Where There’s Smoke, You’re Fired, Ctd

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

I am an ex-smoker (I quite a three-pack-a-day habit almost 40 years ago), so I have great sympathy for nicotine addicts.  I have worked for a major corporation that had a no-smokers policy (the boss had quit and thought it was a good idea; it was his company).  But I have no space for UPenn’s irrational policy with respect to smokers.

If health and its associated costs are the criteria for hiring, then are they hiring people with high BMIs, high LDL-low HDL, high blood pressure, diabetes, alcoholism or any other health issue?  Likely yes, because the ADA won’t let them discriminate.  Well, I believe there is enough evidence available now to include nicotine addiction under the illness rubric.  I won’t go into serotonin and dopamine reactions, but a quick Google search will yield a lot of information that you would expect PennMed to already possess. It would seem that just because they can discriminate against smokers (and not any of the other health issues), PennMed is discriminating.  That may be good for the bottom line.  It will not do anything for smokers.  And it stinks worse than cigarette haze.

Another also goes after “nanny-state paternalism”:

So are they going to stop hiring obese people as well?

You know, I get that there is an externality on the health care system now that we are all buying in, but they could just pass the premium increase on to the employees. ObamaCare specifically allows insurance companies to charge smokers more, and even though we pay ridiculously huge taxes on our smoking already, I’d be OK with paying double the Pigovian tax rate.  It’s not economically efficient, but it’s ok – a bit of tax-incentive nudging by the government in health policy isn’t the worst thing in the world.  We encourage home-ownership and retirement savings as well, and I think we should tax the hell out of pot too, so fine.

But this is just stupid.  It is not about health.  It is about image and heavy-handed, nanny-state paternalism which is different not just in degree but in kind from small price incentives or public health campaigns (even if these are incentives are larger than the economically “optimal” level).  Somehow it has become OK for people to find pleasure in excessive food or alcohol or risky sexual behavior (all of which induce the same kinds of public health externalities), but not in tobacco.

So here’s my deal: don’t hire smokers, but don’t hire overweight people, drinkers, or anyone who enjoys recreational sex either (or for that matter, anyone who risks their body in expensive ways playing soccer or mountain climbing or doing anything vaguely dangerous and fun).

Update from another:

It seems to me that readers complaining about “nanny-state paternalism” in private companies are trying to have their ideological cake and eat it too. Last I heard, no one was talking about making it illegal to hire smokers – and in fact I imagine that in the end, the nanny-state paternalism of the ADA will strike down no-smoker policies. But for libertarians, why does their right to smoke trump my right to run a company with just the “image” I want?

Can’t We Get An EZ-Pass For Restaurants? Ctd

by Chris Bodenner

This embed is invalid


A reader writes:

I was going to save this topic for my own blog but this thread at the Dish has compelled me to write in. Other countries have already solved this “waiting for the cheque” problem years ago and they did it with a very low-tech solution.

In the past five months I’ve traveled to Australia once and the UK twice. One thing I noticed about some of the restaurants / pubs I visited was that they make you pay at the bar. Each food / drink purchase is a discrete transaction. You go to the bar where you give and pay for your order. You then take your drinks right away and if you ordered food they give you a marker and when it’s ready they bring your meal to your table. You repeat the process if you want more.

What I like about this approach is that it scales very well. The bar is optimized for taking orders and the customers transport their own drinks. One or two guys drop off the food and collect the empty glasses. Compare this with back home where servers in most restaurants and pubs will keep track of drink and food orders throughout the evening and give individual cheques when one or all of the patrons are ready to leave. The North American system only works well if it’s a small group where everyone is sitting in a fixed location for the whole evening and everyone has a car to get them home.

I’m the organizer of a social group that meets every Wednesday for a cinq-à-sept (five-to-seven), which is French Canadian for “happy hour” (note to all you Dishheads who think you’ve just improved your foreign language skills: be careful. In France it means something completely different.) On any given week between 30 and 60 people will show up. I’ve organized over a hundred of these evenings at a dozen different pubs / restaurants and I can say without hesitation that a system like they have in the UK / Australia would greatly improve our Pub Night events.

The North American system doesn’t just waste 20 minutes at the end of your evening; it’s the source of a bunch of other problems too. Orders for large groups take much longer and sometimes people forget to pay (intentionally or not). Sometimes customers don’t have enough money (this can’t happen if you have to pay before you order). It’s also hard on the servers who have to keep track of everything. And it breaks the rhythm of the evening if you want to move locations. You can’t just get up and leave; you have to wait for everyone to pay and this can take a long time depending on the size of the group.

Tabbedout looks promising but it only speeds things up if everyone in your party is using it which is unlikely to happen if you’re more than four people. What I would like to see is more restaurants adopt the UK / Australian model.

Another broadens the discussion:

When someone suggests that there’s an app for that, I wish the blog post or article would say how many people have smart phones, how many people have cell phones that aren’t smart phones, and how many people have land lines.

An app won’t help my father-in-law, who doesn’t have a cell phone. He eats out pretty regularly. An app won’t help my mother, because she only has a regular cell phone, not a smart phone. OK, they’re in their 80s. An app wouldn’t have helped one of my kids until recently, because of their phone contract. Thankfully, the contract expired. I’m in my early 60s. I would like to convert my cell phone to a smart phone, but if I do that, the monthly cost will have to come out of my restaurant budget. If I had to use an app to get efficient service, I couldn’t afford to eat out.

