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

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: Wanescotting
So what about the employees that engage in unprotected sex? What about the employees that are obese?



Where would it stop?

I was on the fence - you made up my mind. :beer:2u.

Don't fall for it.

What about the ones that don't brush their teeth, or don't get their shots, or go sky diving, or, or, or...

Smoking is always a choice, obesity is not.

Sex is life. STDs are a risk, but so is driving. Play it safe and you reduce that risk. You can't "safely" smoke.

 

WRONG. Women were fired for not wearing mackup, they lost their case. People can quit for any reason and employers can fire you for just about anything, as long as it is not protected by state law or equal rights federal and of course the admendments to it like sex, race, religion, etc....

Please provide proof to back that up. Makeup could be considered part of dress code, which would be something can be grounds for termination. If you only smoke at home, never bring it to work, the company has little ground to terminate you. Companies cannot fabricate policy that dictates what you can do while not on the job, especially with legal activities such as smoking.

I think peopel should have to pay THEIR fair share of the fees. If you smoke, drink a lot, eat fast food more then a certain amount, etc... that goes towards YOUR rate. To many people pay for the lazy unhealty lifestyles of others. Their choice, their bill.

Health insurance companies ask if you're a smoker and can test you for it through your primary healthcare provider. They can and will charge smokers a higher rate for coverage. The same goes for hazards of occupational work.

This will go to court regardless if the company is in an 'at-will' state or not. I believe that the only way the company can backup it's decision is to have a mandatory phyical done by doctors on every single employee. Thoes who pass, keep their job, thoes who fail do not.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Wanescotting
You cannot get the cream of the crop employees when you start doing things like this.

Smokers are prone to caving in under peer pressure and have a lack of will power. They also spend a lot of money on habits, and are willing to isolate themselves from the rest of the social group to get their brief fix. When they can't get their cigarette on time, they get very anxious and irritable and lash out at people. Yea I think that's the cream of the crop.

Not all smokers adhere to this stereotype but many of the ones I know do!

 

[squirrel dog]

I tried to smoke a turkey once , sumbich wouldnt stay lit.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

i think a company should be allowed to hire or fire anyone for whatever reason. that being said, i think its bad business when you starting hiring and firing for things other than job performance.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: episodic
http://www.channelcincinnati.c...ws/4125477/detail.html


Quote: "A Michigan health care company has fired four of its employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes."


I can understand the company owner's perspective here. ..

Thoughts?

They are fvcking nazis. Stupid.

 

[GasX]

THIN END OF THE WEDGE!

 

[vi edit]

To be fair they should also fire diabetics, alchoholics, people with a BMI over 25, people who engage in high risk recreational activities, ect ect.

 

[Wanescotting]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Wanescotting
You cannot get the cream of the crop employees when you start doing things like this.

Smokers are prone to caving in under peer pressure and have a lack of will power. They also spend a lot of money on habits, and are willing to isolate themselves from the rest of the social group to get their brief fix. When they can't get their cigarette on time, they get very anxious and irritable and lash out at people. Yea I think that's the cream of the crop.

Not all smokers adhere to this stereotype but many of the ones I know do!

Um, maybe you hangout with a weak group of people. Or maybe you have been brainwashed by those anti-smoking commercials.

Oh, and you missed the point completely . My point was that intelligent folks searching for jobs (not just the ones that smoke) will have no interest in working for that company. Why? Like I said, where does it stop?

 

[JulesMaximus]

That's not going to stand up in court. What's next? Firing someone for eating fast food? Or not exercising? Or being overweight? :roll:

I hope those employees sue the crap out of that employer and they are awarded millions.

 

[Argo]

Originally posted by: Slacker
They should stop insuring smokers as well. <edit, assumed the company to be an insurance co.

Yeah? I can't beleive most of you agree with this. So what's next? They should stop insuring people who can't do 10 pull ups? Then people who have body fat above 15%? I got no problems with higher risk people paying higher costs - car insurance companies already do that. But don't single out smokers, there're other ways you can put yourself at risk other than smoking.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Wanescotting

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Wanescotting
You cannot get the cream of the crop employees when you start doing things like this.

Smokers are prone to caving in under peer pressure and have a lack of will power. They also spend a lot of money on habits, and are willing to isolate themselves from the rest of the social group to get their brief fix. When they can't get their cigarette on time, they get very anxious and irritable and lash out at people. Yea I think that's the cream of the crop.

Not all smokers adhere to this stereotype but many of the ones I know do!

Um, maybe you hangout with a weak group of people. Or maybe you have been brainwashed by those anti-smoking commercials.

Oh, and you missed the point completely . My point was that intelligent folks searching for jobs (not just the ones that smoke) will have no interest in working for that company. Why? Like I said, where does it stop?

I rarely watch TV, but those anti smoking commercials are great.

