesn't matter how loyal or hard working or honest you are - the bottom line is money. Labor is cheap (helped by millions of illegal immigrants) and therefore few companies bother or worry about staff retention, as there is always someone else who will do the job for less.


"Turnover is in fact expensive and very inefficient. So the idea that most businesses don't cared about or even encourage turnover is simply ignorant of the facts. Between recruiting, hiring processes, training and the productivity lost until the new people get up to speed, it is quite expensive. So (contrary to what some may want you to believe) not only is actually taking care of employees the right thing to do but it actually makes good business sense too. "
__________________

Well it may depend on the field or the type of company - but getting rid on higher salary older workers or workers with senority who are up the pay scale and replacing them with new younger hires that can be paid less - seems to have happened where I worked - maybe it wasn't smart (personally I think the quality of service has decline significantly) - but it seems to have worked in the short term for them as they clear more money - when the new director took over the front line staff had between them perhaps 250 years experience working in the field - after 2 and a half years the front line staff has collectively roughly about 25 to 30 years experience. I know the CEO and CFO handpicked that new director and I assume that they took their marching orders from the CEO and CFO and I also assume they did the math and crunched the numbers.

Not a conspiracy, just business. I know the old business model used to be to value experienced employees - but I just don't see that for the most part anymore - companies seem to be much more short term profit focused - perhaps they feel constrained to make any immediate cuts they can due to tight budgets, falling profit margins, and intense competition for dollars.

Sorry this has wandered too far afield - the point is just that employers do under current law have alot of leeway to make policy regarding guns and their possession on their property - the only exception I am aware of - are those states that have passed laws allowing employees to store/keep arms locked in their vehicles in employee parking lots.

[dnr1128]

It is called 'at will' employment.

Every company I've worked for, from my first job at McDonalds, to a large oil drilling contractor, has a form in the papers you sign after being hired that states that you are an "at will" employee and can leave at any time and for any reason, and they can terminate you at any time and for any reason. As already stated by several posters, unless you're in a protected class, if you're get fired, you don't have any recourse.

Mid-sized company - self-insured except for catastrophic coverage - so company paid regular medical - and it wasn't just smokers - but also older employees and employees with regular health problems. So I am sure it did save them lots of money. And lots of companies go the self-insured with catastrophic coverage only route.

My company does that. My insurance card has the name and number of an insurance company, and they take care of all administration, but my employer pays the bills.