I spend too darn much on technology. There’s television, broadband and land line phone bundled into a big package with a big bill, plus a cell phone bill every month for just one person. Being a single person is expensive; I’m a widow, but I am a lot more sympathetic to the comments of single friends these days. I could get rid of the land line phone, but that would save almost nothing. I can’t do without the broadband because I work from home some of the time. I don’t watch much television and don’t get HBO, so I don’t feel I’m being extravagant even though I only spend a few hours a week in front of the set.

If I only had to pay for a phone, I’d have a smart phone. But I need other services, too. They cost money and they don’t seem to be included in consumer price indexes. When I was growing up, television was free and in our geographically difficult area, a good signal was hard to get. My husband grew up in a region with good signals and access to more than one metro area, and he heard a much wider selection of music on the radio and saw more television than I did as a kid – when I got a transistor radio in high school, there was only one station that really came in clearly. Now I have to pay to have things come in clearly, and I also have to pay to have Internet access. I’m dreading the day when a smart phone becomes a necessity, because then my monthly budget will be more expensive even though my income isn’t increasing.

Technology is making our lives very different, but it is a heck of a lot more expensive than writers from the national media acknowledge. Let’s take a sort of Suze Orman moment. Not saving for retirement? How much would you have in that retirement account if you relied on an antenna for television and never got cable? Kids need a college fund? How much could you have saved by not buying computers or paying for broadband? (Yeah, that brings up the issue of how the kids could get into college without access to computers and the Internet, so why aren’t those costs considered part of the market basket of essential expenses?) You know a senior citizen who needs more money for medications or a poor family that needs more cash for medical care? What would Suze say – “Ditch those cell phones and save, people”? Maybe the 47 percent have just had a hard time keeping up with the additional cost of supporting Microsoft, Apple, Verizon, among others, along with the cell phone and cable companies.

While I know it is possible to do without television, I think the time has come to agree that Internet access and basic cell phone service are, well, basic requirements. But a smart phone to pay a restaurant bill quickly is not a basic requirement. Find another way to serve all the credit card customers, not just the ones with pricey phone plans.

I wish I wasn’t turning into a curmudgeon, but money is a dimension often left out of discussions of technological solutions. Figure out the cost of the shiny new app and the equipment it runs on before recommending it to all of us.

Mental Health Break

by Chris Bodenner

Fraggle Rock was even more morbid than you remember:

Update from a reader:

I loved Fraggle Rock when my kids were small in the ’80s. It was soooo well done. It was genuinely amusing for them and for me. There was always a thoughtful issue – something concerning the competing populations or something universal to all of them – gently introduced in each episode in interesting and sympathetic ways kids could consider. I’ve thought many times over the years that it’s really quite amazing that it hasn’t come back for subsequent generations. Beats any of the programming available to my grandson today hands down! It’s a great loss.

(Hat tip: Scott Beale)

Sexy Sneezing, Ctd

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

I can’t tell you how happy I am to hear of the 2008 paper on “sneezing induced by sexual ideation.” I have “suffered” with this problem my whole life and have made futile web searches to understand this issue. (I use quotations around “suffered” because it isn’t that big of a deal.) For as long as I can remember, sex and sexual arousal – literally just thoughts of sex – have made me sneeze and get a runny nose. If I am very mentally aroused, I might sneeze 6-8 times and my nose just gets flooded, so this doesn’t have to be associated with any physical contact whatsoever.

It’s not a big deal in that I have been married for over 20 years and have a rich and rewarding sex life. When we were first dating, my wife thought I was allergic to her – quite the opposite, I can assure you dear! Nevertheless, it’s not exactly convenient to get a runny nose during intercourse. When you fancy yourself a smooth player, it kind of kills the fantasy each time you have to stop and blow your nose (“oooh, does that feel good, yeah, yeah – oh, just a sec – [grabs tissue] HOOORRNK!”).

However, after all these years, I think it bothers me more than it does my wife – i.e., I will forever be super self-conscious of this odd affliction where she is just fine with me as I am (or at least does a good job of not making me feel weird about something that cannot be helped). So the thing that sucks the most about sneezing associated with arousal is that it makes it almost impossible to hide what you are thinking.

Thankfully I have entered my mid-40s and occasionally think about something other than sex (occasionally). Because of this privacy issue I have obviously not shared this with other people even though I am generally a very open person and not even remotely prudish. I ask, would you want your kids, parents, or friends thinking you were being a horn dog every time you sneezed! “Whew, lot of pollen in the air today.” Of course I sneeze infrequently for all kinds of reasons unrelated to sexual arousal and the last thing I want is everyone in the room wondering why I am being such a pervert over an innocent sneeze while I watch The Antiques Roadshow. It’s bad enough that every time I sneeze I get that “boy, I know what you are thinking” look from my wife.

Ultimately, I guess I should just be pleased to report that, after 20 plus years of marriage, my wife can still make me sneeze like nobody else!

From The Archive: The First Face Of The Day

by Chris Bodenner

Scores Killed In Baghdad Market Bomb Attacks

Andrew published it on February 13, 2007:

With this photo, I’m going to try to introduce a new feature, made possible by the Atlantic’s Getty Images subscription. I hope to take the time each day to review as many of the news photographs in the past 24 hours and find a simple face to express something somewhere that is going on in the world. This is a depressing start, but I hope to include the full variety of human experience captured by Getty’s superb photographers. The criteria are simply a face and the past day.

The caption:

An Iraqi man injured in a car bomb explosion lies on a hospital bed February 12, 2007 in Baghdad, Iraq. On the anniversary of the attack on the Al-Askariya Mosque, five explosions went off in Baghdad including at least two car bombs at the Shorja market killing at least 80 people and wounding approximately 190. By Wathiq Khuzaie/Getty Images.