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

[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).

 

[Fritzo]

Being somewhat familiar with company medical benefits, smokers use a lot more insurance dollars as opposed to a non smoker (they get more colds and respritory viruses), plus statisitcally they take more sick days.

I don't know- I don't see anything wrong with it. If you don't smoke at work, I can still smell that crap on you when you're walking around.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: Citrix
how am I wrong?

scroll up, and read the link i posted. its ok in plenty of states.

Ok i read it and you missed the last sentence

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

On the job is whole lot different than your home, your car, walking down the street.... Still clearly a civil rights issue.

civil rights issue implys federal protection. but there is no federal protection for smoking.

Isn't the right to privacy a civil right? That's what's going on here; they're violating their constitutionally protected privacy to determine if they engage in a legal activity when they're not at work. Other than a few career fields, what employer has the right to tell you what to do in your time off and the right to monitor it?

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: Citrix

can you say, Life, Liberty and the prusuit of happiness? Yes there is federal protection because it is a LEGAL Activity!! Until the Feds make nicciotene a controlled substance, NOBODY has a right to tell a smoker he or she can not smoke in thier own home, car, or public establishment (that allows it of course).

check out the section on smoking and legal off-duty activities. you'll see that its left to the state. no federal protection.

Link

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Citrix


can you say, Life, Liberty and the prusuit of happiness? Yes there is federal protection because it is a LEGAL Activity!! Until the Feds make nicciotene a controlled substance, NOBODY has a right to tell a smoker he or she can not smoke in thier own home, car, or public establishment (that allows it of course).

What of the employer's right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

No one is telling the employee he can't smoke. The employer is only saying he can't smoke and work for his company.

Employment is NOT a right.

And that's the bottom line, right there.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog


Isn't the right to privacy a civil right? That's what's going on here; they're violating their constitutionally protected privacy to determine if they engage in a legal activity when they're not at work. Other than a few career fields, what employer has the right to tell you what to do in your time off and the right to monitor it?

Um, the forth Amendment only mentions protection from GOVERNMENT intrusion.

Employment is NOT a right. No one is forcing you to work for this employer.

The employer should have every right to hire and fire whomever they want. If you don't like it, work for someone else. If the employer's demands become unreasonable, they will have trouble finding good help.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: nakedfrog


Isn't the right to privacy a civil right? That's what's going on here; they're violating their constitutionally protected privacy to determine if they engage in a legal activity when they're not at work. Other than a few career fields, what employer has the right to tell you what to do in your time off and the right to monitor it?

Um, the forth Amendment only mentions protection from GOVERNMENT intrusion.

Employment is NOT a right. No one is forcing you to work for this employer.

The employer should have every right to hire and fire whomever they want. If you don't like it, work for someone else. If the employer's demands become unreasonable, they will have trouble finding good help.

absolutely correct. this is the key.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: Ausm
That is ridiculous! They will be able to sue the company quaranteed!


Ausm

That's what I was thinking. If you are going to say you can't smoke, are they going to check to see if you wear your seat belt? How about if you are gay? Both groups can have higher health risks. This is BS.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: Nitemare

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
This is a tough one. I can understand where the employee is coming from on this one, but at the same time it is wrong to discriminate against an entire group of people like that.


I feel that the disease argument is invalid though. Smoking is a choice, often times an illness is nothing that you can easily control or prevent. But I dunno, I see a lawsuit coming for sure.

Eating junk food is a choice.
Not exercising is a choice.
Paying for sexual services is a choice.
Engaging in extreme sports is a choice.
Riding a motorcycle is a choice.

<----Non-smoker, but smoked for 12 years

I'd halfway consider this if they could pass a hygiene bill that made it illegal to go out in public smelling like some people do. Cigarette smoke does not bother me nowhere near as much as someone who has never heard of deoderant or soap.

I'd rather have a smoker working for me than someone who is a couple hundred pounds overweight who could drop dead at anytime due to a heart attack.

As opposed to the smoker who could either die from the same heart attack, or get cancer and kill your company's insurance rates while fighting it?

Lung cancer normally takes time to develop. Lardo can drop on the way to the john.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Amused

Um, the forth Amendment only mentions protection from GOVERNMENT intrusion.

