posted on January 27, 2005 04:57:37 AM new
tolerate a policy like the one that follows?
Weyco fires 4 employees for refusing smoking test
1/24/2005, 2:50 p.m. ET
The Associated Press
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Four employees of Okemos-based health benefits administrator Weyco Inc. have been fired for refusing to take a test that would determine whether they smoke cigarettes.
The company instituted a policy on Jan. 1 that makes it a firing offense to smoke — even if done after business hours or at home, the Lansing State Journal reported Monday.
Weyco founder Howard Weyers said previously that he instituted the tough anti-smoking rule to shield his company from high health care costs.
"I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.
The anti-smoking rule led one employee to quit work before the policy went into place. Since Jan. 1, four more people were shown the door when they balked at the anti-smoking test.
"They were terminated at that point," said Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes.
Even so, Weyco said, the policy has been successful. Climes estimated that about 18 to 20 of the company's 200 employers were smokers when the policy was announced in 2003.
Of those, as many as 14 quit smoking before the policy went into place. Weyco offered them smoking cessation help, Climes said.
"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.
-------------
Mind you, this applies to your own home! Would you have your employer tell you what you can and cannot do in your own home? Lawsuit time!!!!! What's next? A company can tell you you can't drink in your own home and still keep your job? You can't own a certain type of car because the other's are safer? You're only allowed two children because more may endanger your health? You have to lose weight?
The whole point here is not whether or not you smoke, but whether or not you are willing to allow someone else to tell you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home. I for one, am not willing to give up that liberty.
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jan 27, 2005 04:58 AM ]
posted on January 27, 2005 05:03:57 AM new"I don't want to pay for the results of smoking,"
That sums it all up... they had plenty of choices, but one that they should of been offered is to stop providing health insurance to the smokers and just let them keep their jobs...
Face it Cheryl, smoking is going taboo in a fast big way...
I for one agree with this employer... don't like it move on...
Remove the issue "smoking" from the article. It's about whether or not an employer has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own home. Obesity is a health risk as well. So is drinking. Want your employer to say you can't have those beers while you're watching your football games? Or, that you can't eat what you want?
As far as I'm concerned, they don't have that right. I'm theirs from 8:00 to 5:00. That's it. My life begins at 5:00 and what I do, as long as it's not illegal, is my business at that time. Period.
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
posted on January 27, 2005 05:40:11 AM new
That's why I added they should be allowed to keep their jobs, but pay for their own health insurance...
Sorry cheryl but if you are going to scream about cheap affordable health care then things that cause the most problems should be looked at closely... Smoking not only affects the smoker, but the people around them.
I wish smoking was outlawed...which it is in most public places.
Besides this is a "private" company their rules...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on January 27, 2005 05:40:48 AM new
Im a smoker,but I DO agree with Stone.I think its a great policy-they will even help you quit smoking.I also agree with Stone that it would have been nice if they would let you get your own insurance if you still wanted to work there.Im not sure but I do think some companys do drug testing.I know when I was in the Navy,if you went over a certain weight,you were gone.So where do you draw the line? I think if its for health reasons the general population wont have a problem with it.When it comes down to having more then 2 kids,I think thats going way over board-however having more then 2 kids could drive you crazy. LOL
Sorry, I misread the one line you wrote. Sometimes fast reading causes you to miss some things. I agree with the health insurance part. However, how much of the insurance do they actually pay? Is it all? Is it just a small portion? This is about smoking in your own home NOT a public place. I don't smoke around people who don't smoke. I have enough discipline for that. Not smoking on their grounds? I'm okay with that. Not smoking in my own home which I pay taxes on? I'm not okay with that.
Edited to add: Classic, a great number of companies do drug testing. Drugs cause far more problems than smoking. Drugs cause security risks. People do what they normally would not if they weren't high - steal, cheat, lie, cause accidents on the job, etc. I have two kids so I can relate to your comment. Thankfully, they're both grown!
