Company is firing all of its smokers - whether they smoke at work or not

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Amused
Whoops!! Looks like we have a MLM/Amway freak on our hands, folks. :roll:

Actually a web designer.

Got any other snarky and untrue comments? Put it right here --> .

Yet another reason to want to be self-employed. Bosses who feel they can dictate even those not even employed by them!!

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496
This has class action lawsuit written all over it. You CAN NOT discriminate against someone for health reasons at a job unless the health issue prevents them from performing the job. So, terminating someone because they smoke and saying it has to do with higher health costs is illegal.
Sorry, have to fire you because you just came down with breast cancer and we can't afford the associated health costs. Yep, your fired too since you have a family history of heart disease. And you. You are fired because you just had a premature baby and that is going to cost us $100,000. Oh, and all you women are fired because you too might get pregnant and have premy babies.........
And no, I am not a smoker. Personally I find it revolting, but to blatantly discriminate against a class of people like that is beyond illegal. "At will" state or not!

Did you guys actually READ the article? It said they were fired for REFUSING to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes. This is no different than if you are asked to take a test to determine whether you have recently done drugs. Chances are that the policy was clearly defined in their contracts as a term of employment. There is nothing here to make anyone think that this has any illegitimacy to it whatsoever.

Jason

Do you not understand that drugs are illegal and smoking is LEGAL. It doesnt matter if it was in the employee handbook or if they signed a piece of paper, the employee still has his civil rights. The employeer has no business telling an employee if he can smoke a cig, cigar or pipe on his own time.

I for one, would quit if i worked for this company. As others pointed out, whats next a review of my health history and of my parents health history ??

Of course I do, that's not the issue. Drugs cause health complications that are expensive; so do cigarettes. If the company doesn't want to pay those costs, it has every right to NOT hire smokers, and since the smokers themselves knew for more than a YEAR in advance, I have no sympathy for them. They had PLENTY of time to either quit smoking or find another job.

Jason

Same with the obese. Its only a matter of time as their health care cost skyrocket. Plus its in the political works right now. First smoking, next the fatties - they did it to themselves damn fatties.

Plus those folks that wear glasses? Well they cost too much money.

 

[Philippine Mango]

Thats pretty bad but hey, it will encourage people to stop smoking. If people realize now, a lot less people smoke then they used to. Too bad though because smoking is catching on in asia and is really sad to see..

 

[episodic]

Wrong. Humans have inherit rights. Check the constitution for a reality check. No business owns a person, nor do they have the right to dictate their life choices. We are not slaves to some glass tower or a CEO, we are humans first.

Wrong. . .

Most moral and ethical theory systems say that we do not inherantly have ANY rights. Think about natural law. The world is a brutish place. Do you thing a gazelle has rights? Heck no. Humans in the basest form have no inherent rights to anything.

 

[episodic]

I love all the slippery slope arguments. It is apparent many did not even pay attention in intro to philosophy.

If you have any spare credit hours, I highly recommend an Intro to Logic class. Slippery slope arguments are extrememly weak, and often fallacious.

 

[episodic]

Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
2. Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

 

[dmcowen674]

The OP here in OT needs to update Thread Title that this guy announced today he will now Fire overweight employees as well.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Make the smokers pay the difference in the premium.

I agree. Bad drivers pay more in auto premiums, smokers should also. We all pay for the smoker, when in reality, they should pay higher for themselves.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The OP here in OT needs to update Thread Title that this guy announced today he will now Fire overweight employees as well.

bwahahahahhaahahaahaahhaahahha

I love it.

bwahahhahahahhahahaahah

oh wait....


bwahahhahhahhaahah

once more....

bwaahahahaahah

and again?

bwahahhaahahhhaah

man 'told you so' never felt so damn good

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The OP here in OT needs to update Thread Title that this guy announced today he will now Fire overweight employees as well.

Link?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: episodic

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The OP here in OT needs to update Thread Title that this guy announced today he will now Fire overweight employees as well.

Link?

It was on 60 minutes. Sorry....can't breathe....laughing too hard....sides hurting...tears....oh my this is the greatest ever.

the fatties did it themselves. Face it folks, we are no longer in america.

 

[bootymac]

Originally posted by: mcvickj
This seems wrong on several levels. I can see the company telling the employees no more smoking during company time. But to fire them because they do it at home or off company time. That doesn't seem right.

Yeah. Firing someone for something they do on their own isn't justified

 

[Crazymofo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The OP here in OT needs to update Thread Title that this guy announced today he will now Fire overweight employees as well.

Link?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The OP here in OT needs to update Thread Title that this guy announced today he will now Fire overweight employees as well.

Link?

its on CBS

linkified....

http://olympics.reuters.com/ne...thNews&storyID=7440773

""If you don't want to take the test, you can leave," Weyers told Reuters. "I'm not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here."

Next on the firing line: overweight workers.

"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're fired" Weyers said.
"

 

[episodic]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Crazymofo

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The OP here in OT needs to update Thread Title that this guy announced today he will now Fire overweight employees as well.

