Forum Home | Login

You smoke? You're fired! at least for one company....

terpfan1980

Join Date 08/2004

+13

You smoke? You're fired! at least for one company....

Headline is linked from WRAL.com - News site

Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

UPDATED: 8:20 AM EST January 25, 2005

LANSING, Mich. -- Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.
Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.
Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.
The rule led one employee to quit before the policy was adopted. Four others were fired when they balked at the smoking test.
Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes estimated that 18 to 20 of the company's 200 employers were smokers when the policy was announced in 2003. Of those, as many as 14 quit smoking before the policy went into effect. The company offered them help to kick the habit.
"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.
On the company's (linked) Web site, it states:
Weyco Inc. is a non-smoking company that strongly supports its employees in living healthy lifestyles.

Wow!

So, working for this employer, even if you smoke on your own time, outside work, you will not be employed there? Sign me up please! (just kidding, maybe?!)

Seriously, smoking is a serious health issue. I worked in an environment where I was constantly subjected to outrageous amounts of second hand smoke for years. Even when the company that I worked for got stupid and installed a batch of "smoke eaters" I was quietly hoping that they'd wise up and just institute a "no smoking" policy, and not so quietly asked multiple times that our management designate some areas as smoking and some as non-smoking so I wouldn't have clean up behind the filthy lazy smokers that couldn't be bothered to clean up their own ash droppings. I saw nicotene stains on very expensive computer equipment that I was partly responsible for maintaining, and -- as a participant in the company's ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) plan -- was a "part owner" of.

I've been forever thankful that the Federal Government has banned smoking in it's work places, and that (in one of the few instances I like "progressiveness") states like Maryland have banned smoking in the work place -- including most restaurants and bars (meaning I can go out and eat at a restaurant and actually taste the food, rather than the smoke).

But, what individuals do on their own time -- within reason and legality -- should be their own chosing.

I support an employer's right to decide on whom they wish to have working for them, though some employers may make stupid, racist, biggoted decisions on hiring, or discriminate for other reasons which would make me uncomfortable doing business with them.

But, and it's a big but (as opposed to a big cigarette butt), I think employees have a right to choose to kill themselves slowly via cigarettes if they wish, and they shouldn't lose their jobs over the fact that they smoke outside the work place.

Call me crazy, but I can see very easily where eventually employees that can't stay physically fit will be discriminated against. Where employees that have a genetic disposition towards cancer or other illnesses that might keep them out of work could be discriminated against, etc.

I expect the case of these employees will find it's way into the court system, and it'l be interesting to see how it progresses. But I fear the slippery slope this could put us on.

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #27 By: Helix the II - 1/26/2005 1:17:31 PM
Of course it'll be challenged in court, Dr.Miller. Everything is challenged in the courts, from jay walking to inmates detesting prison food. You don't need a logical case to end up in court.

The point being that this WILL be a logical case. They are basically invading an employees home.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The point is that people don't have to smoke at all. And, the difference between forcing "health food" versus quitting smoking is that eating Health Food will cost you more (I can prove that by showing you grocery bills from before I started buying at a Whole Foods store versus conventional food at a regular market) but quitting smoking will cost you less.

True, health foods are expensive, but healthier foods aren't, and if not at the counter, then at least in the end. A person could survive without junk foods, snacks, soda, alcohol, margarine, butter, etc., and that's why I see nothing wrong if this company were to demand that these people not consume such products.
Now, if these people ate as healthfully as possible and exercised regularly (the company should demand at least a half hour four days a week of all their employees), and still gained weight, then they could be an exception to the "unfit to work" rule, since they can honestly say that it isn't their own fault for being overweight or obese.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #21 By: Helix the II - 1/26/2005 9:48:11 AM
Has anyone lately been employed by a larger company? I remember the phrase that goes something like this.. "We reserve the right to terminate employement for any reason at any time"... A change in policy, they help you adjust, if you refuse to adjust then that company isn't a company you should work for. Smoking isn't illegal, yet. No one is stopping you from smoking. You just have to choose where you smoke.

Actually your wrong. That's the whole point of this article They're smoking at home and the company fired them for it?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #31 By: Juxtaposition - 1/26/2005 2:33:17 PM
The point is that people don't have to smoke at all. And, the difference between forcing "health food" versus quitting smoking is that eating Health Food will cost you more (I can prove that by showing you grocery bills from before I started buying at a Whole Foods store versus conventional food at a regular market) but quitting smoking will cost you less.