Employment is NOT a right. No one is forcing you to work for this employer.

The employer should have every right to hire and fire whomever they want. If you don't like it, work for someone else. If the employer's demands become unreasonable, they will have trouble finding good help.

Well, either way, the company is obviously run by simpletons who will hopefully have to pay through the nose for this. There are many better ways this could have been handled. If your employer has the right to fire you for something that doesn't affect your work performance, is completely legal, and is done in your time away from work, that sets a bad precedent.
Why didn't they just come up with some manufactured reason to fire them? Or not give them a reason at all?

 

[torpid]

Thinking about this further, I think there may be some legal problems with requiring someone to take a health test to determine if they are smoking. You can test for drugs, but that is because it impairs your ability to do work. I'm not sure if you can force employees to take a test to determine if they smoke or not. Just as you shouldn't be able to force employees to take a test to determine if they are gay or not (assuming such a test were to exist <==----- T minus 15 seconds before ATOT smartasses make jokes).

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: nakedfrog


Isn't the right to privacy a civil right? That's what's going on here; they're violating their constitutionally protected privacy to determine if they engage in a legal activity when they're not at work. Other than a few career fields, what employer has the right to tell you what to do in your time off and the right to monitor it?

Um, the forth Amendment only mentions protection from GOVERNMENT intrusion.

Employment is NOT a right. No one is forcing you to work for this employer.

The employer should have every right to hire and fire whomever they want. If you don't like it, work for someone else. If the employer's demands become unreasonable, they will have trouble finding good help.

Yep, all "undesirables" have no right to work in the U.S. , better leave the U.S. to find work.

That goes for you Gays, Liberals, Non-Christians etc etc

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: torpid
Thinking about this further, I think there may be some legal problems with requiring someone to take a health test to determine if they are smoking. You can test for drugs, but that is because it impairs your ability to do work. I'm not sure if you can force employees to take a test to determine if they smoke or not. Just as you shouldn't be able to force employees to take a test to determine if they are gay or not (assuming such a test were to exist <==----- T minus 15 seconds before ATOT smartasses make jokes).

Eh smoking cuts down on productivity.

*Looks outside at all the dumbasses wasting time/money in the freezing cold inhaling crap*

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Amused

Um, the forth Amendment only mentions protection from GOVERNMENT intrusion.

Employment is NOT a right. No one is forcing you to work for this employer.

The employer should have every right to hire and fire whomever they want. If you don't like it, work for someone else. If the employer's demands become unreasonable, they will have trouble finding good help.

Well, either way, the company is obviously run by simpletons who will hopefully have to pay through the nose for this. There are many better ways this could have been handled. If your employer has the right to fire you for something that doesn't affect your work performance, is completely legal, and is done in your time away from work, that sets a bad precedent.
Why didn't they just come up with some manufactured reason to fire them? Or not give them a reason at all?

Why should they have to give a reason?

If someone wants you fired, be the reason "reasonable" or not by your standards, why would you want to work for them? Why would you want to force them to employ you? All that does is guarantee a dead end job and a crappy work environment.

Do you think you should be able to quit a job for whatever reason? If so, why wont you extend that same right to employers?

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: nakedfrog


Isn't the right to privacy a civil right? That's what's going on here; they're violating their constitutionally protected privacy to determine if they engage in a legal activity when they're not at work. Other than a few career fields, what employer has the right to tell you what to do in your time off and the right to monitor it?

Um, the forth Amendment only mentions protection from GOVERNMENT intrusion.

Employment is NOT a right. No one is forcing you to work for this employer.

The employer should have every right to hire and fire whomever they want. If you don't like it, work for someone else. If the employer's demands become unreasonable, they will have trouble finding good help.

Yep, all "undesirables" have no right to work in the U.S. , better leave the U.S. to find work.

That goes for you Gays, Liberals, Non-Christians etc etc

yeah, because smoking can be equated with sexual orientation and religion. :roll:

at least we can all agree that we don't have to hire people that steal from their employers.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: nakedfrog


Isn't the right to privacy a civil right? That's what's going on here; they're violating their constitutionally protected privacy to determine if they engage in a legal activity when they're not at work. Other than a few career fields, what employer has the right to tell you what to do in your time off and the right to monitor it?

