Overheard at Work

[fantabulous]

Depending on roommates it is sometimes hard to keep food in the house. I had to find a new roomate once because he was allways short on cash and eating my food. I started eating out all the time so he couldnt.

I used to have a problem with roommates drinking my beer. So I switched to scotch, which none of them could stomach. Problem solved.

I bet you could apply the same solution to food... though you might have to acquire a taste for kimchi or grasshoppers or something like that.

interesting,  i had a room mate that would drink any and everything including very expensive scotch when his red label,  dollar store handle ran out. solved that with some water and soy sauce.

bahahaha

[Timmmy]

"they turn water into something that isn't water!"

Steam?

[johnintaiwan]

interesting,  i had a room mate that would drink any and everything including very expensive scotch when his red label,  dollar store handle ran out. solved that with some water and soy sauce.

You are too nice. I solved that problem in University by filling an empty bottle of Jack Daniels with tobacco spit. Was pretty easy to find out who the thief was.

[caliq]

interesting,  i had a room mate that would drink any and everything including very expensive scotch when his red label,  dollar store handle ran out. solved that with some water and soy sauce.

You are too nice. I solved that problem in University by filling an empty bottle of Jack Daniels with tobacco spit. Was pretty easy to find out who the thief was.

Oh lord I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy...

DH used to spit in my empty Diet Coke bottles and one day I grabbed one thinking it had a little bit of soda left.......much screaming and vomiting ensued :(

[pancakes]

Too many people use budgets as a way to SPEND their money, not a way to save it.

I'm probably somewhere in the middle at the moment.

My tracking spreadsheet projects forward to the end of the month and predicts our savings rate. We aim for 50% each month and don't include income for sources other than salary so we will always save more than 50%. Knowing this, when it gets towards the end of the month and the sheet shows that we are tracking for 52 or 55%, I always end up upping our spend on luxury items. Last night we bought take away and a bottle of wine because I knew that it wouldn't impact negatively on our goal of 50% even though we had a meal planned and the ingredients in our house.

By putting too much emphasis on that short term goal of 50% and not enough on the long term goal of financial independence, we are selling ourselves short.

Cheers for the comment and making me think about it a bit more deeply :)

[Unique User]

CW and I were bitching about how we'd love to quit and leave the bs.  I shared that once DD's college is paid for, I'm only working if I want to.  She shares that she has already told her daughter that said daughter is on her own because CW is still paying for her own student loans for a degree earned 19 years ago, said degree took 8 years to earn.  I'm still trying to figure out how after 19 years you could still have student loans. 

[johnny847]

CW and I were bitching about how we'd love to quit and leave the bs.  I shared that once DD's college is paid for, I'm only working if I want to.  She shares that she has already told her daughter that said daughter is on her own because CW is still paying for her own student loans for a degree earned 19 years ago, said degree took 8 years to earn.  I'm still trying to figure out how after 19 years you could still have student loans.

That is impressive...in a bad way.

Still having a student loan balance after 19 years is still feasible with income based repayment plans. A quick search shows IBR's can go on for 20 or 25 years, depending on the plan. Any remaining balance after the period ends is forgiven.
Forgiven debts are generally counted as income, but the IRS says certain qualified student load forgiven balances are not taxed as income. I didn't read too much into this, so I'm not sure if forgiven balances after completing the terms of the IBR plan qualifies.

[Cheddar Stacker]

We graduated 14 years ago with various SL's totalling about $50k. We paid off a small one and consolidated the rest. Sallie Mae gave us a 25 year repayment plan at 4%. I paid a little extra here and there, but now I pay the minimums. I could write a check today to pay them off, but I don't want to. I think they are scheduled to mature in another 6-7 years. I hope to FIRE before then, so I might retire with SL debt.

Different strokes.

[johnny847]

We graduated 14 years ago with various SL's totalling about $50k. We paid off a small one and consolidated the rest. Sallie Mae gave us a 25 year repayment plan at 4%. I paid a little extra here and there, but now I pay the minimums. I could write a check today to pay them off, but I don't want to. I think they are scheduled to mature in another 6-7 years. I hope to FIRE before then, so I might retire with SL debt.

Different strokes.

But I take it you've made a conscious decision to invest while not paying these student loans down faster than the minimum because you think you can earn more than 4% post tax on the difference (and I agree on the math here).
I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to coworkers overheard on this thread, and I assume that Unique User's CW is not doing what you're doing (and I'm pretty sure the statistics tilt in the favor of this assumption).

[Rural]

CW and I were bitching about how we'd love to quit and leave the bs.  I shared that once DD's college is paid for, I'm only working if I want to.  She shares that she has already told her daughter that said daughter is on her own because CW is still paying for her own student loans for a degree earned 19 years ago, said degree took 8 years to earn.  I'm still trying to figure out how after 19 years you could still have student loans.

That is impressive...in a bad way.

Still having a student loan balance after 19 years is still feasible with income based repayment plans. A quick search shows IBR's can go on for 20 or 25 years, depending on the plan. Any remaining balance after the period ends is forgiven.
Forgiven debts are generally counted as income, but the IRS says certain qualified student load forgiven balances are not taxed as income. I didn't read too much into this, so I'm not sure if forgiven balances after completing the terms of the IBR plan qualifies.

The standard repayment term on federal student loans 19 years ago was 30 years.

[Travis]

CW and I were bitching about how we'd love to quit and leave the bs.  I shared that once DD's college is paid for, I'm only working if I want to.  She shares that she has already told her daughter that said daughter is on her own because CW is still paying for her own student loans for a degree earned 19 years ago, said degree took 8 years to earn.  I'm still trying to figure out how after 19 years you could still have student loans.

That is impressive...in a bad way.

Still having a student loan balance after 19 years is still feasible with income based repayment plans. A quick search shows IBR's can go on for 20 or 25 years, depending on the plan. Any remaining balance after the period ends is forgiven.
Forgiven debts are generally counted as income, but the IRS says certain qualified student load forgiven balances are not taxed as income. I didn't read too much into this, so I'm not sure if forgiven balances after completing the terms of the IBR plan qualifies.

My best friend has been paying on her Stafford student loans for about 5 years paying the minimum.  I looked at her numbers and if she keeps paying the minimum it'll take another 14-16 years.  Over the life of her loans she'll end up paying an extra 25% in total interest.

[wileyish]

I'm at work now and CW1 just told CW2 that a mile is way too far to walk.

A while back a big group of us (~15) decided to go for lunch at a place 10 city blocks away from our office. 13 people drove, 2 of us walked. So they took 3 or 4 cars to drive one mile, in pleasant weather on a sunny day. The other walker and I arrived at the restraunt before the car clowns because we work downtown and you have to circle several blocks to find a place to park. And then pay for parking!

[johnny847]

CW and I were bitching about how we'd love to quit and leave the bs.  I shared that once DD's college is paid for, I'm only working if I want to.  She shares that she has already told her daughter that said daughter is on her own because CW is still paying for her own student loans for a degree earned 19 years ago, said degree took 8 years to earn.  I'm still trying to figure out how after 19 years you could still have student loans.

That is impressive...in a bad way.

Still having a student loan balance after 19 years is still feasible with income based repayment plans. A quick search shows IBR's can go on for 20 or 25 years, depending on the plan. Any remaining balance after the period ends is forgiven.
Forgiven debts are generally counted as income, but the IRS says certain qualified student load forgiven balances are not taxed as income. I didn't read too much into this, so I'm not sure if forgiven balances after completing the terms of the IBR plan qualifies.

The standard repayment term on federal student loans 19 years ago was 30 years.

Damn that's a long time. That's as long as some mortgages!

[Rural]

CW and I were bitching about how we'd love to quit and leave the bs.  I shared that once DD's college is paid for, I'm only working if I want to.  She shares that she has already told her daughter that said daughter is on her own because CW is still paying for her own student loans for a degree earned 19 years ago, said degree took 8 years to earn.  I'm still trying to figure out how after 19 years you could still have student loans.

That is impressive...in a bad way.

Still having a student loan balance after 19 years is still feasible with income based repayment plans. A quick search shows IBR's can go on for 20 or 25 years, depending on the plan. Any remaining balance after the period ends is forgiven.
Forgiven debts are generally counted as income, but the IRS says certain qualified student load forgiven balances are not taxed as income. I didn't read too much into this, so I'm not sure if forgiven balances after completing the terms of the IBR plan qualifies.

The standard repayment term on federal student loans 19 years ago was 30 years.

Damn that's a long time. That's as long as some mortgages!

True that. I'm not absolutely positive on the 30 year – maybe 75% positive, but if it wasn't 30 it was 25. Of that I'm certain.


What's the standard term now?

Edited add I found it. I was thinking about the standard plan for consolidation loans, which all of us did back about that time because the rates were much lower than for individual Stafford loans. 10 years is the standard repayment time on a non-consolidation loan.

https://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/understand/plans/standard

[Indexer]

This actually happened at a previous job, but the follow up makes it even funnier.

I had a boss at a financial firm who also worked as a waiter at night because he so badly needed the money.  Guy had to work 100 hours a week between the two jobs to afford his lifestyle.  One day he goes to a dealership, not to buy a car, but because the owner of the dealership is a client and he needs to sign some paperwork.  My boss is gone much longer than he needed to be and comes back with a Mercedes SL550 hard top sports car!   I knew he was a car guy, and I assumed the client just let him borrow it for the day.  He is soo excited!   Then he announces its his new car, and everyone is congratulating him.