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
[ edited by CBlev65252 on Jan 27, 2005 05:47 AM ]
posted on January 27, 2005 06:14:15 AM new
I also agree with the policy. The employer is trying to make a better workplace and in the process save money. I imagine there is a clause in the company insurance policy about that.
But, if those 4 employees decided to stay or leave it is probabaly best that they don't return as their clothes would smell of smoke and probably tempt the others.
I read on yahoo where the City of San Francisco has banned smoking in their parks. So it is happening everywhere.
posted on January 27, 2005 06:54:32 AM new
The ramifications of this policy are not acceptable. On the surface or as a first move, the smoking concern seems relatively benign but this policy can escalate to include so many other health related problems such as obesity, abuse of drugs and alcohol, stress, inherited disease etc. Eventually, the insurance industry will only offer affordable insurance to the healthy.
As Classic suggested, even the stress of having children will be factored into our insurable profile. If this policy goes unchallenged, that profile will affect our ability to get a job.
posted on January 27, 2005 06:56:24 AM new
Where I work one woman has had five kids in five years...I think she should be fired, A)for being a breeding sow, B) costing the company money through insurance, time off work for having the kids and staying home with them when they're sick.
Then they should fire the lard asses who eat at Wendy's every day and get no exercise, the alcoholic who misses so much work, the people higher than kites, anybody who files a Worker's Comp claim from being hurt on the job, people who steal money from the company standing around ENDlessly talking about sports while doing NO work, the management type who screwed up an order and shut down half the plant...................
But, no, I'm sure if they fire all the smokers the company will live and prosper beyond all expectations.
posted on January 27, 2005 07:12:29 AM new
As Helen said, I, too, think the ramifications of such a policy are unacceptable. Smoking is bad for you, no doubt, but so are about a million other things. I have no problem with no smoking policies on the company property or even instituting some kind of weighted health insurance premiums for smokers but to fire someone because they smoke is wrong. Who's the bigger health risk - the guy who smokes on his lunch break or the guy who shovels 25 pounds of grease and cholesterol into his body every day resulting in being overweight by 100 pounds?
posted on January 27, 2005 08:28:57 AM new
"I read on yahoo where the City of San Francisco has banned smoking in their parks. So it is happening everywhere."
I think thats kind of silly-the smokes going up in the air-who the hell is that going to hurt.Hell if there worried so much about that,what about all the air pollution on the planet???
I took my son to a baseball game down in Yankee Stadium about 5 years ago.They also have a no smoking policy.So I get seats in the third deck out in the open.Im sitting enjoying a coke(which cost a fortune)and one of my cheap internet cigs that cost me $18.00 a carton.Low and behold I take 3 drags and here comes an usher telling me to put the cig out.I said ya gotta be kidding me,we're up in the third deck and the smokes going up in the air-whos that gonna bother??He said sorry sir,no smoking in the stadium.So about the 7th inning "classics" gotta take a leak and I walk into the mens room.Here I am by the urinal draining the "monster" and I look around and see about 20 people in there smoking--whats wrong with this pic??
posted on January 27, 2005 08:35:18 AM new
I went to apply at Alaska Airlines, and besides the drug test their was a smoking test.... so I didn't get the job, and this was about 7 years ago
My brother told me that the city of Boulder Co does not allow smoking anywhere, on the sidewalk, no where, and if you smoke in your car you have to roll the windows up. You can only smoke in the confines of your own home. I didn't look that up, he told me that. Plus I just woke up
Alaska Airlines does it for the insurance benefits, they want healthy employees
posted on January 27, 2005 09:40:07 AM new
I am not a smoker and I would not take this test. I also have a rule that if I apply for a job and they want a drug test, I get to randomly choose a percentage of their current employees to take it with me.
I received $6000 in the settlement from the Federated lawsuit as I was NOT hired because I refused to take an illegally required polygraph test as a condition of employment.
The ones that agree should have their heads examined.
This will, in the long run, be DETRIMENTAL to the business. This is called being penny wise and pound foolish. Do they get a discount on their insurance costs due to this policy? Consider they are putting an artificial barrier up that may exclude the best person for the job, Like that skin color thing or the glass ceiling.
IMHO
edited to add: Not the clothing retailer. Remember Fred Rated selling electronics?
__________
liberalism, the last bastion of elitism
[ edited by parklane64 on Jan 27, 2005 09:44 AM ]
posted on January 27, 2005 10:16:16 AM newDo they get a discount on their insurance costs due to this policy?
They very well may. Part of this company's rule may also apply to life insurance costs, if it's offered to their employees.
Insurance companies do offer life insurance at higher rates to smokers than they do to non-smokers. And I know with my husband's corporate insurance company, insurance claims submitted during the year by all their employees determines their 'costs' for covering their employees medical policies the next year.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 27, 2005 11:00:24 AM new
Cheryl,
I don't agree with the policy. Companies should not be telling their employees what they can and can not be doing at home on their own time. When these employees started working for this company they did not sign a contract stating what they could or could not do on their own time. Maybe these employees smoked because of the stress from their jobs - whose knows.
First a company tells you to stop smoking. What's next. Is a company going to be allowed to tell you that you should be married, how many kids to have, where you should live, what car to drive?. What about if you have any other health issues that are not due to smoking. Is the company going to tell it's employees not to go to the beach and tan because you might get skin cancer. All these items effect insurance costs as well if that is what this company was trying to do.
The only exception I have in regards to this is with professional athletes. They sign a contract before they begin playing for a team. That contracts specifically states what the person can and can not do when they are not playing. If the athlete breaks the contract then he should be fired.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- "Give it up for George W. Bush, the best friend international jihad ever had."
posted on January 27, 2005 11:21:22 AM new
How would this test determine that you are smoking; nicotine in the blood, lung function. What about a nicotine patch, second-hand smoke ingestion? Could you become addicted to the patch or gum and fail the test?
posted on January 27, 2005 12:05:29 PM new
"I went to apply at Alaska Airlines, and besides the drug test their was a smoking test.... so I didn't get the job, and this was about 7 years ago"
well Nearthesea...ya should stop taking drugs<snicker>
posted on January 27, 2005 12:08:09 PM new
I don't understand how an employer can hire people under a set of conditions, then change the conditions and expect all employees to conform? If he can legally do that then nobody's job is safe.
posted on January 27, 2005 01:07:00 PM new
There's a 'fine' line in there in regards to employer rights and employee rights.
I think the issue of controlling smoking outside...is just that. The controllers who want it outlawed...totally. And I certainly don't agree with that.
But I do think that when all the money is spent on the effects of smoking, drinking, drug use, etc...then those findings have to be taken into consideration. Does an insurance company, especially this one as it's a health benefits administrator, not have the 'right' to insure who they wish, or charge more to insure those who do? All insurance companies choose who they'll insure and who they won't in other areas of medical health.
I think a much more positive route would have been to offer insentives to the smokers to quit. Maybe like offering to pay for their smoking cestation or ???
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 27, 2005 01:17:20 PM new
On Cheryls article, they fired employees that already had been working there. Well, I might see NOT hiring because of this issue, but already employed with them, they are out of bounds to FIRE current employees. They should sue. (and mind you, I am not a 'sue happy' person) but if it meant my paycheck, I would probably consider it.
posted on January 27, 2005 01:29:11 PM new
If I were in that position, I would fight it all the way! This should cease, it's most likely the initial steps to more intrusive practices, which further erode your personal freedom. Soon they will institute testing for genetic markers of disease, allowing insurance companies and employers a litany of reasons to exclude people for employment and insurance coverage. It should be 8 for 8, no more, no less.
