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.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?