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

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ShotgunSteven
Next they will be firing people that eat fast food, don't wear their seatbelts, get speeding tickets, and lift with their back rather than their legs.

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.

 

[spidey07]

Amused
We agree completely on the right to work. I firmly believe that a company should hire and fire whoever it pleases.

What gets my feathers in a ruffle is the selective reasons upon which that right is decided. I do not agree with firing somebody for what they do outside of work. I do agree with firing because of can't do the job - not matter what that means (man trying to be hooter's waiter, fat chick trying to sell skinny clothes, etc)

Decisions cannot be made on hiring/firing based on handicap, race, religion, gender etc. But the freedom of the employer is being quickly eroded as are the cries of folks saying "I was fired because of unconstitional means"

I see this as more ammo to fuel the "can't fire me because I'm a smoking white gay jewish male" more than anything.

Probably talking in circles here but I believe you catch my drift. I believe I understand both sides.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Lets fire all black people because they are prone to sickle cell
Lets fire whites cause they get cancer more than other races
Our new policy will be to hire only Asians.

And not just any Asian... lets keep thin ones. Overweight ones are prone to heart disease and diabetes. So lets fire those.

And gays...get rid of the gays because they have those gay girly emotional meltdown days and cost us money.

Of course none of the above are acceptable but...you know...discrimination against smokers is just a-okay these days :roll:

Smoking is a CHOICE, you are not BORN a smoker. Also it is a private business, so if they don;t want smokers, then either quit smoking or find another job.

And, again, for all the people talking about sueing, go ahead, you will lose and then have lawyer fees.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: gabemcg
I'm gonna add my 2 cents here, I haven't taken the time to read through all of the posts, but my dad is an attorney IN MICHIGAN who deals with this type of law. It's called "at will employment" I don't neccisarily believe it's right what this company did, but it IS LEGAL. Unless these workers were under a contract that stated they could only be terminated with just cause... or something to that effect; they can be fired for ANY REASON. You can be fired for any reason however frivilous, i.e. you tell bad jokes, you smell bad, you get a bad haircut. You can also quit for any reason. The only protected groups under this law are Minorities, Women, and the Disabled. If you are discriminated aginst beccause you are over the age of 40, there is also a federal law protecting you.

1. what the company did is legal under "at will employment" law.
2. doesn't mean it's right
3. any attorny worth his salt would not take this case

I agree, but we're muddying the waters with personal "choices", aka "lifestyle choices."

Take your pick, what lifestyle choice does the employer not agree with? Someday it may affect you.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Lets fire all black people because they are prone to sickle cell
Lets fire whites cause they get cancer more than other races
Our new policy will be to hire only Asians.

And not just any Asian... lets keep thin ones. Overweight ones are prone to heart disease and diabetes. So lets fire those.

And gays...get rid of the gays because they have those gay girly emotional meltdown days and cost us money.

Of course none of the above are acceptable but...you know...discrimination against smokers is just a-okay these days :roll:

Smoking is a CHOICE, you are not BORN a smoker. Also it is a private business, so if they don;t want smokers, then either quit smoking or find another job.

And, again, for all the people talking about sueing, go ahead, you will lose and then have lawyer fees.

I disagree, one is predisposed to be a smoker just as much as one is being gay. there is no difference.

study after study has shown my statement to be true. I'm appaled that you can't see that.

hmmm, lets see "I don't want homosexuals at my place of employment"
"I don't want smokers"

what in the world is the difference?

what's next? "I don't want drug addicts?"

reference "family guy" episode. Same thing. This will never pass constitutional muster.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

All of this makes me think of that commercial I hear now and then for some lawyer's talk radio show.

Caller: So during the 90 day probationary period, I can fire an employee for anything?

Lawyer: That's right, just tell them, "Hey, sorry it didn't work out, have a good one." Unless they're a minority of course. If they're a black hispanic left handed lesbian that smokes, they're going to be working for you for the rest of your life.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: theGlove
wait until your employer starts firing people who get speeding tickets

Nothing new there. Lots of jobs require you to have a good driving record.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: theGlove
wait until your employer starts firing people who get speeding tickets

Nothing new there. Lots of jobs require you to have a good driving record.

lots of jobs require one to not be a fat ass.

 

[KoolDrew]

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.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Lets fire all black people because they are prone to sickle cell
Lets fire whites cause they get cancer more than other races
Our new policy will be to hire only Asians.

And not just any Asian... lets keep thin ones. Overweight ones are prone to heart disease and diabetes. So lets fire those.

And gays...get rid of the gays because they have those gay girly emotional meltdown days and cost us money.

