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.

[monday]

"Oh, my mistake, I had no idea that smoking was genetic."

It isn't, but the propensity towards addictive behavior is. So are many other costly genetic predispositions. Heart disease, cancer, allergies, on and on, and the older you get, the more likely you are to contract one of these diseases.

Any history of illness in your family Born to conserve? If so, you might cost your employer too much in health insurance and have to be fired.

[thoughtomator]

Those are all either government agencies or previously stipulated private contracts.

[citizen]

...but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

- C.S. Lewis

How true. Thanks to both of you.

[monday]

"I've come to the conclusion that these fanatics aren't very nice people at their core."

Fanatics rarely are. A look back in history will show you that whether religious or ideological, fanatics and their henchmen have been responsible for much of the human related death and misery the world has experienced. To say they "aren't very nice people" is an understatement of colossal proportions.

[freecopper01]

That can be tricky. Some companies have it in the paperwork where if you continually do activities to cause damage to yourself they can refuse to cover costs and in fact, terminate you.

Old story. When I was in the military (air force) a co-worker (young female) said she was going to the beach. She said she was going to lay out until she looked like a lobster.... Bad move... Our shop chief told her she best not do that because she was government property in the sense that she was on duty 24-7, and when she came back on post she'd better be able to work. Well, when she came back she looked like a COOKED lobster. Had to take time off. And he was true to his word: Gave her a reprimand. She got no (nada, zip, none, zero...) sympathy from anyone in the shop because we had to pull extra hours to make up for her stupidity.

Of course, that was almost 21 (may more - time flies) years ago: Today he would probably be written up and she'd get more time off...

[Diplomat]

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

If you work for an employer that has more than 50 employees, I'll guarantee you signed an ETHICS CLAUSE. This governs many off-work behaviors. A simple example would be nepotism or non-discloser activity. By your logic, any activity off-work can be engaged in as long as it is on your free time. Thus you could violate Confidentiality Agreements during any non-paid time? What about all the morals clauses that get put into an athlete's contract, those are illegal and a violation of a person's rights? So when Kobe commits adultery or rapes another hotel employee, Pepsi couldn't cancel his contract for moral's clause violation becuase it was on his own personal time, right? Guess he would only get fired if he did it while filming the comercial.

Simply put, you are wrong on this.

[thoughtomator]

Again, every example differs from the case under consideration in that they are all previously stipulated and/or by government mandate.

This is not about the merits of smoking. I can list a thousand groups of people who have higher health costs than the average. This is about the right of the employee to be free to do as they wish on their own time.

This is just another incremental step in the total regulation of all private activity.

According to the New England Journal of Medicine, smokers cost less in overall health care than non-smokers over the course of their lifetimes.

So every argument here about smokers costing more in health care... goes up in smoke, so to speak, when the light of truth shines upon them.

[Diplomat]

Companies cannot regulate what you do in your off time.

Yes they can, and do. All large corporations make their employees sign "Code of Conduct Agreements" in order for someone to be hired and if they change their policy significantly, they make all their employees resign the new agreement in order STAY employed.

It's 1984 already, where have you been?

[exnavychick]

That said, the company does have the right to dictate terms of employment. That is, the individual is given a choice... even if it is a Hobbes Choice.

I agree with the first part of your statement. I think it's silly to go to work for a company that chooses to ban smoking (their property, their right) and then complain about getting fired when you smoke and get "caught".

However, the folks in this article didn't go to work for a company that did that...the company changed their policy AFTER these employees had been hired. Kind of a dirty trick to fire them, imo.

[thoughtomator]

What's more, the company is wrong on the basic reason for the smokers being fired. Smokers actually subsidize non-smokers, not the other way around.

[Liberal Classic]

Somehow I think you're being a bit disingenuous with my post. Why would that be? I have no idea. One of several points I made was that likening sex crime to tobacco use is not a good comparison. Do you have a substantial response beyond "Duh?"

[thoughtomator]

You keep ignoring that every example you can pull up is part of a previously-agreed contract. That is not the case here, so it's you who is wrong.

[exnavychick]

I understood that in broad strokes only.

So, that was an eye-opening article. Thanks for posting the link. I can always use more ammo! LOL

[monday]

"Simply put, you are wrong on this."

While I agree with you, in the instance of smoking, it all depends on if smoking can be defined as a disease or not. Ordinarily I would say no, smoking is a lifestyle choice, however, given that obesity is considered a disease and alcoholism is considered a disease, why not smoking? Nicotine is considerably more addictive than either Big Macs or alcohol.

The reason it hasn't been judged a disease until now is because no one has fought it in court with the right lawyers. I suspect in the right courtroom with the right lawyer and jury this is a very winnable discrimination case.

These people could probably win back pay and reinstatement as long as they agree to attend a treatment program. Who's to say if the treatment program will be successful though? Smoking is a tough "disease" to shake and well, one can't fire someone for being sick can you?

[P.O.E.]

Used to be you couldn't even get into the country if you had health problems.

[afnamvet]

Yes they can, and do. All large corporations make their employees sign "Code of Conduct Agreements" in order for someone to be hired and if they change their policy significantly, they make all their employees resign the new agreement in order STAY employed. It's 1984 already, where have you been?

100% correct.

[dfrussell]

However, the folks in this article didn't go to work for a company that did that...the company changed their policy AFTER these employees had been hired. Kind of a dirty trick to fire them, imo.

Company policies change all the time.

This all boils down to whether or not you want to continue your habit or your employment.

[Labyrinthos]

...my wife works there and loves it.

Question: Is the compnay self-insured or does it contract with an outside insurance company for health benefits, such as Blue-Cross, Aetna, or whoever. If Weyco buys health insurance from an insurance company, then I suspect Weyco's premiums will stay the same notwithstanding the no-smoking policy. That's because health insurance companies that sell health insurance plans that are part of a qualified employee benefit package generally can't discriminate in setting premiums based upon the health of the employee pool.

[exnavychick]

True enough. But a lot of folks seem to be overlooking the fact that the policy was enacted after they were hired...not beforehand. That was what I was trying to point out.

But, by the same token, non-smokers then shouldn't be complaining about "second hand smoke" if they choose to work somewhere that permits smoking.

[Bogeygolfer]

Because their dead. The current employer doesn't get to recoup his expenses by virtue of them dying off early.