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

from JoeUser Forums
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
24,047 views 77 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
Their opinion is that smoking raised the cost they are required to pay for insurance. These days in most states, businesses need very little reason to fire people. I am not sure that makes it right, but it does make it legal.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can't wait until people are fired for being overweight. After all, being overweight does increase health risks and health costs. I'm sure nobody who agrees with the anti-smoking policy of this company will disagree with my anti-fat policy. Are health costs also higher for women?
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Who are these people? Soviet comrades (You do as I say and as I do)?

Do you actually mean that this company might spy on you at home---to see if you have a puff? Who owns this company? A McCarthy?

Well, sheeeit, I'm bowled over. I think all smokers should boycott this company and pepper them with e-mails showing their disgust.

This is a gross impingement on human rights! Wonder if any management at this firm have a little toke now and then.Bet they do.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
As much as I have a distaste for smoking and having to be around it, I would have to disagree with this companies methods. I can see stopping smoking at the workplace, but what an employee does in their own time should be their business. There are jobs that would be an exception here, but overall work time and free time should be separate.
I do wish more states would impose restrictions on smoking. I currently live in Ohio, but I came from Massachusetts. Massachusetts has fairly strict rules governing smoking in public in most places in the state, Ohio does not. In general smokers have no care for those who don't smoke. In fact I find most feel that since it is their right to smoke, that its too bad for you that you have to endure the disgusting second-hand smoke and littered butts.
At my job they do have to go outside to smoke, however often have done so in the stores entrance before we open, or in the backroom. I'm sorry its cold and windy out, but why should non-smokers be subjected to your dirty habit. So I do wish more work places imposed stronger rules governing smoking in the workplace, however this company cited here is simply going too far. Certainly remarkable though that most of them quit smoking rather than be fired.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yet another way for corporate america to inflict their beliefs on the average joe. First it was background checks for fast food workers, now it's this.

It's a good thing my boss smokes...
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Amazing... The number one cause of death in North America is obesity. It would decrease a great deal their insurance costs if they fired everybody who eats junk food. What's next? A test to determine if you've eaten french fries or burgers recently, and fire you if you did?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of course such a screening process is unacceptable and goes completely against the principles of the system. You exchange your labor and expertise for a remuneration. They should have no control on what you do outside of that exchange process.

But why the outrage now? They’ve been testing people for various drugs for years. Why would it be acceptable for a company to test employees for marijuana for example but not for tobacco? After all, tobacco is such a dangerous drug that WILL kill you!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
find most feel that since it is their right to smoke, that its too bad for you that you have to endure the disgusting second-hand smoke and littered butts.


I always wanted to tell someone this when they say it's their "right" to smoke...."When I remove the nasty cigarette from your mounth and stomp on it, remember I am exercising my right to clean air."

I wrote a thing on this too, but I think it's a great idea, then I saw yours. I understand your fear that this could escalate, but I really don't think it is an ooption that could be used to discriminate against those with genetic dispositions to a disease. Smoking is a controlable factor, whereas hereditary can not be controlled. I could see this being applied to another company where they insist that all employees work out in the company gym for 30 min a day. If you don't want to work out, don't work there.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't older people have higher health care costs than younger people?

I am not a legal expert, but I don't think this would stand up in court.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
What’s a next genetic enhancement for specific jobs? Only 12-fingered applicants accepted for secretarial positions and so on.
People half to be allowed to be unhealthy. When are we going to learn it’s about people not the machine?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, prolly stubby.

And let's not forget the genetic tests to see if you are likely to have heart disease, cancer, or any other potentially high cost illness.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #10 By: lifehappens - 1/25/2005 3:33:45 PM
find most feel that since it is their right to smoke, that its too bad for you that you have to endure the disgusting second-hand smoke and littered butts.


I always wanted to tell someone this when they say it's their "right" to smoke...."When I remove the nasty cigarette from your mounth and stomp on it, remember I am exercising my right to clean air."