Of course none of the above are acceptable but...you know...discrimination against smokers is just a-okay these days :roll:

Smoking is a CHOICE, you are not BORN a smoker. Also it is a private business, so if they don;t want smokers, then either quit smoking or find another job.

And, again, for all the people talking about sueing, go ahead, you will lose and then have lawyer fees.

I disagree, one is predisposed to be a smoker just as much as one is being gay. there is no difference.

study after study has shown my statement to be true. I'm appaled that you can't see that.

hmmm, lets see "I don't want homosexuals at my place of employment"
"I don't want smokers"

what in the world is the difference?

what's next? "I don't want drug addicts?"

reference "family guy" episode. Same thing. This will never pass constitutional muster.

Complete and utter crap. No way people are genetically predisposed to smoke. I call B.S.
There is nothing in your genetic makeup that makes you start smoking. Absolutely nothing.
That is just more of the "it's not may fault" theory that is permeating our society....just like the B.S. about fat people aren't at fault for being fat. Sure, .01% of them may have some thyroid disorder, but the other 99.99% simply eat too much and exercise too little, know it, and refuse to do anything about it.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: theGlove
wait until your employer starts firing people who get speeding tickets

Nothing new there. Lots of jobs require you to have a good driving record.

lots of jobs require one to not be a fat ass.

True, I haven't seen too many fat strippers.....well, except that one club in West Virginia...but we won't go there. :shocked:

 

[flexy]

they should also fire everyone who eats FRIES...i mean, everyday i see people in our cafteria...eating FRIES !

ANd we all know how unhealthy these greasy, fatty fries are...... FIRE THOSE BASTARDS who dont know how to eat healhty !


Also...i would fire everyone admitting they eat at McD or BurgerKing or similar "unhealthy" places - and while we're at it...FIRE EVERYONE OVER 160lbs !!! FIRE THEM NOW !! Unhealthy and filthy bastards ! They dont have a right to work in a company promoting health !

 

The business never violated your (their) rights. They never said you cannot smoke. They only said you cannot smoke and work for them. You do not have a right to work for them any more than they have a right to employ you. No rights have been violated here. You are making up rights...pulling them out of your ass, as it is.

You ARE saying someone has a right to be employed when you say a company does not have the right to pick and choose who it hires and fires.

You can deny it all you like, but that IS what you are saying.

And affirmative action laws are useless. They do nothing but create tokenism. The key to equality lies in changing hearts and minds. No amount of laws will accomplish that. Just because the majority is one race does not mean that will be the most attractive candidate for employment. Thankfully, more companies than not have come to see that, contrary to the impression you would like people to have for some reason.

Self-determination ends where the rights of another begins, of course. Employment is a MUTUAL agreement. Take away the employers right to hire and fire at will, and it is no longer mutual, but one sided with employees having more rights than employers.

I'm saying the employers can hire and fire you at will, for what you do and what you are on their time. Not on your own time.
If what you do on your own time is illegal, or interfers with your time at work, then that's grounds of course. But if it's completely detached from work, then it shouldn't matter.

I don't believe in affirmative action laws.

 

[newParadigm]

THey were fired b/c they refused the test, not b/c they smoke, at least thats waht it look slike to me.


~new

 

[TheGreenGoblin]

Originally posted by: TallBill
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.

So you fire them when they DO show up late for work and/or steal. Your assumptions are worth nothing. Pre-emptive firing because you believe someone's problems MAY affect their work is a joke.

Your vague generalization about people with "problems" tending to be the ones that "steal" is a joke too.

This thread is filled with ignorance.

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: PhasmatisNox
I can see their perspective. I don't think that firing them is the way to go, but perhaps as some other posters mentioned, higher premiums or no coverage, etc.

 

[tm37]

Originally posted by: 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.

Ok but we are about costs here and I am saying that hiring a pregnant woman is going to cost MORE to the employer than hiring me the smoker.

A pregnant woman is going to take up to 8 weeks of matenity (usually 6) and the health care costs are higher for her in a short time than I, a smoker, have incurred over the past 3 years.

Are you not going to hire pregnant women? what about men who have pregnant wives? What if my wife is obese. There are ways to pass the buck to the smoker for the choices we make. My last job I paid a PERCENTAGE OF THE PREMIUM not a flat amount. Also while you may say that smokers take more sick days on average I can tell you I have taken exactly two sick days in the last 6 YEARS. I would even go as far to say that my sickness both times was un related to my smoking.

Parents tend to take more sick days than unmarried people so are we going to only hire thoose without children? Are we going to make it so should you get married due to the fact you are now at a higher risk for child bearing we are going to let you go? What about single women who engage in promiscuis (sp?) sex they are far more likley to contract STDs therefor we should have the right to fire sluts even if they are not slutty around the office?