Um, the forth Amendment only mentions protection from GOVERNMENT intrusion.

Employment is NOT a right. No one is forcing you to work for this employer.

The employer should have every right to hire and fire whomever they want. If you don't like it, work for someone else. If the employer's demands become unreasonable, they will have trouble finding good help.

Yep, all "undesirables" have no right to work in the U.S. , better leave the U.S. to find work.

That goes for you Gays, Liberals, Non-Christians etc etc

What if I'm an employer that dislikes Christians, heterosexuals and conservatives?

Rights should not be only for some, they should be for all. Employers should have the same rights as employees. Employees can work for whoever they like leave any time they like, therefore employers should have the right to hire anyone they like and fire anyone they don't.

 

[Chunkee]

the new puff n fire law

 

[desy]

Does the employer have the right to hire 12 yr olds? why not?
Does the employer have the right to pay below minimum wage? why not?

Fact is an employer has lots of 'rules' to run a buisiness legally. I would think refusing to take a tobacco test wouldn't be grounds for dismissal, esp as its a legal substance.
I can understand why an employer wouldn't want smokers as employees but they did hire them in the first place. Did they exhaust all treatment options for the staff?
This will go to court, some civil rights lobby will pick up the legal cost and away we go
I think its incredibly poor taste on the companies behalf, but I've seen people fired for less. . .

 

[BrianA]

edit: Note to self: read the whole thread before posting.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: desy
Does the employer have the right to hire 12 yr olds? why not?
Does the employer have the right to pay below minimum wage? why not?

Fact is an employer has lots of 'rules' to run a buisiness legally. I would think refusing to take a tobacco test wouldn't be grounds for dismissal, esp as its a legal substance.

One right or law does not mean it will cover everything and allow you to pull "rights" out of your ass while limiting the rights of others.

Here's a what if: You run a children's entertainment company. You just found out one of your employees does porn on the side and has become quite infamous. It's perfectly legal, right? So should you be blocked from firing him?

Employment is a MUTUAL agreement. BOTH sides have the right to end that agreement at will. To change that either way would be to rob one group of their rights and grant them to another.

 

[rahvin]

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

:thumbsup:

The problem is our insurance system in this country is fvcked up. They need to do away with company group plans and let people shop for their own insurance and pay their own risk factors.

 

[Gulzakar]

civil rights?

I could see the Tobacco Companies picking this one up, lol.

 

[KoolAidKid]

Originally posted by: desy
Does the employer have the right to hire 12 yr olds? why not?
Does the employer have the right to pay below minimum wage? why not?

Having a minimum wage certainly helps the employee, but I question why the government of a supposedly free market society should artificially inflate the price of labor. If there are people who see the benefit in working a job that pays $2 an hour and the company wants to hire them, why should this be prevented? If the company sets their salaries too low then no one will apply to work there. If employees feel that they are being treated unfairly they can band together, create a union, and demand that the company change their practices.

Similarly, a company that fires people for their smoking habits will presumably see a decline in job applicants. If this proves to be a large inconvenience to the company they will discontinue the policy.

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: KK
Link to article on banning cops from tobacco use.

"I'm not going to be out smoke-testing them or anything,"

That is the difference

Yeah, right at the moment they won't be testing. But what if one of the recruits starts smoking after he's employed on his own time. That would be grounds for dismissal. One could argue for the firing that he signed a paper indicating that he won't use such substance in the future.

Here's a case of where an officer was fired for smoking at a party. Yes he did sign a paper stating he wouldn't smoke. Link One could argue that the employer does not have the right to dictate the actions of employees on their own time.

 

[desy]

Ahhh there it is
Your under the delusion you live in a free market society!
" but I question why the government of a supposedly free market society should artificially inflate the price of labor"
What we have is nowhere nears Smith's capitalism because it was found too harsh, gov't grew too big, just as Marx's communism doesn't work either. We have a balance of laws with employer and employee protection. Yes a lot of laws protect big buisiness too. . .

I'll argue that this particular action 'soon to be determined legal or not' was a stupid one.