I wrote a thing on this too, but I think it's a great idea, then I saw yours. I understand your fear that this could escalate, but I really don't think it is an ooption that could be used to discriminate against those with genetic dispositions to a disease. Smoking is a controlable factor, whereas hereditary can not be controlled. I could see this being applied to another company where they insist that all employees work out in the company gym for 30 min a day. If you don't want to work out, don't work there.


This is fine as long as it happens at work. But when they take it into your home. That's stepping over a constitutional line.
What happened to *life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness*?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is just another example of how those things we call "fringe benefits" are not the "benefits" we expect them to be. When I was in the Army a lot of people said that they would never join the military because you don't have the freedom to quit if you choose to. My answer to that was, how many people can just up and quit, losing their benefits, seniority and any vestiture they have built in a retirement program.

Employee healthcare coverage is a huge expense to companies that offer it. Fear of losing them is also a big reason why many people stay in careers that they hate. We are already giving up a few freedoms for this (and many other) "benefits". On the other hand, are we willing to change the paradigm of how medical care is paid for, so that we can gain these freedoms back?

There is no question that smoking is among the worst things a person can do to their own health. However, the key word there is "among". I wonder if this company has pop, coffee, or junk food machines. If they have an employee cafateria, do they offer burgers, fries, ham and cheese sandwiches... etc...

On one hand this whole thing smacks of the "vice police" but on the other hand, if we expect our employers to foot the bill for our healthcare coverage, it's kind of hypocritical to then say, "pay for my healthcare, but don't tell me how to live".
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Smoking is a dangerous anti social habit. The Company is within its right to curtail this habit especially if they have to meet the health costs. Even Insurance Companies are reluctant to insure smokers so why shouldl not the employer.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is fine as long as it happens at work. But when they take it into your home

DrMiller, The difference is...The employees are taking this to work. The medical costs of their "at-home" habits are being charged to the company. Fine an employee doesn't want to abide by the no smoking rule....they can sign a waiver for all smoking related medical costs....and because that is hard to determine...many benifits would probably have to be seriously curtailed as a result.


it's kind of hypocritical to then say, "pay for my healthcare, but don't tell me how to live".

amen.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Man, my co-workers smoke like freight trains where I work and I go home stinking to high heaven from thier noxious weed. My boss smokes, so there's not much I can do about it. I've been considering the idea of taking up farting in public, as they don't stink near as bad as the cigs do (IMHO of course) and they won't kill ya from "second hand".

No, I don't care if they smoke at home or even outside or a designated area. Just NOT IN MY FACE.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I've been considering the idea of taking up farting in public, as they don't stink near as bad as the cigs do (IMHO of course) and they won't kill ya from "second hand".


Which brings to mind a comedy classic!!!

"No, I don't mind if you smoke. Do you mind if I fart? It's one of my habits. I quit once for a year, you know, but I gained a lot of weight. It's hard to quit. You know, after sex I really get the urge to light one up." -- Steve Martin ;~D
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

I can't wait until people are fired for being overweight. After all, being overweight does increase health risks and health costs. I'm sure nobody who agrees with the anti-smoking policy of this company will disagree with my anti-fat policy. Are health costs also higher for women?

There is a big difference in the examples that you gave from smoking.

Smoking is not needed to live.  You can quit completely, or never start, and there is no adverse reactions.  There is no medical condition that causes you to start smoking, and you are not born with a "smoking" gene.  You have the absolute choice to smoke or not. 

With being overweight, you have to eat to live.  People who have a problem can not simply "quit".  There have been many studies that show that obesity is hereditary (like high cholesterol), and there are a few medical conditions that cause weight gain (like various endocrine problems).

Being female isn't something of choice.  Yes, it is more expensive to insure women, but until men can figure out how to have babies, I think that the world will just have to deal with that.

Michigan is an "at will" state when it comes to employment.  Our employment laws are quite in favor of the corporation.

If I had to guess, I am thinking that this health care related firm is trying to set a precedence.  Currently, people who are addicted to certain drugs or alcohol can weasel into the American with Disability act.  They may be setting a precedence so that tobacco addiction will not fall into that.

