Smoker?

[Highland 0]

claims company

 

Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

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

 

UPDATED: 1:58 PM EST January 25, 2005

 

LANSING, Mich. -- A Michigan health care company has fired four of its employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

 

The company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after-hours, or at home.

 

The founder of Weyco Inc. said the company doesn't want to pay the higher health care costs associated with smoking.

 

An official of the company -- which administers health benefits -- estimated that 18 to 20 of its 200 employees were smokers when the policy was first announced in 2003. As many as 14 of them quit smoking before the policy went into effect.

 

On the company's Web site, it states:

 

      Weyco Inc. is a non-smoking company that strongly supports its employees in living healthy lifestyles.

[Special K 0]

I smell lawsuit. If this is legal, you can fire people for eatting red meat or fast food, or using cell phones, or fucking driving a car without a seatbelt. (or driving a car period.) Or having unprotected sex. Or participating in extreme sports.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I support it.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I don't see how that's illegal and it makes sense in a way, considering they're a health care company and the employees get free or at least reduced health care benefits for working.

 

That is a ridiculously stupid rule. I wonder how the testing is done, though.

[Guest T®ITEC]

Those of us going for the slow and painful suicide are becoming outcasts in society, and that just breaks my heart.

[Special K 0]

Why should an employer be able to dictate someone's private life if it doesn't interfere with their work?

 

EDIT: before anyone says it, and is legal?

[Guest Vitamin X]

That same argument could be used for drug testing (especially in the case of marijuana) yet thousands of companies do it. So I'm pretty sure it's not illegal.

[Highland 0]

But tobacco isn't illegal yet, so I don't see the legal standing this company has. It doesn't effect the employee's performance on the job either, or interfere in any way. I can't see this standing in court.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Companies don't drug test you because it's illegal, if that were the case every person that tested positive would be reported to the authorities. Companies drug test you for essentially the same reason that this company is; to maintain a drug-free environment and in essence, dictate someone's personal life in doing so. This wouldn't even get to court because the job market would dictate that if this were wrong, they could just find another job.

 

Hell, I'm basically not allowed to go to the bathroom during my shift at my job, and we're not allowed to call in sick, either or we get disciplined for it. I heard about this girl at my work who was sick and throwing up like crazy, so she was getting up from her desk to go to the bathroom (you know, to puke) and she asked to go home and not have it affect her attendance, and the supervisors told her tough shit, and they brought her a bucket for her to throw up in so she wouldn't keep getting up to go to the bathroom. That's sickening, but they're allowed to do so since if you don't agree or want to work within the company policies, you do reserve the right to quit or find another job or complain to unemployment about the working conditions if you do decide to quit and need some income in the meantime.

[Guest Smues]

I don't where I stand on this one. Despite my hatred of smoking it's your right to do so. However, it's also your responsibility to pay for any health problems that come with it, not your employers. Hmm

[Ace309 0]

It's legal. Smokers aren't a protected class.

 

On the other hand, it's... mean?

 

::shrugs, cleans out his desk::

[The Ill One 0]

Companies don't drug test you because it's illegal, if that were the case every person that tested positive would be reported to the authorities. Companies drug test you for essentially the same reason that this company is; to maintain a drug-free environment and in essence, dictate someone's personal life in doing so. This wouldn't even get to court because the job market would dictate that if this were wrong, they could just find another job.

 

Hell, I'm basically not allowed to go to the bathroom during my shift at my job, and we're not allowed to call in sick, either or we get disciplined for it. I heard about this girl at my work who was sick and throwing up like crazy, so she was getting up from her desk to go to the bathroom (you know, to puke) and she asked to go home and not have it affect her attendance, and the supervisors told her tough shit, and they brought her a bucket for her to throw up in so she wouldn't keep getting up to go to the bathroom. That's sickening, but they're allowed to do so since if you don't agree or want to work within the company policies, you do reserve the right to quit or find another job or complain to unemployment about the working conditions if you do decide to quit and need some income in the meantime.

Where the hell do you work man?

[Guest Vitamin X]

BellSouth as a 411 Nationwide Operator. Thank god I'm just a part-timer, and I'm not exactly planning on sticking around for much longer. I didn't think the scheduling and the attendance policies were going to be so harsh, so I'll just keep it around until I find another part-time that'll work out.

[Jingus 0]

I am totally, utterly amazed at what employers can get away with in this country sometimes. "Land of the free" indeed.

[iggymcfly 0]

That is freedom. It gives employers freedom to hire and fire employees in whatever manner is most effective, and leaves employees free to either agree to it or go work somewhere else.

 

It's bullshit that the employers choose to do that, but from a philosophical standpoint, I can't justify the government stopping them.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I wonder if they'll start firing people who eat fast-food or engage in unprotected anal sex/drug use as well...

[Nighthawk 0]

What's with the / between anal sex and drug use? Lots of people do one of the other, you know.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

He means anal sex or anal drug use, apparently.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I had them together because doing both can run a person a high risk of cathching the AIDS (in this case drug use is "injecting with dirty needles") -- just didn't want to bust out my homophobic colors, but sadly I guess I have no choice...

[Nighthawk 0]

I think most places would fire you for intravenous drug use, actually.

[Guest Cerebus]

What's next, alchohol, fatty foods, too much sex? What trash.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I think most places would fire you for intravenous drug use, actually.

Damnit, I was only going to go with anal sex but threw in the drug use so I wouldn't be accused of "gay bashing." Now my point is ruined...

[Jingus 0]

That is freedom. It gives employers freedom to hire and fire employees in whatever manner is most effective, and leaves employees free to either agree to it or go work somewhere else.

 

It's bullshit that the employers choose to do that, but from a philosophical standpoint, I can't justify the government stopping them.

Two words: affirmative action.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Well don't insurance companies charge high premiums to smokers? On commercials they always say "look how low these premiums can be ifyou'reingoodhealthanddonotsmoke!" or something. Some sort of disclaimer. So if you're more expensive for the company to take care of than someone who can do your job without smoking, I can see why the company does what it does.

[Jingus 0]

Which is why you don't tell the insurance company you're a smoker. If you can get away with it, there's no reason to let them know.

[Guest Vitamin X]

One problem, though: Those commercials you refer to are usually for life insurance companies, and finding out if a person smoked or not is as easy as an autopsy to reveal all the tar buildup in their lungs.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I like how smokers are obviously not people in today's society and it's perfectly acceptable to constantly discriminate against them.

 

Had this been any other group of people other than smokers there would be a national outcry over it.

[Nighthawk 0]

One problem, though: Those commercials you refer to are usually for life insurance companies, and finding out if a person smoked or not is as easy as an autopsy to reveal all the tar buildup in their lungs.

Blow yourself up right before you die.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I like how smokers are obviously not people in today's society and it's perfectly acceptable to constantly discriminate against them.

 

Had this been any other group of people other than smokers there would be a national outcry over it.

The presence of black guys doesn't give me tumors.

[Dr. Tom 0]

That is freedom. It gives employers freedom to hire and fire employees in whatever manner is most effective, and leaves employees free to either agree to it or go work somewhere else.

 

It's bullshit that the employers choose to do that, but from a philosophical standpoint, I can't justify the government stopping them.

Two words: affirmative action.

Smokers are not a racial or ethnic minority. They're people who choose to maintain a filthy, disgusting habit, and they have to bear the responsibilities that come with that habit. A health-care company, given the nature of their business, should absolutely be able to enforce a no-smoking policy.