Me:  "So let me guess, he let you borrow it for the day?"
Boss:  "Nope, I bought it, thats why I was gone so long, we already did the paperwork and the trade in on my old car(an Acura)."
Me:  "So you went to get papers signed... and you bought a car?"
Boss:  "Well I saw it, test drove it for fun while I was there, and just decided to buy it.  Closed the deal, got the papers signed, and I walked away with a Mercedes!"

Me(later, when no one else can hear):  "Can you actually afford that?"
Boss:  "Its going to be a stretch, I'm not sure."

3 months later he is freaking about about the payments on this thing, and trying to sell it without losing his shirt.  Eventually sells it, and gets a used SUV.  This was all a couple years ago.  He sent me a text of his new car.  Brand new Corvette.... and there was a new Acura parked next to it in the picture.

[horsepoor]

CW and I were bitching about how we'd love to quit and leave the bs.  I shared that once DD's college is paid for, I'm only working if I want to.  She shares that she has already told her daughter that said daughter is on her own because CW is still paying for her own student loans for a degree earned 19 years ago, said degree took 8 years to earn.  I'm still trying to figure out how after 19 years you could still have student loans.

That is impressive...in a bad way.

Still having a student loan balance after 19 years is still feasible with income based repayment plans. A quick search shows IBR's can go on for 20 or 25 years, depending on the plan. Any remaining balance after the period ends is forgiven.
Forgiven debts are generally counted as income, but the IRS says certain qualified student load forgiven balances are not taxed as income. I didn't read too much into this, so I'm not sure if forgiven balances after completing the terms of the IBR plan qualifies.

The standard repayment term on federal student loans 19 years ago was 30 years.

Damn that's a long time. That's as long as some mortgages!

True that. I'm not absolutely positive on the 30 year – maybe 75% positive, but if it wasn't 30 it was 25. Of that I'm certain.


What's the standard term now?

Edited add I found it. I was thinking about the standard plan for consolidation loans, which all of us did back about that time because the rates were much lower than for individual Stafford loans. 10 years is the standard repayment time on a non-consolidation loan.

https://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/understand/plans/standard

Mine are on a 30-year term, so I'm about 12 years in on them.  They had some interest rate float-down clauses based on auto-payments and good repayment history, so they're locked in at 1.875% now.  The reduction from the initial interest rate knocked a couple years off of the repayment term, too.  At worst, the payment is just annoying because I almost forget about it, so I'll eventually pay off the lump sum, but certainly in no hurry at that sweet rate.

[Unique User]

True that. I'm not absolutely positive on the 30 year – maybe 75% positive, but if it wasn't 30 it was 25. Of that I'm certain.


What's the standard term now?

Edited add I found it. I was thinking about the standard plan for consolidation loans, which all of us did back about that time because the rates were much lower than for individual Stafford loans. 10 years is the standard repayment time on a non-consolidation loan.

https://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/understand/plans/standard

Mine were ten years, guess I just assumed they all were! 

[Timmmy]

CW and I were bitching about how we'd love to quit and leave the bs.  I shared that once DD's college is paid for, I'm only working if I want to.  She shares that she has already told her daughter that said daughter is on her own because CW is still paying for her own student loans for a degree earned 19 years ago, said degree took 8 years to earn.  I'm still trying to figure out how after 19 years you could still have student loans.

That is impressive...in a bad way.

Still having a student loan balance after 19 years is still feasible with income based repayment plans. A quick search shows IBR's can go on for 20 or 25 years, depending on the plan. Any remaining balance after the period ends is forgiven.
Forgiven debts are generally counted as income, but the IRS says certain qualified student load forgiven balances are not taxed as income. I didn't read too much into this, so I'm not sure if forgiven balances after completing the terms of the IBR plan qualifies.

The standard repayment term on federal student loans 19 years ago was 30 years.

Damn that's a long time. That's as long as some mortgages!

True that. I'm not absolutely positive on the 30 year – maybe 75% positive, but if it wasn't 30 it was 25. Of that I'm certain.


What's the standard term now?

Edited add I found it. I was thinking about the standard plan for consolidation loans, which all of us did back about that time because the rates were much lower than for individual Stafford loans. 10 years is the standard repayment time on a non-consolidation loan.

https://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/understand/plans/standard

Mine are on a 30-year term, so I'm about 12 years in on them.  They had some interest rate float-down clauses based on auto-payments and good repayment history, so they're locked in at 1.875% now.  The reduction from the initial interest rate knocked a couple years off of the repayment term, too.  At worst, the payment is just annoying because I almost forget about it, so I'll eventually pay off the lump sum, but certainly in no hurry at that sweet rate.

Why not set it up on auto pay and ride out the full term? 

[horsepoor]

Why not set it up on auto pay and ride out the full term?