posted on January 27, 2005 02:03:16 PM new
I'm glad to see that most of you got it. The issue in not whether or not smoking is bad for you, it's whether or not a company has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own home on your own time. No, they do not. Neither do the insurance companies. I know more people who have been into a hospital for things not related to smoking than have been for smoking. Obesity, alcohol addiction, drug addiction, stress (as pointed out by Helen) are all threats to your health. Now a company should have the right to tell you you have to diet? You can't drink? You home is not a public place. It's a personal and private space where you should be able to do what you want as long as you aren't breaking any laws. It's where you pay the taxes that keep law enforcement working and firemen on the job. It's where you sleep at night - next do they put cameras in your bedroom to assure you are getting a proper night's sleep? Sleep deprevation is also a health hazard as is: walking on ice, being outside when the temp is too low, riding in a car without a seat belt, riding on a motorcycle without a helmet (and that's legal, go figure), and almost everything we do during our normal day. How many of you talk on the phone during a thunderstorm or play on your computer? Did you know you could be electrocuted. Should you be fired for taking that risk?
To answer the testing question. It's my understanding that they do urine, hair and blood samples.
The resulting lawsuits over this will be interesting.
Cheryl
"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke
posted on January 27, 2005 02:07:22 PM new
NearTheSea - I agree that they can sue if they feel they've been 'wronged'. But I don't think that 'grandfathering' the original smokers and having different rules apply to new-hires would [legally] work either.
But I know that insurance companies do charge more to applicants who are overweight, smokers, previous [big] medical problems...or won't insure them at all. So...other than the exact specifics in THIS case...it already is going on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
posted on January 28, 2005 02:48:20 PM new
I don't know if I would allow hiring and firing to be regulated this way, but I do know everyone should be held accountable for their own actions. Huge amounts of money are involved here. Comapnies get steep discounts for "no smoking in the building" rules. You think they have those signs because they want you to live to be 90??
Good behaviour should be rewarded and bad penalized. Somehow, it takes liberal think/speak to explain why a 6 pack a day smoker and non-smoker should pay the same "group" rate. Or crow's sow pay the same as a 20yr old bachelor.
If somebody smokes charge him a triple copay or whatever. And while they're at it, dock him for the time standing outside puffing because he can't make 4 hrs w/o a drag.
posted on January 28, 2005 07:42:25 PM new
While I agree that the company should be allowed to run their hiring and firing as they see fit (they are a privately owned business), I feel that this policy is a slippery slope.
I'll reiterate what was stated before...think of all the things that can be harmful to your health. Then try to think of all the things that you don't necessarily consider harmful, but others could. This list would include:
1) Eating at fast food restaurants
2) Eating red meat at a fine dining establishment
3) Drinking alcohol
4) Wearing no seat belt
5) Owning a car not rated with at least 5 out of 5 stars in crash safety
6) Owning a car deemed to be a "sports car"
7) Partaking in contact sports
8) Skiing, rock climbing, any number of extreme sports
9) Gun ownership...
And the list can go on and on. When does it stop? When we let others dictate HOW we live our life on OUR time, in the privacy of our own home, then we have come that much closer to knowing what it feels like to be a Communist.
No, we can't tell this company to not do this. The Government? Perhaps, but I doubt it. But in this situation, Big Government is now being replaced by Big Insurance Corporation or Big Brother Employer...is it any better???
"Who's tending the bar? Sniping works up a thirst"
posted on January 28, 2005 07:54:45 PM new
Libra - I read that too. Maybe they feel if they're going to have to deal with lawsuits over the smoking issue...they might as well throw in obesity too.
----
Private company huh? Wonder if that would make a difference in an
lawsuit being filed. Last I read the employees who quit over the smoking issue...haven't filed a suit yet. They're just talking to lawyers. Maybe the fact they actually quit, rather than being fired...might make a difference in their ability to file?????
We need reamond here...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Four More Years....YES!!!
Sniping works up a thirst"