Weyco fires 4 employees for refusing smoking test

AP ^ | 1-24-05

[Dan from Michigan]

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.

[Modernman]

Can I fire my gay employees who engage in unprotected rectal sex, get HIV, and drive up my health care costs?

In most states, yes.

Oh, and before you ask "How do you know?" . . . They BRAG about their anonymous sex parties.

Such talk at work could be construed as creating a hostile work environment (a type of sexual harassment). You can fire them for that, too.

[Centurion2000]

I have no words. I am laughing too hard.

Well for a fascist at least you have a sense of humor.

So what are you going to do when employers specify that you cannot own a car (risks) or a gun (safety issue) ?

You going to lie down and take that one as well?

[Modernman]

Then they better ban homsexuals, they are far more prone to health risks. Oh wait ... that would be discrimination yes ?

Most states allow you to fire someone for being gay.

[RobRoy]

>>That was never the case before.<<
What do you mean by "before." This has been a policy of a lot of employers in the past.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

The most popular dinner in town is a nonsmoking dinner.

That's what we always harp on here. Glad they live in a place where they have the luxury of choosing. In most places non smoking is commanded by judicial fiat. Many of us always say let the business decide.

[Modernman]

Americans With Disabilities Act.

Doesn't apply to smokers.

[Born to Conserve]

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

Are you confusing the victims of smokers with the victims of smoking bans?

I don't care at this point about the 'victims' of smoking bans, I care about the victims of smokers.

[af_vet_1981]

Well I just dropped Alaska Airline from my favorites.

And I just added them to my favorites

Free Enterprise is great.

I agree with this policy and would like to see more and more of it; Behavior Modification via private means.

[ShadowDancer]

Posing in Playboy could be argued to set an immoral example for the company. This person stated the reason for doing this as being for health insurance costs.

[monday]

"This type of company behavior is a slippery slope. Do they prohibit risky sexual behavior? (Probably not)"

It's not so bad. When companies like this start making demands that are too outrageous they will discover the cost of totally controlling their employees lives. If someone asks me a question like this during a job interview, I take it as a sign that I don't want to work for this company anyway. No one should be interested in what an employee is doing while not on the job. If they are, they will have to pay extra to hire me.

[Modernman]

You don't have any example of employer authority over employee private time, do you?

Up until well into the 1950's, Ford employees could be fired if they were seen drinking in a tavern, even during their spare time.

If you work for the Catholic Church, you can be fired for having an abortion or using contraception.

Employees have been fired for posing in Playboy or performing in porn videos in their free time.

[azhenfud]

You are most likely on a company policy. It means they've negotiated a reduced price for you with provisions claims may not exceed a predetermined number for the benefit period. If it does, premium prices for the company - and hence the employees - are jacked to cover those "costs".

But I'm sure you're astute enough to understand how that works. The long and short is; if you want to smoke on your own time, then if no smoking is a company policy, one shouldn't expect the employer to offer or negotiate reduced premiums on insurance plans. You should negotiate your own, apart from the company's group policy.

[Jotmo]

I think you are wrong. This is a clear case of infringing on the rights of employees to pursue legal activities in their time away from work. The employer can control what happens in the work place and could probably make a case for setting this as a condition of employment but to institute the practice with existing employees and then terminate their livelyhood is despicable.

For whatever reason what if an employer decided everyone had to run a marathon, excercise ten hours a week and become a vegetarian in order to continue employment?

I agree completely. This is the most important point in this discussion, and it seems to be lost on this thread.

The policy that existed when they were hired (regarding off time behavior)is the one they should be judged by. Changing the rules afterword and then firing them is despicable indeed. Disgusting behavior, despite whatever "family friendly, traditional values" culture they claim exists there.

[Modernman]

Obesity is considered a 'disability' and in most cases protected by Federal law against discrimination.

By itself, obesity is not covered by the ADA.

[Liberal Classic]

If you'll forgive me for answering your post with yet another quote:

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

- Justice Louis D. Brandeis

[Just another Joe]

First, AIDS patients are not nearly as expensive as they once were and the cost pales next to smoking related illnesses.

Show me figures not words.

[Born to Conserve]

"Many of us always say let the business decide."

And I agree.

If a company doesn't want smokers for employees or customers, then that is their business.

If an elected government decides that public spaces under its control are to be non-smoking, then so be it.

If a university wants to ban smoking, then so be it.

If an insurance company wants to charge more for smoker's health coverage, then so be it.

If a person, who is taking responsibility for their health care costs, wants to smoke on their property,then so be it.

[Modernman]

Posing in Playboy could be argued to set an immoral example for the company. This person stated the reason for doing this as being for health insurance costs.

Saving the company money is at least as good a reason to ban off-work activity as engaging in immorality.

[nicmarlo]

Actually, whether public or private, no company has any legitimate power to control the lawful activities of any employee off-site and off company time.

Absolutely correct.

[Bogeygolfer]

Examples are easy. Take a regulatory agency like the NASD and securities firms that regulate what investment professionals are able to do in their off time....e.g. unable to volunteer to serve on a charitable board as the treasurer for example. Take any number of poeple whose private actions may have a negative impact on the employer. Take steroids in baseball or better yet off the field activities that may endanger the athlete's ability to perform. This is all pointless though...I am an at will employer and I don't need a reason, period. Unless of course I give a reason.......... There are just so many ways in which employers stipulate private behavior that I could go on forever.