Link?

its on CBS

linkified....

http://olympics.reuters.com/ne...thNews&storyID=7440773

""If you don't want to take the test, you can leave," Weyers told Reuters. "I'm not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here."

Next on the firing line: overweight workers.

"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're fired" Weyers said.
"

That is not what was said. Read the article ppl. It said if you were obese you were protected legally.

 

Amused and this guy would get along well.

 

[episodic]

I mean sheesh, to change a quoted article. . .

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: episodic
I mean sheesh, to change a quoted article. . .

shhhhh, it was only a few words. Its not like I'm Dan Rather or anything.

 

[IGBT]

..the new preemployment drug tests also check for nicotine..they don't want to hire em either. Just think..no smoke breaks or designated smoke areas..no huffers huddling around the door ways..no cig butts all over the place..health insurers provide employer discounts to ensure no smokers get hired..lots of pluses for employers in this.

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..the new preemployment drug tests also check for nicotine..they don't want to hire em either. Just think..no smoke breaks or designated smoke areas..no huffers huddling around the door ways..no cig butts all over the place..health insurers provide employer discounts to ensure no smokers get hired..lots of pluses for employers in this.

When they start detecting alcohol use, then it'll become an "outrage," "injustice", "unconstitutional", "even Jesus drank wine" cry.

And come to think of it, alcoholism and binge drinking is a worse health problem -- as it's abused more. A cigarette smoker is unlikely to kill as often as a drunk driver too.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: IGBT
..the new preemployment drug tests also check for nicotine..they don't want to hire em either. Just think..no smoke breaks or designated smoke areas..no huffers huddling around the door ways..no cig butts all over the place..health insurers provide employer discounts to ensure no smokers get hired..lots of pluses for employers in this.

When they start detecting alcohol use, then it'll become an "outrage," "injustice", "unconstitutional", "even Jesus drank wine" cry.

And come to think of it, alcoholism and binge drinking is a worse health problem -- as it's abused more. A cigarette smoker is unlikely to kill as often as a drunk driver too.

Drunk driver does not drive up heath cost. And I have worked with HEAVY drinkers, you don;t need a drug test, their work is test enough.

 

[Choralone]

Originally posted by: spidey07
its on CBS

linkified....

http://olympics.reuters.com/ne...thNews&storyID=7440773

""If you don't want to take the test, you can leave," Weyers told Reuters. "I'm not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here."

Next on the firing line: overweight workers.

"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're fired" Weyers said.
"

In conjunction with the link posted above by Spidey there is
this .pdf file on Weyco's website stating their tobacco free policy.

For me personally if I were an employer I would encourage my employees that smoke to kick the habit, however I wouldn't go to nearly the same length Mr. Weyers has gone. Telling someone they must take a urine test to see if they smoke or not is BS in my book. I can understand random drug testing if that were an issue within the company. But as it has been stated time and time again, this is taking it TOO FAR!

If I were looking for employment I would stay the heck away from this company. As also mentioned, being obese is currently protected by law, so he can't fire you for that. But that doesn't mean they couldn't do whatever is legal to make an overweight employee's life at the company a living hell.

I'm sure Mr. Weyers is just reacting to the out of control health care costs that many smaller companies are forced with and reacting in the way he sees fit. I know the company I work for has faced 10-30% price hikes yearly the past few year in it's health care premiums and this year is no different with a 16% increase. My out of pocket expense each month for health care for my family is going to jump from $226 a month to $262 a month! :|

 

[Terumo]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Drunk driver does not drive up heath cost. And I have worked with HEAVY drinkers, you don;t need a drug test, their work is test enough.

Say that to the victims who died and disabled because of it. Then review the real cost that's deferred onto the community (be it with law enforcement; EMTs; hospitals; rehab). Do you have an idea how much rehab costs for someone injured? Do you think insurance covers all of the expense?

You're more likely getting hit by a drunk driver than dying of second hand smoke. But as long as your rights are protected to drink like a fish, you're happy.

But give it 10 years. Alcohol is next on the list.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: Amused
Lot's of FUD, and no facts.

Even if I posted a hundred cites, links and complete papers on the topic you'd still come back with that remark. Because the facts you want to believe fit your ideas.

The fact is, you NEVER had these "rights" to begin with.

Wrong. Humans have inherit rights. Check the constitution for a reality check. No business owns a person, nor do they have the right to dictate their life choices. We are not slaves to some glass tower or a CEO, we are humans first.

Employers have ALWAYS had the right to fire people for lifestyle choices outside of work that they believe will negatively affect their work.

Employers have NO right to dictate the life style choices of their employees (at least legal life style choices that don't infringe on another's rights).

Smoking causes no more negative affect in working than having a beer after work. In fact, nicotine is a stimulant which can and does improve one's work.

Don't even tempt me to floor you with medical studies to prove that to you. MEDLINE is my pal. Save face, and back off while you can.

In fact, up until just a couple decades ago, employers had the right to fire you for any reason they choose. And they should still have that right.

Not for lifestyle choice off the company's dime.

Again, employment IS NOT A RIGHT.