It will probably be our ONLY debt left at some point, so it will be nice to just knock it out, be 100% debt-free and not have to worry about the payment.  Not that I normally let my checking account get that low, but I do tend to forget about it, so when the auto-draw goes through, it's just a minor annoyance that I forgot to budget it.

[rocksinmyhead]

interesting,  i had a room mate that would drink any and everything including very expensive scotch when his red label,  dollar store handle ran out. solved that with some water and soy sauce.

You are too nice. I solved that problem in University by filling an empty bottle of Jack Daniels with tobacco spit. Was pretty easy to find out who the thief was.

Oh lord I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy...

DH used to spit in my empty Diet Coke bottles and one day I grabbed one thinking it had a little bit of soda left.......much screaming and vomiting ensued :(

my mom did this once too, when her brother used to chew tobacco and used an empty Pepsi can. ahhhh the horror!!!

"they turn water into something that isn't water!"

Steam?

bahahaha!

[zephyr911]

...the two he had in his name had been closed by the companies due to inactivity back in 09 we had found out.  And there were a number of questions on how we accumulated our level of assets I assure you.

Have you considered using them for normal expenses just for the rewards? There's really no downside if you manage them right.
I'll always keep (and regularly use) mine - even at a moderate level of spending, I pull in several hundred bucks a year in cash and travel credits.

This actually happened at a previous job, but the follow up makes it even funnier.

I had a boss at a financial firm...

How do financial firms manage to be staffed by people with such a complete lack of financial sense?

[Pooperman]

...the two he had in his name had been closed by the companies due to inactivity back in 09 we had found out.  And there were a number of questions on how we accumulated our level of assets I assure you.

Have you considered using them for normal expenses just for the rewards? There's really no downside if you manage them right.
I'll always keep (and regularly use) mine - even at a moderate level of spending, I pull in several hundred bucks a year in cash and travel credits.

This actually happened at a previous job, but the follow up makes it even funnier.

I had a boss at a financial firm...

How do financial firms manage to be staffed by people with such a complete lack of financial sense?

Because that's how sales works!

[goober]

Heard a coworker walk up to our benefits department to discuss taking a loan out against her 401k. Another coworker (who has been employed here for 25 years) encouraged her, stating she had done so to buy a few cars throughout the years because she liked 'paying herself instead of a bank.'

[johnny847]

Heard a coworker walk up to our benefits department to discuss taking a loan out against her 401k. Another coworker (who has been employed here for 25 years) encouraged her, stating she had done so to buy a few cars throughout the years because she liked 'paying herself instead of a bank.'

I can't even.... She's stealing from herself! In an economic profit sense.

[boarder42]

Heard a coworker walk up to our benefits department to discuss taking a loan out against her 401k. Another coworker (who has been employed here for 25 years) encouraged her, stating she had done so to buy a few cars throughout the years because she liked 'paying herself instead of a bank.'

I can't even.... She's stealing from herself! In an economic profit sense.

so many things wrong with doing stuff like this.  your 401k money is protected money.  pulling it out for a loan is bad not mentioning all the other issues.  and getting into what your money could be making for you etc.

[bigalsmith101]

Conversation with a contractor for the business I manage, talking about him showing up at the store we contract to, every morning, and then disappearing for 20 minutes (every day) while he leaves his semi truck running (to warm up, it's -10*F outside...).

Me: Can you please explain why our customer is complaining that you leave your truck running, unattended every morning?
Him: Yea man. Do you have a favorite place you like to eat?
Me: Um? That's an odd question. Yea man, my house. I cook all of my meals. I love it.
Him: Common man. Really? Every one?
Me: Yes. Every. Single. One.
Him: Yea, but what about breakfast? I mean, we work so early in the morning, you know? (HAHAHA. 7AM! HAHAHA)
Me: I've never eaten breakfast at a restaurant on a workday in my entire life... (the exception being when I travel for work)
Him: Well, I don't know about you, but with getting up at 6:00am, with my kid and all, there is no way that I have time in the morning to make breakfast. That's just the way it is.
Me: Ok. So is this where you go every morning?
Him: That's what I'm getting at. I get to the store, start the truck to let it warm up (legit thing to do when it's -10*), and then drive my Tahoe to TacoBell to get breakfast. I go every morning, cause honestly it's way better than Burger King or McDonalds.
Me: Dude, why don't you just load your truck at the store and then drive the semi to taco bell and get your breakfast then?
Him: They don't open the dining room until 10am. The drive through is open at 7am. I have to go through the drive through. I can't possibly get the semi truck through there.
Me: Dude. Okay man. I'll tell the store that we're going to start at 7:30am instead of 7am, and you can hit the drive through on the way into work. Ok? So you can have your breakfast, and you won't be leaving the store/truck every morning after showing up on time. And the store won't have to bitch anymore. OK? Deal?
Him: Man, thanks. I really appreciate it!

HOLY SHIT. I'm 2,000 miles away from this contract. I'm in Seattle, he's in Wisconsin. He's been driving to the store (passing the taco bell on the way), getting to the store, starting the truck, driving back to the Taco Bell, hitting the drive though, and driving back to work.

NOT only is this guy buying at LEAST $40-$50worth of breakfast every week (~$8 x 6days/wk), he's driving his damn Tahoe an extra 7 miles/day so he can hit the store first... $160-$200 every month for BREAKFAST! That's 2/3 my grocery bill for me and my wife!

This guy is 6'2" and 380lb. I want to tell him he's killing himself. That his 40oz extra-large soda at 7am is killing him. That this is part of the reason he experienced gout  this year at AGE 30!!! But it's not my prerogative. I don't know his life. Instead I find myself enabling him, so as the appease the business relation with the store, and so I don't have to replace the contractor at an unaffordable cost. The customers love him. He makes us money. What's an Operations Manger to do? FAAAAAAAAAACK!

[dividendman]

bigalsmith101 your story is hilarious.

It's also hilarious how often you guys say "dude" and "man". haha.

[bigalsmith101]

bigalsmith101 your story is hilarious.
It's also hilarious how often you guys say "dude" and "man". haha.

"Dude, I gotta relate to these people! You know what I mean man? Man, it's like, managing these dudes should be easy, but these dudes just can't figure shit out for themselves. MAN!"

Honestly, I try to write exactly as I speak, to convey the story. I've slowly become an expert at "talking" in different forms to convey the same message to the 10 guys and 1 women working for us. We hold contracts all over the US, and each contractor has a different background. It ranges from southern style polite hospitality with the lady (my favorite), all the way to super coarse language full of swear words with one of our guys in Wyoming. I have to remember to tone it down, and reign in the mild stupidity that fills my mind when I converse with some of these guys. Every one of the contractors are older than me, from 2yrs to 30+, so I work at making sure they can relate to me on a personal level, and speech is a personal attribute many people neglect in communication. So far so good!

[kpd905]

Not a really crazy money amount, but two co-workers just gave up their soda habits for Lent.  One was drinking 12 diet Cokes a day, the other was drinking 12 Mountain Dews (holy shit diabeetus).

The thought of waking up and drinking either of those in the morning really grosses me out.  Thought of this because of bigalsmith101's story about the guy drinking 40 oz of soda at 7 am.

[GuitarStv]

Not a really crazy money amount, but two co-workers just gave up their soda habits for Lent.  One was drinking 12 diet Cokes a day, the other was drinking 12 Mountain Dews (holy shit diabeetus).

The thought of waking up and drinking either of those in the morning really grosses me out.  Thought of this because of bigalsmith101's story about the guy drinking 40 oz of soda at 7 am.

Hmmm.  Sugar in a mountain dew is 77g for 590mL (http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm), so assuming the guy is drinking 12 of the smallest 355 ml cans . . . that works out to 556g of sugar a day.

That's 2223 calories just from sugar.  I'm assuming he's an obeast?

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Hmmm.  Sugar in a mountain dew is 77g for 590mL (http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm), so assuming the guy is drinking 12 of the smallest 355 ml cans . . . that works out to 556g of sugar a day.

Holy shit. That's 1.22 lbs. of sugar a day.

[AH013]

Not a really crazy money amount, but two co-workers just gave up their soda habits for Lent.  One was drinking 12 diet Cokes a day, the other was drinking 12 Mountain Dews (holy shit diabeetus).

The thought of waking up and drinking either of those in the morning really grosses me out.  Thought of this because of bigalsmith101's story about the guy drinking 40 oz of soda at 7 am.

Hmmm.  Sugar in a mountain dew is 77g for 590mL (http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm), so assuming the guy is drinking 12 of the smallest 355 ml cans . . . that works out to 556g of sugar a day.

That's 2223 calories just from sugar.  I'm assuming he's an obeast?

Now now, Mountain Dew does make a diet version, so maybe he drinks diet (or a mix of diet & regular?).

Although I'm sure with that much daily intake the Yellow 5 & BVO is probably doing more damage than a pound of sugar if it was all regular...that stuff is only considered "safe" by the FDA at "normal" intake levels, and in quantities approaching 2 liters a day has been linked to some truly messed up stuff like oozing skin lesions, neurological disorders inhabiting the ability to walk, liver failure, etc.

[Adventine]

God, that's disgusting. I can barely drink down half a can of soda!

[Megma]

I cannot even drink an entire can of soda by myself! My BF and I normally will share one and usually that is Blood Orange San Pellegrino (technically soda?). A 6 pack will last us at least two weeks! Which is good because they're expensive (but delicious), I only buy them occasionally and they have to be on sale.

[zephyr911]

so I don't have to replace the contractor at an unaffordable cost.

...which you'll still have to do eventually if he keeps wrecking his health, right?

[johnny847]

so I don't have to replace the contractor at an unaffordable cost.

...which you'll still have to do eventually if he keeps wrecking his health, right?

But I'm fairly certain (though I'm not a lawyer) that it is not even legal for a manager to police his employees health

[Tallgirl1204]

Not a really crazy money amount, but two co-workers just gave up their soda habits for Lent.  One was drinking 12 diet Cokes a day, the other was drinking 12 Mountain Dews (holy shit diabeetus).

The thought of waking up and drinking either of those in the morning really grosses me out.  Thought of this because of bigalsmith101's story about the guy drinking 40 oz of soda at 7 am.

This is great!  Good for them.  I used to give up processed/added sugar for Lent when I was in my 20's.  It is PAINFUL.  (And I admit I took up coffee instead, which somewhat defeated the purpose.)  The good news is that after the first couple of weeks, other stuff (like carrots) started to taste so good.  And I never really picked up the sugar habit at the same level again. 
 

I hope they can make it.  It could be a life-changer. 

[zephyr911]

so I don't have to replace the contractor at an unaffordable cost.

...which you'll still have to do eventually if he keeps wrecking his health, right?

But I'm fairly certain (though I'm not a lawyer) that it is not even legal for a manager to police his employees health

Well, I wouldn't advocate anything illegal or unethical, but isn't there anything you can say that expresses concern for such choices? As you say, you don't want to lose him.

[johnny847]

so I don't have to replace the contractor at an unaffordable cost.

...which you'll still have to do eventually if he keeps wrecking his health, right?

But I'm fairly certain (though I'm not a lawyer) that it is not even legal for a manager to police his employees health

Well, I wouldn't advocate anything illegal or unethical, but isn't there anything you can say that expresses concern for such choices? As you say, you don't want to lose him.

If it is in fact illegal, then the consequences of getting sued over this would probably be more damaging than losing an employee.

But again, I'm not a lawyer. My university recently instituted a policy stating that there can be no smoking anywhere on campus (which I think is utterly stupid - why should an employer be able to regulate legal employee activity that occurs outside of work?). I see this as policing employees health, and there have been no legal challenges so far to this policy. So maybe there isn't any legal issue.

[zolotiyeruki]

But again, I'm not a lawyer. My university recently instituted a policy stating that there can be no smoking anywhere on campus (which I think is utterly stupid - why should an employer be able to regulate legal employee activity that occurs outside of work?). I see this as policing employees health, and there have been no legal challenges so far to this policy. So maybe there isn't any legal issue.

It may be time outside of work, but the university still owns the campus, and they can set their rules for the campus.  You can still smoke--you just have to get off their lawn to do it :)

[johnny847]

But again, I'm not a lawyer. My university recently instituted a policy stating that there can be no smoking anywhere on campus (which I think is utterly stupid - why should an employer be able to regulate legal employee activity that occurs outside of work?). I see this as policing employees health, and there have been no legal challenges so far to this policy. So maybe there isn't any legal issue.

It may be time outside of work, but the university still owns the campus, and they can set their rules for the campus.  You can still smoke--you just have to get off their lawn to do it :)

Don't get me wrong, I actually like the consequences of the policy - I don't smoke and can't stand the smell of secondhand smoke. But whether I like the policy or not has no bearing on whether it is or isn't legal.

I took the time to actually look up the law on smoking in my state...and it turns out you're right.

Any person, who owns, operates, manages, or controls an establishment, facility, or outdoor area can declare that entire establishment, facility, or outdoor area as a nonsmoking place.  Smoking can also be prohibited in any place by placing a sign stating that smoking is prohibited in the area.

So prohibiting smoking in an outdoor area under your control is perfectly allowed.

However, IMO there are still problems with this policy - it even bans smokeless forms of tobacco, such as chewing tobacco. Now while I wasn't able to find a strict definition of "smoking," as defined by my state, I'd imagine it doesn't include things like chewing tobacco. I can't see any justification for that ban other than the board of regents, which governs all public schools in my state, wants to policy student and employee health. which is even a stated goal of the policy

The goal of the policy is to preserve and improve the health, comfort and environment of students, employees and any persons occupying our campuses.

If employers are allowed to start policing employees health, then this is going to get out of hand really fast. What are employers going to do, mandate fat people exercise?

EDIT: Sorry to get this thread off on a tangent...

[SantaFeSteve]

But again, I'm not a lawyer. My university recently instituted a policy stating that there can be no smoking anywhere on campus (which I think is utterly stupid - why should an employer be able to regulate legal employee activity that occurs outside of work?). I see this as policing employees health, and there have been no legal challenges so far to this policy. So maybe there isn't any legal issue.

It may be time outside of work, but the university still owns the campus, and they can set their rules for the campus.  You can still smoke--you just have to get off their lawn to do it :)

Don't get me wrong, I actually like the consequences of the policy - I don't smoke and can't stand the smell of secondhand smoke. But whether I like the policy or not has no bearing on whether it is or isn't legal.

I took the time to actually look up the law on smoking in my state...and it turns out you're right.

Any person, who owns, operates, manages, or controls an establishment, facility, or outdoor area can declare that entire establishment, facility, or outdoor area as a nonsmoking place.  Smoking can also be prohibited in any place by placing a sign stating that smoking is prohibited in the area.

So prohibiting smoking in an outdoor area under your control is perfectly allowed.

However, IMO there are still problems with this policy - it even bans smokeless forms of tobacco, such as chewing tobacco. Now while I wasn't able to find a strict definition of "smoking," as defined by my state, I'd imagine it doesn't include things like chewing tobacco. I can't see any justification for that ban other than the board of regents, which governs all public schools in my state, wants to policy student and employee health. which is even a stated goal of the policy

The goal of the policy is to preserve and improve the health, comfort and environment of students, employees and any persons occupying our campuses.

If employers are allowed to start policing employees health, then this is going to get out of hand really fast. What are employers going to do, mandate fat people exercise?

EDIT: Sorry to get this thread off on a tangent...

I think it is easy to include smokeless tobacco in the ban because of the problem with people spitting tobacco "juice" on the ground. I think they could probably make a rule about chewing gum as well. 

[johnny847]

But again, I'm not a lawyer. My university recently instituted a policy stating that there can be no smoking anywhere on campus (which I think is utterly stupid - why should an employer be able to regulate legal employee activity that occurs outside of work?). I see this as policing employees health, and there have been no legal challenges so far to this policy. So maybe there isn't any legal issue.

It may be time outside of work, but the university still owns the campus, and they can set their rules for the campus.  You can still smoke--you just have to get off their lawn to do it :)

Don't get me wrong, I actually like the consequences of the policy - I don't smoke and can't stand the smell of secondhand smoke. But whether I like the policy or not has no bearing on whether it is or isn't legal.

I took the time to actually look up the law on smoking in my state...and it turns out you're right.

Any person, who owns, operates, manages, or controls an establishment, facility, or outdoor area can declare that entire establishment, facility, or outdoor area as a nonsmoking place.  Smoking can also be prohibited in any place by placing a sign stating that smoking is prohibited in the area.

So prohibiting smoking in an outdoor area under your control is perfectly allowed.

However, IMO there are still problems with this policy - it even bans smokeless forms of tobacco, such as chewing tobacco. Now while I wasn't able to find a strict definition of "smoking," as defined by my state, I'd imagine it doesn't include things like chewing tobacco. I can't see any justification for that ban other than the board of regents, which governs all public schools in my state, wants to policy student and employee health. which is even a stated goal of the policy

The goal of the policy is to preserve and improve the health, comfort and environment of students, employees and any persons occupying our campuses.

If employers are allowed to start policing employees health, then this is going to get out of hand really fast. What are employers going to do, mandate fat people exercise?

EDIT: Sorry to get this thread off on a tangent...

I think it is easy to include smokeless tobacco in the ban because of the problem with people spitting tobacco "juice" on the ground. I think they could probably make a rule about chewing gum as well.

But is there actually a legal justification for including smokeless tobacco in this ban? That's my real beef with the policy. This is resolved if "smoking" includes smokeless tobacco, but I'm having trouble finding the legal definition of smoking at the moment.

[SantaFeSteve]

But again, I'm not a lawyer. My university recently instituted a policy stating that there can be no smoking anywhere on campus (which I think is utterly stupid - why should an employer be able to regulate legal employee activity that occurs outside of work?). I see this as policing employees health, and there have been no legal challenges so far to this policy. So maybe there isn't any legal issue.

It may be time outside of work, but the university still owns the campus, and they can set their rules for the campus.  You can still smoke--you just have to get off their lawn to do it :)

Don't get me wrong, I actually like the consequences of the policy - I don't smoke and can't stand the smell of secondhand smoke. But whether I like the policy or not has no bearing on whether it is or isn't legal.

I took the time to actually look up the law on smoking in my state...and it turns out you're right.

Any person, who owns, operates, manages, or controls an establishment, facility, or outdoor area can declare that entire establishment, facility, or outdoor area as a nonsmoking place.  Smoking can also be prohibited in any place by placing a sign stating that smoking is prohibited in the area.

So prohibiting smoking in an outdoor area under your control is perfectly allowed.

