Smoking or Non-Smoking?

[404Error]

This is going a little too far IMO. Where do you stand on the smoking issue?

snip:

A Michigan health care company overstepped the clear line between work-life and home-life this week when it fired four employees for refusing to submit to a "smoking test" that would determine if the employees were lighting up away from the office. The company, Okemos-based Weyco Inc., instituted a no-smoking policy in 2003, purportedly to save on the cost of health care benefits for its employees. The policy forbids employees from smoking both in the workplace, and at home. Weyco offered help to employees trying to quit and has said that 14 of its estimated 20 employees who smoked kicked the habit before the policy went into effect. Weyco has made an admirable effort to improve the health and lifespan of its employees, but in doing so has violated the personal freedom of its employees to indulge in whatever habits they choose during their off-hours.

[Beestie]

I think firing them is going wayyyyyyyyy to far. Smoking is legal.

However, the company is probaby heavily subsidising the health care insurance premiums which are higher with a bunch of smokers on the payroll. I don't have a problem (conceptually) making the smokers shoulder the increased benefit cost. But then, do you also charge obese people more? What about alcoholics?

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Beestie

But then, do you also charge obese people more? What about alcoholics?

Be patient...its coming.

Watch comedy on TV these days. The only group that it is acceptable to make fun of is the obese, and I see something making light of fat people pretty much every time I watch TV. The obese are the new Polaks, the new Blondes, the new *insert minority group derogatory appellation here*.

The public view of people who are obese is that they are undisciplined, sluggardly and otherwise morally or constitutionally inferior, and that it is a matter of personal choice. Therefore, they are an acceptable target of ridicule. This general societal leaning will eventually result in punative measures and sanctioned discrimination. It is the nature of human beings to be against something or someone. Since obesity is perceived as something that is voluntary and therefore controllable, unlike, for example, race, then discriminating against them is actually for their own good, right?

[Troubleshooter]

I believe that a company should have the right to hire anyone they want, regardless of any sort of criteria. That being said, I'm not against incentives under certain circumstance either.

I don't believe that they should be able to pass those judgements on to current employees though.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Elspode

...I see something making light of fat people...

Ouch...

[staceyv]

Whether or not anyone agrees with or disagrees with their actions, the fact is that their actions are illegal.
I am a smoker and I wish that they would make smoking illegal and stop selling cigarettes and then I would have to quit. Either that or have someone lock me in a padded room for a month...But right now, it's legal and they have no right to pull that

[breakingnews]

Their actions are not illegal. It's a privately managed company, giving them the power to do whatever it is they want. As previously discussed, companies are at liberty to hire/fire whoever they wish (though they may face EEOP backlash ... which still does not make it illegal, just *unfair*).

If a company includes some sort of stipulation in their contract, it's not necessarily unlawful - instead they have to worry about whether good candidates are willing to submit to those conditions.

I believe the company should be able to do as it pleases, but yes, there should be some sort of grandfather clause in the case of a new policy. Quasi-taxes on obesity, alcoholism ... it's all coming in the near future, if it hasn't already happened to you.

Our workplaces likely already limit what you do in your spare time, but we submit to the rules because we need work and more importantly $$$. Companies require you to come in at certain hours and sometimes limit how often and how much time off you can take. And my company, for example, does not allow me to freelance (in my free time) for a "competing publication" without approval by a top-level manager. It's all part of the game - if this place didn't have such a influential name, I wouldn't think twice to walk out if I ever got into a scuffle about doing freelance work.

[garnet]

How does the insurance company know which employees are smokers? With any job I've had I never had to fill our any sort of questionnaire about health, habits, etc. Do some companies do this?

Of couse this company can crack down on the smokers if they want to, but firing seems a bit extreme, and I'm sure they've lost some good employees. If they don't want to pay the higher premiums for the smokers then they should give the smokers the option of paying the difference. I never really thought about the insurance aspect of it, but I wonder what the productivity of non-smokers is vs. smokers. I've worked with some heavy smokers in the past who have to take so many breaks that I can't imagine they're producing as much as non-smokers. But then again, if somebody wants to screw off at work, they'll find a way whether they smoke or not.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by garnet

But then again, if somebody wants to screw off at work, they'll find a way whether they smoke or not.

You posted at 4:16. Are you at work? I am.

[404Error]

Originally Posted by garnet

How does the insurance company know which employees are smokers?

I believe I read in another article that they were urine testing or something to that effect for nicotine.

I think the whole idea is totally absurd. What someone does during their off time is no business of the company that employs them. If health risks are their contention, why then don't they go after people that skydive or race cars on weekends. How about homosexuals? They're at a risk of getting AIDS. Shouldn't anyone involved in risky past times have to pay higher insurance premiums? Give me a break already!

[garnet]

Originally Posted by glatt

You posted at 4:16. Are you at work? I am.

Somebody needs to relax. Go have a cigarette.

[staceyv]

that nicotine they tested could've came from a nicotine patch or nicotine gum, used to help quit smoking.
Okay, I'm no lawyer, maybe it is legal, but it still sounds screwy to me.
By the way, I smoke and I get a hell of a lot more done than the people who are always crowded in the kitchen eating the mistake orders and the extra food leftover from buffets...
After I have a cigarette, I feel buzzed. I act and feel happier and more energetic. If they told me I can't smoke at work, and I decided to stay there, I would be moody and unproductive. Also, it only takes 1 minute to smoke. You don't need to let it sit there and burn...
It really is a terrible habit, but it's also extremely addictive and I think that every smoker truly would like to quit, the ones that are still smoking are just not ready. They'll quit when they're ready. Forcing them to quit probably leeds to resentment and hostile feelings toward the employer.

[LabRat]

Originally Posted by 404Error

I How about homosexuals? They're at a risk of getting AIDS.
Shouldn't anyone involved in risky past times have to pay higher insurance premiums? Give me a break already!

1) anyone, ANYONE, not just gay people are at risk for AIDS...
2) Yes, but how do you patrol this?? I do know that you pay higher life insurance (or can't get it at all) if you say you participate in certain hobbies/occupations deemed high risk by Mr. Underwriter.

[Trilby]

I work for a hospital run by the Church of Latter Day Saints (well, that whole concept is debatable) and if they SMELL tobacco on you prior to your shift they SEND you home for being UNDER THE INFLUENCE! Also verboten: pepper (stimulant), real meat, (they are vegetarians) and salt (Nu-salt is on all the cafeteria tables.) Of course you are free to eat meat, salt and pepper at home, but it's not included on their menu's for the patients or in the cafeteria. All the patients eat soybased meats---and they complain incessantly about the food as you would imagine. Also, the only people to advance in this organization are-you guessed it!- Latter Day Saints. They don't promote anyone of any other religion. Don't ask me how they get away with it.

[Trilby]

Oh, and before I was hired I was asked what religion I was. I balked and they said, "Oh, it's just so we can prove we don't only hire Latter Day Saints at our organization! We hire a diverse population!" BIG CORPORATE GRIN! I said I wasn't comfortable with that and they let it go but I am guessing had I put down "Pagan" they would have found some way to not hire me--nursing shortage be damned!