Yea I missed your point - I see what you mean now.

 

[razor2025]

I can see those lawyers drooling all over this one. The idiot manager who terminated them will probably get a pink slip as result of the law suit.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Tbirdkid
no but what you can do is not pay for their health care anymore if they do smoke. firing is wrong.... but making them pay for their own health care isnt.

what the company would have to do is take the smokers completely out of the insured group. however reducing the numbers of employees eligible for health benefits could raise the cost of healthcare for everyone, hence fire the smokers and hire non smokers.

there is no way to account for the smokers, have them pay for their own insurance without affecting the companies position with the insurance carrier.

it's not enough to say, ok, all smokers are no longer eligible for health benefits because that reduces the number of employees eligible for health benefits and could put the company in a higher price bracket.

it's an interesting scenario.

 

[Hammer]

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

i agree with this. this seems the most fair.

 

[Wanescotting]

Originally posted by: razor2025
I can see those lawyers drooling all over this one. The idiot manager who terminated them will probably get a pink slip as result of the law suit.

I think it was the owner that did this.

 

[vi edit]

Ironically though, being overweight and the problems associated with it has overtaken smoking as the number one preventable health care cost.

 

[davew0670]

Originally posted by: Hammer

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

i agree with this. this seems the most fair.

got to make the overweight pay their difference.

 

[BullsOnParade]

weren't they fired for not taking a test to determine whether they smoked or not ?

 

[Slvrtg277]

I'm not sure what to think about this one. I know that a "right-to-hire" state can fire an employee out of the blue and not have to give a reason for it. I work in such a state. BUT, if I were to get fired, I would have to try to prove that they fired me illegally somehow (race, etc.).

This company isn't firing employees with no reason given. They are blatantly giving the reason as a perfectly legal activity that these people engage in outside of the workplace. That being the case, maybe these employees DO have a case.


BTW - I am not a smoker and I am the first to complain about people smoking right outside the doors of any building where I have to walk through it to get in or out. I hate it. But damn...this kind of discrimination just doesn't seem right.

 

Originally posted by: davew0670

Originally posted by: Hammer

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

i agree with this. this seems the most fair.

got to make the overweight pay their difference.

You have to give every single insured person a full physical. Thoes not in 100% perfect shape have to pay a higher premium. Watch the outrage that ensues.

I can't believe so many of you agree with this precedent and are not outraged.
Just wait until its your bull getting gored, your tone will change almost immediatly.

 

[Hammer]

this case will come down to michigan state law. the ADA doesn't apply.

my guess is that michigan has laws similar to the states listed in the article below and the employer is aware of this. the firing will stand up in court as a result.

also, keep in mind this is a healthcare company that did the firing. look at the American Cancer Society example below.

Scroll all the way to the bottom

Protection for Smokers
Some states protect both smokers and nonsmokers by insisting that employers provide a smoke-free environment for nonsmokers and by prohibiting discrimination against an employee who smokes -- either while off the job or at limited places and times in keeping with a worksite smoking policy.

Protection for smokers may be couched in laws that prohibit discrimination against employees who use "lawful products" outside the workplace before or after workhours. Wisconsin law goes an extra step and forbids employers from discriminating against both workers who use and workers who do not use lawful products.

Several of the state laws that prohibit discrimination against smoking employees do not apply if not smoking is truly a part and parcel of the job. The exception is written into the laws in a number of states -- including Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming. In these states it is likely, for example, that a worker in the front office of the American Cancer Society -- a group outspoken in its disdain of tobacco -- could be fired for lighting up on the job.

And even in those states that offer some protection to smokers -- such as Minnesota, Montana, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming -- employers are free to charge smokers higher health insurance premiums than nonsmoking employees must pay.

 

[Orsorum]

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

Yep.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: davew0670

Originally posted by: Hammer

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

i agree with this. this seems the most fair.

got to make the overweight pay their difference.

You have to give every single insured person a full physical. Thoes not in 100% perfect shape have to pay a higher premium. Watch the outrage that ensues.

I can't believe so many of you agree with this precedent and are not outraged.
Just wait until its your bull getting gored, your tone will change almost immediatly.

the precedent has a already been set. some states have laws that allow smokers to be charged higher premiums by their companies. this is nothing new.

 

[davew0670]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: davew0670

Originally posted by: Hammer

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

i agree with this. this seems the most fair.

got to make the overweight pay their difference.

You have to give every single insured person a full physical. Thoes not in 100% perfect shape have to pay a higher premium. Watch the outrage that ensues.

I can't believe so many of you agree with this precedent and are not outraged.
Just wait until its your bull getting gored, your tone will change almost immediatly.

If the article had started like this " Quote: "A Michigan health care company has fired four of its employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they are fat." There would be mass histeria here, tv, radio..everywhere