And opinions aren't a right too, huh? What next, cameras in all our bedrooms so CEO's can tell if their employees sleep 8hrs a day? Crazy? Not so on the way regulation and ability to be human is taken away.

Never sale your soul to the company store, you'll be bought and sold into slavery everytime.

The employer is NOT dictating what the employee can and cannot do in their private life. The employer is saying the employee cannot smoke, and work for them. There is a difference. The employee does NOT have a "right" to work for that employer at their own terms. The employer has a right to set whatever terms they like and the employee has the right to reject those terms, and find employment elsewhere.

Please show me any law, or "right" in the Bill of Rights that says employers cannot fire an employee for doing something they disagree with at ANY TIME.

OOPS, you cannot. Because no such law exists. Employers have ALWAYS had the right to fire employees for ANYTHING not related to race, religion, national origin, sex and disability. ANYTHING.

They have had this right since the founding of this country. And your FUD, doom and gloom have not come to pass. For good reason. Most employers will never care what their employees do off work so long as it doesn't affect the company. But for those who do, they have every right to fire anyone they damn well please, just as the employee has every right to quit any time they damn well please.

So please, stop pulling rights out of your ass that do not exist, OK?

Amused, are you actually telling me that you believe this... FUD?

You believe that it is OK for an employer to fire you for whatever reason they wish(not related ro race, religion, national origin and disability)? WTF? Where the hell do you draw the line?

So, I don't like people who drive SUVs. I hold a meeting and have everyone casually write down their vehicle make and model.

The next day, I fire everyone whos' vehicle gets less than 20MPG.

Are you telling me you would stand up and turn the other cheek if that happened to you? Yeah right. I don't believe that for a second man. You would cry foul, just like anybody else, because you would feel as though your rights had been trampled on. You might even consider a wrongful termination lawsuit. Tell me with a straight face you think that's OK.

I really don't understand how you can believe in this.

The employer is NOT dictating what the employee can and cannot do in their private life. The employer is saying the employee cannot smoke, and work for them. There is a difference.

What is the difference???????????????

If I'm qualified for the job, but you don't hire me because I smoke, isn't that discrimination? Isn't that deciding that I can't smoke if I want to work for this employer? How is that not dictating what I can do in my private life?

So just because they have no "right" to hire me and I have no "right" to work there, I also have no "rights" in the workplace? No, that isnt true. I have rights against discrimination. We know the basic ones, and I firmly believe that this kind of discrimination should be included.

Like others have said, where do you draw the line? I know the slippery slope theory has been nailed in here, but it's true. If you have people getting fired because they smoke, you're going to have people getting fired because they're fat. You're going to have people getting fired because they don't wear their seatbelts. Anything! And it doesen't even have anything to do with the job?!

The line will be drawn when an employer can no longer staff their company with competent people because their rules are too restrictive.

The vast majority of companies will never do this, folks. Your fears are unfounded.

I understand this. But what about the individual? Is it ok for a company to discriminate against someone because they are fat? Or because they smoke?

So basically, you believe in discrimination........... as long as it isn't for race, religion, national origin, or disability.

Awesome.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: shuan24

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Terumo

Originally posted by: dabuddha
You guys are arguing about a situation that does not exist. No one has cancelled anyones health care or fired mass numbers of people because they're obese or engaging in unprotected sex.

Yet.

As soon as there is an opportunity to take something away, it can and will be abused. Sad thing is once rights are taken away it's hard to get them back, as whoever benefits from the measure doesn't want to give up the power.

Corporations are known to want to dictate more than employees' lives -- the world's -- all for it's gain.

It's naive to claim that just because it hasn't happen, it won't happen. Fill a bowl full of candy and see if a kid has will power to avoid eating it all. Thus, liberty must be protected, as few entities have the willpower to not exploit something for some gain at the expense of themselves and others.

Lot's of FUD, and no facts.

The fact is, you NEVER had these "rights" to begin with. Employers have ALWAYS had the right to fire people for lifestyle choices outside of work that they believe will negatively affect their work.

In fact, up until just a couple decades ago, employers had the right to fire you for any reason they choose. And they should still have that right.

Again, employment IS NOT A RIGHT.

Amused,

the case here is not whether or not smoking affects their work. The case is whether or not a company can fire you for smoking off the clock. I see that you believe that they have that right. Fine. Do you believe companies have the right to fire you for anything they want? Lets say, because you like to go bicycling after work. You're fired. Do you believe that is moral and/or lawful?

Should it be lawful? Yes.
Is it lawful? Yes
Has it always been lawful? Yes
Is it moral? That's relative.
Is it smart? No.

And the vast majority of companies have not done this for that very reason. Become too restrictive and you'll rule out most of the workforce.

What no one here seems to understand is that employers have had the legal right to do this all along. Most do not because it isn't very productive or smart to do. But employers HAVE fired people for things that they do in their off time that the employer disagrees with. Say an actor or actress in child films does porn on the side. Should he be fired? Others are fired for bad credit ratings.

This is an isolated case and will remain so. Companies that place unreasonable blue laws on their employees never remain very successful and severely limit their potential by ruling out employees based on something that has little to do with job performance.