I am usually not a slippery slope guy BUT this is a little over the edge.

My health care premuim as a 30 YO smoker was less than that of a coworker of mine who was 44 and did not smoke. SO my HEALTH CARE COST WAS LESS yet with this policy i would have been fired. in a cost savings move. yeah that works.

 

[Terumo]

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?

Exactly. Next thing it'll be about one's transportation to work (what if you get into an accident and the company has to pay for it too)? The list can go on and on and on.

We're human, not corporate mechanical slaves.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: Terumo

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?

Exactly. Next thing it'll be about one's transportation to work (what if you get into an accident and the company has to pay for it too)? The list can go on and on and on.

We're human, not corporate mechanical slaves.

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.

 

[Tiamat]

I dont think there is anything wrong with that - legally. I mean, Employer can fire any of the employees at will "for the good of the company". If there is some extra cost associated with the employees that smoke, then I think that is enough justification for that employer, especially since smoking is by will, not by nature. It would be pretty harsh if the employer were to fire someone that was physically handicapped because of the job for example.

In the end, the world of business is heartless. It sucks, but if managers don't make those hard choices, the company will hire someone that will.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: Uppsala9496

Originally posted by: 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.

What I was trying to say is that it is an excuse to look for something else. Say a person has any kind of disability, they can say it is an attempt to discover whatever it is.
Constructive discharge would be another claim that can be made.
Regardless of what claim is made, this will result in a lawsuit. I have no idea what the courts would decide, however, this is going to cost the company a lot of money in defense costs alone.

they're specifically testing for smoking. smoking is not a disability.

i'm sure this will result in a lawsuit. but the ADA doesn't apply here.

there is no protection for smoking at the federal level. period, end of story. about half the states have some form of protection for it, half don't. if michigan is in the latter half, then this case will be dismissed.

My point is that the terminated employee can make an ADA related claim (no smoking is not a disability) as a result of the medical test to see if they are smokers provided they have some sort of medical condition that can be construed as a disability. All they have to say is that the test for smoking was an attempt to discover some other disability. The company terminated the ee's in order to save on health costs. As such, an ADA claim saying it was to find something else is very plausible. It would save the company money for any other potential health costs.
Of course, it would be up to the court to decide any of this, and it would be up to the EEOC to see if there is any merit (although you can bring a suit still if no cause has been found).

Uppsala, seriously, unless you went to law school, you are not qualified to make legal judgments on case precedent. Good, long time paralegals can do very well at that, but many of them make the jump to lawyerhood anyway. I'm betting Hammer is either an attorney or a paralegal or at least went to law school, and regardless, he's right on the money (dare I say, Hit the nail...).

All this legal discussion makes me realize how HAPPY I am to be out of that miserable profession.

 

[Gulzakar]

Bottom Line:

your work duties and after work life are two different things.

someone said to make them pay the difference...this is right on the nose. Make the high risk people pay the difference...I see nothing wrong with that.

though, you're pinpointing smokers, the obese...which is pretty arrogant considering most of you most likely have (or had) some unhealthy habits at one point...

did you know that having poor vision also makes you high risk? high sexual activity? testosterone laden drivers? people with guns? depression?

christ, you could make a huge list!

 

[hysperion]

Originally posted by: Gulzakar
Bottom Line:

your work duties and after work life are two different things.

someone said to make them pay the difference...this is right on the nose. Make the high risk people pay the difference...I see nothing wrong with that.

though, you're pinpointing smokers, the obese...which is pretty arrogant considering most of you most likely have (or had) some unhealthy habits at one point...

did you know that having poor vision also makes you high risk? high sexual activity? testosterone laden drivers? people with guns? depression?

christ, you could make a huge list!

bottom line:

let the smokers eat cake- they did it to themselves

 

[TipsyMcStagger]

If i remember correctly, they announced this over a year ago. These smokers had plenty of time to quit. people that smoke take more sick days and are unproductive unless they get their "fix"

 

[virtueixi]

Originally posted by: hysperion

Originally posted by: Gulzakar
Bottom Line:

your work duties and after work life are two different things.

someone said to make them pay the difference...this is right on the nose. Make the high risk people pay the difference...I see nothing wrong with that.

though, you're pinpointing smokers, the obese...which is pretty arrogant considering most of you most likely have (or had) some unhealthy habits at one point...

did you know that having poor vision also makes you high risk? high sexual activity? testosterone laden drivers? people with guns? depression?

christ, you could make a huge list!

bottom line:

let the smokers eat cake- they did it to themselves

What about fat people? They do it to themselves too? What the hell, let's fire all the black ppl working there too, since they are more prone to heart disease.
:disgust: