Posted on 01/24/2005 6:01:07 PM PST by Eurotwit
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time
LANSING, Mich. -- A Michigan health care company has fired four of its employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.
The company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after-hours, or at home.
The founder of Weyco Inc. said the company doesn't want to pay the higher health care costs associated with smoking.
An official of the company -- which administers health benefits -- estimated that 18 to 20 of its 200 employees were smokers when the policy was first announced in 2003. As many as 14 of them quit smoking before the policy went into effect.
fyi
Cool. I'm going to get my overweight boss fired.
danke
Isn't this illegal?
ROFLMAO!
I'm not a fan of smoking but you raise a good point.
This is draconion and over the top.
Smoking is not against the law.
un-freaking-believable They must feel immune to litigation. What other undesirable attributes will they cull next? Will a DNA test be required to see the odds one has towards disease?
I don't mean to be a thread cop, but this has already been posted.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327482/posts?page=240#240
Thread cop ;)
Sorry, didn't know someone else had already pointed it out. My mistake. :)
:P
Takes one to know one! LOL
Darn, and I was getting ready to post an already been posted to your already been posted post.
Holy Moly!!!!
White hetero women have to go too. They give birth.
Is this company looking for a discrimination lawsuit?
Motorcycle riders, rock climbers, and other deviant types need to beware! The health police will get us all.
I wonder what would happen if those employees agreed to forgo company funded health insurance, choosing instead to acquire private insurance? As a contractor, then later self-employed worker, I've carried my own health insurance for about 8 years now, and, at least in Texas, it's not a problem and not prohibitively expensive.
LOL!!
I'll bet it wouldn't matter if you self-insured. A policy this draconian isn't likely about money and is instead being driven by an individual who has some ardent beliefs he wishes to foist on to everyone he possibly can. I.E. Likely the founder. Someday, people will look back on the smoking debate and wonder why the h*ll they didn't draw a line in the sand there. I'd like to see the company sued, but in this climate, I'm almost positive the company would win.
I just read through it. Wow...There are some wacky freepers out there.
Different title though. Ask the mod to delete if you want...
I am going to have a smoke.
Cheers.
Smokers are not a protected class. Gays, who have a much reduced and costly lifespan due to aids and other sexuallly related diseases are protected.
Nah, I'll let it go. They'll delete it if need be. Have one for me, wouldja? LOL
BTW. This kind of crap, makes me take another look at government anti-discrimination laws.
The President held a great speech about liberty the other day.
This isn't it.
Wouldn't that be a thread policeperson?
Tell that to the nanny-staters. I'm surprised how many turn up around here on these kinds of threads.
People get some odd ideas about what liberty really is, I guess. Even I get confused from time to time, to be fair. :)
Ah, yes. You're quite right, of course. Now the PC police are REALLY gonna be after me! LOL
All they need is a doctor's permission to smoke medical nicotine.....
Is this pronounced WACO as in Janet Reno or Wacko as in Michael Jackson...?
At what point do we stop letting insurance actuaries stop running our lives?
Name of this company please? What do they sell or what "service" do they provide?
(Besides terminal delusional contol of others, that is.)
The world is insane. Smoke one cigarette and they don't want to pay your health insurance. BUT get AIDS because you take an action which you know can kill you, and the company will cheerfully pay for your health insurance.
I know - this company is owned by NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg!
That's gotta be it.
Guess this doesn't apply to Employees. U Of Mich insurer
Liberty works both ways.
The owners of the company should be at liberty to hire and fire who they please. It is their company after all.
You mean after all the years of having Americans pee in a cup for employment, its spreading to other vices? I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you!
I agree with you.
Or, rather, I still agree with you, but if companies start to act like fascists I might reconsider.
Then, perhaps government has a role to preserve individual liberty on the expense of business owners. I am not sure, but stories like this make me want to give this issue a serious look.
I am no longer a teenage libertarian.
You don't pee in a cup to discover whether you had a glass of wine with dinner the night before. Last time I checked, smoking a cigarette in your own home was legal.
Looks like four lucky people just came into a windfall. Question is: will they fire their former boss when they buy the company?
The owners of the company should be at liberty to hire and fire who they please. It is their company after all.
NOT when the employees do what is legal outside the work place or in the privacy of their own homes.
I asked the very same question when this issue first came up.
Here's a few more:
Suppose a non-smoking employee has a dependent spouse or (adult) child who smokes. Suppose that said dependents are covered by the company insurance policy. Will the company fire the abovementioned employee and if not, why not?
Suppose a smoking employee is insured by a spouse's insurance and not this company's (like I was when I was working -- I cancelled my policy when I got married). Will
the company fire this employee and if not, why not?
They say it's about money, but folks....it really ain't.
Regards,
Homosexual behavior is far far more deadly than smoking are they going to fire gays?
Check out this post from the other thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327482/posts?page=261#261
What do you think?
"people of color,...." I'll ask the question that George Carlin ask. Is there any difference between people of color and colored people?
If that activity costs the company addition money then it is absolutely the company's business.
If the employee demands the company pay for his health benefits then the company has the right to demand behavior that doesn't increase its costs in return.
Now if the employee wants to pay for his own health benefits (or pay the difference) then have at it. Do whatever you want on your own dime.
If that activity costs the company addition money then it is absolutely the company's business.
You believe what you will but if I were employed by you, you can rest assured that you would definately know what is and is not your business concerning me and my personal life, before I left.
If the employee demands the company pay for his health benefits then the company has the right to demand behavior that doesn't increase its costs in return.
I don't demand anything. I agree to trade time and skill for wages. If you want to induce me to stay by offering insurance or some other benefit, I'll stay, if not... you get what you pay for.
If you control behavior to mitigate risks then you will have to discriminate against homosexuals,skydivers,drinkers,smokers,consumers of fatty foods and a slew of others.
Just what privacy does your profile page refer to?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.