Posted on 01/24/2005 12:38:46 PM PST by 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.
>>Then they better ban homsexuals...<<
I wish they could. But in the meantime, we get what we can...
Well, when you get used to not having your clothes, hair, and breath smelling like you've slept in and licked the walls of an ashtray, it kinda doesn't matter anymore...;-)
What's next, the kind of food you can and can't eat?
How much over weight can you be?
How much body-fat can you have?
Who can your sexual partners be?
Should you be fired for getting a speeding ticket?
The list can go on and on.
The company rents you for 40 hrs a week, they shouldn't own you.
I wonder how it would be if only smokers were allowed to work there?
You're avoiding the question. There is a new precedent being established (and challenged) in that this employer is claiming authority over employees' private time. Smoke breaks are immaterial - that's company time, not private time, and if they want to act on that they do have the right.
As I outlined above, there are many other classes of people that can be targeted with this same reason (fat people are almost certain to be next). At what point do they come after you?
Back to the subject... can you give an example of an employer having authority over an employee's private time?
This chap's asking for a lawsuit larger than he can afford. If MI's laws resemble MO's, this CEO has a MAJOR problem on his hands...or will shortly.
Exactlt. Legal product. This guy is screwed. I hope they go for his heuevos.
Wowee! You seem to have some issues, to put it lightly.
Hope you're as happy when the nanny staters try to ban you from doing something that is legal. You've got some remarkable tunnel vision, especially if you think it won't happen. This type of ban is precedent setting...and that can be very unpleasant. Losers, huh?
Fight, or be damned.
HA!
Personally, I'm all for it! However, both this and the smoking ban would probably just be ways for the insurance companies to cut their costs, not to decrease premiums.
Related question: Can anyone tell me why there aren't non-profit insurance companies? (or are there?)
Credit unions, essentially non-profit banks, have advantages over their for-profit competitors. Wouldn't non-profit insurance companies be able to save customers some $$?
Hitler (who was anti smoking as well) would be so proud of you.
Doesn't matter. In the US, employment is at will. Unless you have a contract, your employer can fire you for pretty much anything (except illegally discriminatory reasons).
>>Back to the subject... can you give an example of an employer having authority over an employee's private time?<<
Smoking...
That was a factor when I decided to quit a 15 year 3 pack a day gorilla on my back. I went to visit a friend at the hospital and a nurse accused me of smoking in the room when no such thing happened. Now that I'm smoke-free, I really notice it on others. But it's still their choice, as are numerous other bad things a person can do to themselves, and not my or anyone else place to dictate their behavior.
I don't smoke and you can't have any of my piss nor hair. Got it?
They can.
What if sex is shown to cause heart attacks can they command their employees to stop doing that too?
An employer can do that, too.
"Hitler (who was anti smoking as well) would be so proud of you."
I have no words. I am laughing too hard.
Then the employer should limit his health and life insurance coverages to only time spent at the job. Look - I know what you're saying. But it's just not worth the extra costs to have employees engaging in behavior that is known to produce serious health issues. That's why, if I were the employer, body fat would also be a determining factor in the cost to employee for their health/life plans. Now - IF the employee wanted to fund their OWN PRIVATE insurance (nobody seems to want to do that) then they'd be welcome to engage in whatever acts they choose, but when their absence for sickness accumulate over their allotted, they'd be pink-slipped right out of a job.
Americans With Disabilities Act.
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.