True, health foods are expensive, but healthier foods aren't, and if not at the counter, then at least in the end. A person could survive without junk foods, snacks, soda, alcohol, margarine, butter, etc., and that's why I see nothing wrong if this company were to demand that these people not consume such products.

Your missing the point. This is "America", land of the free? The companies have NO right to say what you can do when your not on company property.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It is my position that a business has a right to hire and fire whomever they choose.

That being said, I think it would be more effective for them to offer a "nonsmoker's health insurance" benefit to their employees and deny coverage to those who smoke, even if it is off the clock. Smokers are not a protected minority, nor should they be. If they enacted a policy such as this, they could still retain smokers that are productive workers as well as enjoy the benefit of reduced health care premiums (another possibility would be to offer a policy that increases premiums for smokers, giving added financial incentive to quit.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

I think that people are taking this a bit out of proportion. How come nobody is complaining about all the unfair laws that employers have to deal with? Has anyone actually seen what is considered "disabled" in the disability acts? Has anyone really looked into what it takes to fire somebody with an illegal drug use problem who enters rehab? I look at this as an example of the corporation try to get back some of *their* rights. If it is OK for a modeling agency only to hire people who fit a profile, why shouldn't it be OK for a health care related business to only employ people who fit their profile?

True, health foods are expensive, but healthier foods aren't, especially in the end. A person could survive without junk foods, snacks, soda, alcohol, etc., and that's why I see nothing wrong if this company were to demand that these people not consume such products.

By "health foods" I am referring to fresh fruits and veggies. Organic milk and pesticide free products. Eggs from vegetarian Chickens (yeah, think about that one for awhile). And, yes, they do cost more. Go through a store and buy pre-prepared foods, like frozen Lasagna, frozen Broccoli, conventional milk, conventional peanut butter, regular coffee. Then go through and buy the ingredients for Lasagna, fresh Broccoli, Organic Milk, Organic or whole peanut butter, and decaf coffee. See which one costs you more. It simply costs more to eat healthy, and it's a huge problem that our country has.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But wouldn't it cost less for employees in the cost of health care, besides also promoting the healthy lifestyle they want to promote?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Your missing the point. This is "America", land of the free? The companies have NO right to say what you can do when your not on company property.

Then don't expect the company you work for to pay for your healthcare. This is the "land of the free" but "Freedom" doesn't mean someone else has to pay more because of our bad habits.

It's not that I agree with this company's actions here, but it could be that insisting our employers cover our healthcare cost just might come at a price we aren't ready to pay.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I understand your point, and you're right. Perhaps some reform is needed to give some rights back to employers while giving employees healthcare without sacrificing their personal lives.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I think the opposing point is that if we allow corperate america to decide what we can and cannot do in our personal lives is just wrong. Would we still be arguing if a corperation said you couldn't have sex in any mannor other than missionarry for the soul perpose of procreation or you will not be employed by our company?

Considering there are still laws on the books that state that oral sex is illegal, sex other than the missionary is illegal, etc. termination for such acts would be entirely justified, along with inprisonment. Talk about puting cosmo out of buisness. Sex (outside marrage) could be just as dangerous as smoking, and is something people could live without. Where is the line drawn then?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I guess as far as the health care thing goes, I don't understand. If you are a smoker/risk taker/ etc. and buy private insurance, you pay more. Health, medical and dental are all like that in private, why couldn't the company raise the premium for smoker/risk taker/etc employees? I know that the majority of companies in my area already do that. Wouldn't that be cheaper anyway considering unemployment insurance and such that would result from terminating the employment of those persons?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #34 By: Gideon MacLeish - 1/26/2005 2:44:55 PM
It is my position that a business has a right to hire and fire whomever they choose.

I'm sorry Gid but this time I can't agree with you. Not on this. If they were doing it on company property then hell yes fire them. But this is something they were doing in their *own*home.

Successfully updated karma reason!

To me this is mainly an example of the pendulum swinging the to the other extreme. Many of remember a time when an employee's smoking habit was accomidated at great expense to employers. Many man hours were wasted with paid "Smoke breaks" throughout the day. Breaks that non smoking employees did not get to take. I also remember break rooms so smoke filled that only smokers woud want to be anywhere near the place. A smoker could save a lot of money just going in and breathing the air.