It's funny, people complain left and right about the cost of insurance and how corporations should cover people.  But, the moment that somebody tries to reform the system in the slightest (which could be a step in lowered health care costs if more people followed suit) people complain.

Telling an employee that they can not smoke and be employed at your company is not against any constitutional right.  Doing something that could kill you is not a constitutional right.  There is nothing in the constitution that says that an employer has to employ you for any reason.

if we expect our employers to foot the bill for our healthcare coverage, it's kind of hypocritical to then say, "pay for my healthcare, but don't tell me how to live".

I think that their better approach would have been a corporate policy change.  Anyone who smoked would have 6 months to quit (funded by the corporation, which I think they were doing) or they would no longer be offered benefits from the corporation.  But, in general, I do agree with you.

The other point to think about- at work, if you don't smoke, do you take "smoke breaks" like the smokers do?  If you don't smoke, do you really enjoy going to work and sitting by 2 pack a day Ted who smells like an ash tray?  There are lots of reasons why corporations are against smoking, especially ones who have health care related businesses.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
My drug of choice is beer. As long as I do not get impaired, shouldn't I be allowed to drink 1 or 2 on the job? I mean, alcohol and nicotine are both legal drugs are they not? If I drink 1 beer, that's not putting any fellow employees at any health risk is it? What's the difference here?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Shovel,

Move to the UK. It's socially acceptable to have a beer or two at lunch!
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
With being overweight, you have to eat to live.  People who have a problem can not simply "quit".  There have been many studies that show that obesity is hereditary (like high cholesterol), and there are a few medical conditions that cause weight gain (like various endocrine problems).


True, people do have to eat, but the companies can demand that their employees only eat health foods. Sure, some might still be obese, but they'll be slightly healthier, nonetheless.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

True, people do have to eat, but the companies can demand that their employees only eat health foods. Sure, some might still be obese, but they'll be slightly healthier, nonetheless.

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.

My drug of choice is beer. As long as I do not get impaired, shouldn't I be allowed to drink 1 or 2 on the job?

Only if company policy permits.  Employers should reserve the right to say what is acceptable or not.  If employees don't like the corporate rules, nothing prevents them from finding another place of employment.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'd be willing to bet that this is challenged in court. Lets see if it stands up there.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Start with smoking (can cause lung cancer, enfesema, etc), then comes chewing (lip cancer, etc), then obesity (you ate a bon bon!? your fired since you could cost us in health care by getting diabetes, joint problems, cardiac problems, and your butt is to big for your chair.) then comes extreme behaviors (bungie jumping, sky diving, rock climbing, etc.) Oh, then there is alcohol (every morning before clocking in you need to pee in the cup, if we find you drank anything lastnight your fired), really, where would it end?

Our company hires only persons that are physically fit (unless disabled), and do not hire any person that puts their own health at risk in any way shape or form. If you get a speeding ticket, your fired, if your (mother, sister, father, brother, husband, wife, etc) ever smokes near you, your fired. If your home was built before 1970 and has not been tested for asbestos and lead, or does not have a carbon monoxide detector and smoke alarms and burglar alarms, your fired. If you are found to have eaten fatty and/or greasy foods, your fired. If you car does not have working seat belts, air bags, ABS breaks, weather apropriate tires, roadside emergance kit, and a proper exsost system with no leaks, (etc) you will be fired, if you are pulled over not wearing your seatbelt, your fired.

Really where would it end?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with you that smoking is a nasty habit and that if smokers have a right to smoke than non-smokers have a right not to inhale second hand poison..but even more interesting is your point about the slippery slope. This rule adopted by Weyco Inc should be of concern to people of a free society...each day more of our rights are stripped from us...scary..almost Orwellian isn't it? What's next we all recieve barcodes tattooed at birth that are scanned with each purchase at the grocery store so that "Big Brother" or in this case Weyco Inc. can track if we purchase whole milk, eggs and butter?