However, IMO there are still problems with this policy - it even bans smokeless forms of tobacco, such as chewing tobacco. Now while I wasn't able to find a strict definition of "smoking," as defined by my state, I'd imagine it doesn't include things like chewing tobacco. I can't see any justification for that ban other than the board of regents, which governs all public schools in my state, wants to policy student and employee health. which is even a stated goal of the policy

The goal of the policy is to preserve and improve the health, comfort and environment of students, employees and any persons occupying our campuses.

If employers are allowed to start policing employees health, then this is going to get out of hand really fast. What are employers going to do, mandate fat people exercise?

EDIT: Sorry to get this thread off on a tangent...

I think it is easy to include smokeless tobacco in the ban because of the problem with people spitting tobacco "juice" on the ground. I think they could probably make a rule about chewing gum as well.

But is there actually a legal justification for including smokeless tobacco in this ban? That's my real beef with the policy. This is resolved if "smoking" includes smokeless tobacco, but I'm having trouble finding the legal definition of smoking at the moment.

I think you are missing some of the point.  It it the University's property and they can restrict almost any activity as long as it is not discriminatory based on race, religion, etc. 

[zephyr911]

The foam just started rapidly multiplying in here....

[I'm a red panda]

I think they could probably make a rule about chewing gum as well.

I've had jobs where I wasn't allowed to chew gum.  I don't think it is all that uncommon in entry level customer facing jobs.

[johnny847]

But again, I'm not a lawyer. My university recently instituted a policy stating that there can be no smoking anywhere on campus (which I think is utterly stupid - why should an employer be able to regulate legal employee activity that occurs outside of work?). I see this as policing employees health, and there have been no legal challenges so far to this policy. So maybe there isn't any legal issue.

It may be time outside of work, but the university still owns the campus, and they can set their rules for the campus.  You can still smoke--you just have to get off their lawn to do it :)

Don't get me wrong, I actually like the consequences of the policy - I don't smoke and can't stand the smell of secondhand smoke. But whether I like the policy or not has no bearing on whether it is or isn't legal.

I took the time to actually look up the law on smoking in my state...and it turns out you're right.

Any person, who owns, operates, manages, or controls an establishment, facility, or outdoor area can declare that entire establishment, facility, or outdoor area as a nonsmoking place.  Smoking can also be prohibited in any place by placing a sign stating that smoking is prohibited in the area.

So prohibiting smoking in an outdoor area under your control is perfectly allowed.

However, IMO there are still problems with this policy - it even bans smokeless forms of tobacco, such as chewing tobacco. Now while I wasn't able to find a strict definition of "smoking," as defined by my state, I'd imagine it doesn't include things like chewing tobacco. I can't see any justification for that ban other than the board of regents, which governs all public schools in my state, wants to policy student and employee health. which is even a stated goal of the policy

The goal of the policy is to preserve and improve the health, comfort and environment of students, employees and any persons occupying our campuses.

If employers are allowed to start policing employees health, then this is going to get out of hand really fast. What are employers going to do, mandate fat people exercise?

EDIT: Sorry to get this thread off on a tangent...

I think it is easy to include smokeless tobacco in the ban because of the problem with people spitting tobacco "juice" on the ground. I think they could probably make a rule about chewing gum as well.

But is there actually a legal justification for including smokeless tobacco in this ban? That's my real beef with the policy. This is resolved if "smoking" includes smokeless tobacco, but I'm having trouble finding the legal definition of smoking at the moment.

I think you are missing some of the point.  It it the University's property and they can restrict almost any activity as long as it is not discriminatory based on race, religion, etc.

I suppose. I'm still not entirely convinced, but I'll let it go.

[Travis]

Not a really crazy money amount, but two co-workers just gave up their soda habits for Lent.  One was drinking 12 diet Cokes a day, the other was drinking 12 Mountain Dews (holy shit diabeetus).

The thought of waking up and drinking either of those in the morning really grosses me out.  Thought of this because of bigalsmith101's story about the guy drinking 40 oz of soda at 7 am.

How long is Lent?  Sounds like they might mysteriously find themselves a few pounds lighter at the end of it.

[I'm a red panda]

How long is Lent?  Sounds like they might mysteriously find themselves a few pounds lighter at the end of it.

Lent is 40 days. From Ash Wednesday to Holy Thursday/Good Friday/Easter (depending on who you ask), does not include Sundays (but some people do).

[bigalsmith101]

To all of the replies regarding the contractor that I manage:

#1. He's self employed. He's not an employee. I just supervise our contractors remotely. They are totally self contained.

#2. If he wants to be grossly unhealthy. So be it. I can't do anything about it.

#3. If he keels over, has a health issue, can't handle his workload; yes I'll have to replace him. But until then, he does the work satisfactorily

#4. The fact is that if he can do the job, and do it well, and satisfy our contract. I don't care what he does, as long as it's professional.