The Army was awful that way. There was one time, my radio section was doing some training with our gas masks, on the other end of the room one of the teams was doing familiarization training on AK-47s. With our masks on, we still could barely see across the room, and when we got the "all clear" and took the masks off, most of us wished we could do a few more hours of NBC (Nuclear Biological & Chemical) training. And you servicemembers and vets know how much we all hate NBC training!! ;~D

Successfully updated karma reason!

drmiller,

Please show me a legal precedent that requires a company to hire or retain anyone against their will (with the exception of aforementioned federally protected categories).

Frankly, I think the company's decision is absolutely idiotic, and that smoking or not smoking bears no relevance to en employee's productivity (in fact, smoking may INCREASE someone's productivity if they're addicted -- they won't waste time stressing over their need for a fix). However, federal courts have consistently disagreed, and random drug tests are the norm for many employees, meaning that employers CAN and DO have the right to hire or retain individuals based on their off work activities. While smoking differs solely in the fact it is legal, the fact remains that employment is, in many states, at the discretion of the employer.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But this is something they were doing in their *own*home.

On their "own time", but not completely at "their own expense".

As you can see from my posts, I'm kind of torn on this one. ;~D

Successfully updated karma reason!

However, federal courts have consistently disagreed, and random drug tests are the norm for many employees, meaning that employers CAN and DO have the right to hire or retain individuals based on their off work activities. While smoking differs solely in the fact it is legal, the fact remains that employment is, in many states, at the discretion of the employer.

But the random drug testing is for illegal substances only, The drugs they test for are also something you can get arrested for, not legal activities.

Successfully updated karma reason!

While smoking differs solely in the fact it is legal, the fact remains that employment is, in many states, at the discretion of the employer.

Employment is at the discretion of both the employer and the employee. A person has a job because both the employer and the employee feel that it is in each of their best interest at the time. As soon as that changes for either party, the employee will either start looking for a situation they feel better about, or the employer will.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Reply #44 By: ParaTed2k - 1/26/2005 3:34:35 PM
But this is something they were doing in their *own*home.

On their "own time", but not completely at "their own expense".

As you can see from my posts, I'm kind of torn on this one. ;~D

Be torn all you want. Put it this way. Them being fired for smoking in their own home would be like getting fired for being gay (and keeping it to home).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Be torn all you want. Put it this way. Them being fired for smoking in their own home would be like getting fired for being gay (and keeping it to home).

It's not the "in their own home" that makes me see both sides of this one, if that were the only consideration I would consider it a no brainer. it is the fact that smoking does raise the premiums for group health insurance significantly. The employees who insist on continuing their smoking habit cannot honestly claim that smoking in the privacy of their own home doesn't effect anyone but themselves.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

Did any of the people who think that this is insane actually look into what Weyco does? They are a benefits coordinator and council companies on how to raise the health standards of their employees. Am I the only one who thinks it would be hypocritical for them not to have strict policies about health? If they can't have strict policies in their own company, how can they expect others to have any policies at all?

Successfully updated karma reason!

I wouldn't mind the strict health policies, but they aren't that strict. A company that claims to be all about healthy employees that condones employees having unhealthy diets and being in unhealthy conditions is pretty hypocritical.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I agree Karmagirl, but you can't tell people they may not smoke at home. Next thing they'll be telling us we can't have sex at home without a condom.

Successfully updated karma reason!

KarmaGirl

Join Date 03/2001

+118

A company that claims to be all about healthy employees that condones employees having unhealthy diets and being in unhealthy conditions is pretty hypocritical.

Isn't that just making assumptions? Do you actually know their other policies and their work conditions?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Isn't that just making assumptions? Do you actually know their other policies and their work conditions?

True, I don't know for sure. If they will fire somebody who's obese and/or consumes unhealthy foods and drinks, then I guess I have no problem with their claim to promoting a healthy lifestyle. Otherwise, I just see it as another "smoking is evil, but every other vice is completely all right!" thing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

UPDATE!

Aparently this company's next step (as reported on the radio this evening) is to terminate the obese employees also, since the obese are quickly passing up smokers in health care costs. According to the peice, obese people miss more workdays, are sick more often, are more likely to become disabled, and have more long term illnesses (ie. diabetes).

Does anyone else see this as a very wrong slippery slope? As my mom said earlier, are they going to tell people they can only have sex if they use condoms, or only hire women that can no longer have children, since their insurance is higher?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: