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

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: Amused
A private business owner should be able to hire and fire anyone they please for any reason they please.

Just as a private busniess owner should be able to allow, or ban smoking on their property, if they please.

So, as a private business owner, I can fire you because I don't like the way you look, your skin color, your sex, your sexual orientation, etc.? Remember there are more private business' than there are public. This isn't the 1920's.

why not??

if you have a competent employee that annoys the fvck out of you, you as the small business owner should have the right to fire that person. one of the reasons why i work for myself is so that i can choose who i work with. if i wanted to deal with annoying people, i'd get a corporate job.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Personally I think it should be illegal to fire anyone for activities they engage in on their personal time, legal or otherwise.

Personally I think that you couldn't be more wrong. If I'm a business owner and I know someone has all kinds of off work problems, theres an EXTREMELY good chance of them bringing them to work. My mom is a business owner and has issues with this all the time. The ones with drug/alcohol problems or spousal abuse or whatever else tend to be the ones that show up late and steal. As for the smoking thing, I dont see anything wrong with it. I know that I'd love to work in a tabacco free environment.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

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!

I"m pretty sure that you are wrong. There's nothing there for a lawsuit. IMO, they are getting rid of smokers to hold off FUTURE health costs, not immediate premium costs.
I've never seen a group policy that checked to see if individuals smoked or not. But anybody knows that if you have a bunch of long-term employees who smoke, there will eventually be some big dollars spent on some of those people's medical needs.
I think they are just off-loading that future burden now. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
No different than getting rid of the heavy drinkers and drug users.

Plus smokers on average take more sick days than non smokers. I have no facts to back that up but it sounds good.

Edit: Alittle bit of fact

 

[Pliablemoose]

The next logical step is to fire employees that have family members under a group insurance policy that smoke.

 

[Uppsala9496]

Originally posted by: Hammer

did you read title I?

I have seen suits similar to this. It is enough to bring a suit. It is up to the company to determine if it is cost effective to settle out of court, or to let it go to trial.

 

I mean "private" as in non-government. A publically traded company is still "private."

Gotcha.

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon
Still waiting for you to back up your claim of a woman being fired over makeup.

There was a whole thread on this.

http://www.indybay.org/archive...id=2774&category_id=12

I remember that article now. That is part of the dresscode for the company, and has to do with company policy while on the job. I can agree with that. Though I see no direct parallel between the makeup case and this smoking case.
One has to do with on the job activities, one has to do with off of the job activities.

A mandatory physical would be fair. However, health insurance premiums are usually not contingent upon the ability of the employee to pass a physical. If the company wants to use higher insurance premiums as the justification for its actions it should take action against employees strictly based upon factors that will directly increase insurance costs.

True. But there is a myriad of reasons someone would incur a greater cost to insure, smoking being one of them. So the company is being very selective and discriminative about who they choose. They should fire all overweight people immediatly.

I"m pretty sure that you are wrong. There's nothing there for a lawsuit. IMO, they are getting rid of smokers to hold off FUTURE health costs, not immediate premium costs.
I've never seen a group policy that checked to see if individuals smoked or not. But anybody knows that if you have a bunch of long-term employees who smoke, there will eventually be some big dollars spent on some of those people's medical needs.
I think they are just off-loading that future burden now. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
No different than getting rid of the heavy drinkers and drug users.

Drugs are illegal, and I've never heard of mass firings because someone drinks a lot off the job.

So the question is, where do you draw the line?

 

[torpid]

Stop quoting the ADA. You are only making yourself look silly.

Nothing shall be construed to preclude the prohibition of = Nothing in the ada chapter prevents you from banning or restricting smoking.

I am wholly against this policy unless the company's employees interact with people who have adverse reactions to smoke on clothing.

 

[Vette73]

Sampson here ya go...

http://www.indybay.org/archive...id=2772&category_id=31

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi...adart.cgi?ArtNum=80848

etc....

Its called google and this story made NATIONAL headlines everywhere.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Personally I think it should be illegal to fire anyone for activities they engage in on their personal time, legal or otherwise.

Personally I think that you couldn't be more wrong. If I'm a business owner and I know someone has all kinds of off work problems, theres an EXTREMELY good chance of them bringing them to work. My mom is a business owner and has issues with this all the time. The ones with drug/alcohol problems or spousal abuse or whatever else tend to be the ones that show up late and steal. As for the smoking thing, I dont see anything wrong with it. I know that I'd love to work in a tabacco free environment.

If those individuals bring their problems to work then that's when they should be dealt with, not before. What a employee does on their personal time is their business as long as it does'nt affect the business or company they work for. Pretty soon people will get fired for speeding and jaywalking.

 

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Sampson here ya go...

http://www.indybay.org/archive...id=2772&category_id=31

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi...adart.cgi?ArtNum=80848

etc....

Its called google and this story made NATIONAL headlines everywhere.

See my above post.

I remember that article now. That is part of the dresscode for the company, and has to do with company policy while on the job. I can agree with that. Though I see no direct parallel between the makeup case and this smoking case.
One has to do with on the job activities, one has to do with off of the job activities.

On a side note, you made the claim, you have to cite it and you did.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: Hammer

did you read title I?

I have seen suits similar to this. It is enough to bring a suit. It is up to the company to determine if it is cost effective to settle out of court, or to let it go to trial.

um ok. you may be in a state that has different laws. the point being is that the ADA has nothing to do with this. if you read title I, you'd know that the ADA does not apply when employees or applicants are engaging in use of controlled substances. the part you're referencing is saying smoking does not fall under that provision. it is NOT saying smoking is a disability.

 

[Uppsala9496]

Originally posted by: torpid
Stop quoting the ADA. You are only making yourself look silly.

Nothing shall be construed to preclude the prohibition of = Nothing in the ada chapter prevents you from banning or restricting smoking.

I am wholly against this policy unless the company's employees interact with people who have adverse reactions to smoke on clothing.

You are making me take a medical test because I smoke (that is what the article is about). You are not making anyone else take the test. This is an attempt to discover if I have a medical disability. I can now bring an ADA suit against you. See. Very simple to do. I've seen this type of case before. But, call me silly if you would like. What would I know.....

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: ViRGE

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.

The thing is that we already allow companies to hire and fire people over straight-up drug use, so this is only a very minor extension of that by moving from illegal drugs to something slightly more legal(but still about as dangerous). If it goes to court, I don't see it being an open-and-shut case at all.

It is pretty open and shut because the act of smoking is LEGAL.

I am going to fire anyone who has a hobby that could cause bodily harm or make them miss work.

Next is if you have an occasional drink followed by you are 10 lbs over your ideal wieght. It is ILLEGAL to discriminate due to medical conditions (Pregnacy comes to mind). This is simply a company that is going after a group that has been targeted and garners no sympathy so it might not be a PR disaster. However the courts will slam this one shut as the courts typically do not like to set this type of precident.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: Hammer

did you read title I?

I have seen suits similar to this. It is enough to bring a suit. It is up to the company to determine if it is cost effective to settle out of court, or to let it go to trial.

please re-read my previous post, you might have missed it.

Originally posted by: 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.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: SampSon
Drugs are illegal, and I've never heard of mass firings because someone drinks a lot off the job.

So the question is, where do you draw the line?

You've never heard of "mass firings" of drinkers, but there most certainly have been many heavy drinkers that got fired.
You just don't have mass amounts of heavy drinkers working in one place, usually.

Where do you draw the line? I'd say at race, religion, gender, etc. All the normal things that people really can't help.
Personal choices, like smoking, drinking, drugs....these things have the potential to greatly affect your job performace, not to mention EVERYONE'S health costs.
Damn right a company should have the right to can these people. It's a private company. This is not a constitutional issue. You do not have a constitutional right to do things that we've spoken about here that affect others.

Plus, I doubt there will be a lawsuit. They fired only 4 people, and it looks like they all knew this was coming and had a chance to quit smoking. The article mentioned that there were more people who quit smoking before the new policy.
Looks like most of the smokers at that company did what they needed to do to keep their job. Smart move.
If the 4 who didn't were dumb enough to lose their jobs over smoking, they probably won't be missed anyway.

 

[Uppsala9496]

On July 27, 2000, one day after the 10th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued new guidance on what employers can and cannot ask current employees about physical or mental impairments and about the conditions under which employees can be asked to submit to medical examinations. The Commission also issued guidance on the use of genetic information by federal government employers.

In the new guidance for inquiries and medical exams, the EEOC has taken the position that all employees, not just those with disabilities, need protection when an employer seeks to gather information about an employee. This is the first time the EEOC has expanded its interpretation of the ADA beyond the scope of individuals with disabilities.

I don't have the time to go digging for case law on this since I am at work, and have work to do. But, I have seen cases that are similar to this. The ADA can be listed in the claim for a suit. The federal law will override the state law.

 

[TwiceOver]

When I quit my job the only difference in tobacco/non-tobacco insurance through our BCBS provider was $12/mo. These guys could make an initiative to control waste or turn off unused electrical and save more money.

Fvckers.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: torpid
Stop quoting the ADA. You are only making yourself look silly.

Nothing shall be construed to preclude the prohibition of = Nothing in the ada chapter prevents you from banning or restricting smoking.

I am wholly against this policy unless the company's employees interact with people who have adverse reactions to smoke on clothing.

You are making me take a medical test because I smoke (that is what the article is about). You are not making anyone else take the test. This is an attempt to discover if I have a medical disability. I can now bring an ADA suit against you. See. Very simple to do. I've seen this type of case before. But, call me silly if you would like. What would I know.....

the medical test part of the ADA says you can't test for disabilities. nowhere does it say smoking is a disablity. i don't know what makes you think smoking is a disability?!

 

[vi edit]

the medical test part of the ADA says you can't test for disabilities. nowhere does it say smoking is a disablity. i don't know what make you think smoking is a disability?!

Yeh, I'm trying to figure out where he's making that leap too.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: tm37
It is pretty open and shut because the act of smoking is LEGAL.

I am going to fire anyone who has a hobby that could cause bodily harm or make them miss work.

Next is if you have an occasional drink followed by you are 10 lbs over your ideal wieght. It is ILLEGAL to discriminate due to medical conditions (Pregnacy comes to mind). This is simply a company that is going after a group that has been targeted and garners no sympathy so it might not be a PR disaster. However the courts will slam this one shut as the courts typically do not like to set this type of precident.

Drinking is legal, too. How many people have been fired for laying out of work multiple times after drinking after-hours?
Smokers miss more days on average, and are less productive on average than non-smokers.

What's the difference? You mentioned weight. Everyone knows that women can't help weight gain associated with pregnancy, so that's an irrelevant argument.

But smoking is a choice, that does not just affect the smoker. It affects the rest of the employees and the employer, with the higher costs of medical care over the smoker's lifetime, vs. a non-smoker who might be your theoretical "10lbs over ideal weight".

It should be the employer's choice whether they want incur this extra cost or get rid of it.

 

[knyghtbyte]

speaking as an ex-smoker, ex-fattie, and ex-pot user (a health insurers nightmare, am i healthy for the rest of my life or will i renege on one of the things i gave up, or will i still suffer consequences even if i stay away from the evil things?...aarrghhh) i think that smokers should be forced to quit or stop smoking.
The arguement about what about fatties etc just isnt appropriate for one simple reason, people get fat because they eat too much, but eating is something that you do have to do, it has a purpose involving keeping you alive, ok some people eat too much, but they still have to eat. Smokers are doing something recreational, therefore they dont have to do it, it doesnt keep them alive for some reason, they start it because its trendy/cool/hard/peer pressure/etc, then they claim they cant stop it because of the drug in it that keeps them addictive, or because it calms them down etc. So what? you started it when there was no actual reason to that was necessary to your life, so its tough on you. Personally i think for definite anyone working in the health industries whether private or business should not smoke, partly to set an example, also to keep the surroundings more clean and unpolluted, nothing worse than someone who walks into work having sucked the life out of a ciggie just before they walk in the door to then let all that smoke that clings around them percolate the office/whatever. Even when i smoked i wasnt keen on smokey atmospheres unless i was smoking myself, now i dont i really cannot stand it, i rarely go into bars for this reason, yet i love a good drinkie sesh.

A chain of pubs in the UK (they usually have one in every town centre, plus some local up the road type ones and some more trendy bar style ones) called Wetherspoons has just announced plans to ban smoking in all its pubs sometime within a year, i think its a good idea, specially seeing as they do serve food as well.


there ya go, another long post that i wrote while bored at work, wow this is a good way to pass the time...lol

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: TwiceOver
When I quit my job the only difference in tobacco/non-tobacco insurance through our BCBS provider was $12/mo. These guys could make an initiative to control waste or turn off unused electrical and save more money.

Fvckers.

That's how much they made YOU pay. A company doesn't always offload the whole cost onto the employees.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: torpid
Stop quoting the ADA. You are only making yourself look silly.

Nothing shall be construed to preclude the prohibition of = Nothing in the ada chapter prevents you from banning or restricting smoking.

I am wholly against this policy unless the company's employees interact with people who have adverse reactions to smoke on clothing.

You are making me take a medical test because I smoke (that is what the article is about). You are not making anyone else take the test. This is an attempt to discover if I have a medical disability. I can now bring an ADA suit against you. See. Very simple to do. I've seen this type of case before. But, call me silly if you would like. What would I know.....

the medical test part of the ADA says you can't test for disabilities. nowhere does it say smoking is a disablity. i don't know what makes you think smoking is a disability?!

I'd like to know that myself.

 

[Armitage]

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

:thumbsup:
Yep - let the market sort it out. I'm sure the actuaries can come up with the differential rate that smokers should pay given their increased use of medical services. Same for life insurance.

 

[davew0670]

Originally posted by: knyghtbyte
The arguement about what about fatties etc just isnt appropriate for one simple reason, people get fat because they eat too much, but eating is something that you do have to do, it has a purpose involving keeping you alive, ok some people eat too much, but they still have to eat.

what about the person who is 50 pounds overweight and is sitting at their desk eating twinkies an hour after the just got finished having lunch at mcDonalds?