The Stepford Employees

The Washington Times ^ | Feb. 5, 2005 | Bob Barr

[MisterRepublican]

In last year's remake of the 1970s classic science fiction file, "The Stepford Wives," a group of techno-weirdos set out to transform imperfect women into perfect wives. Of course, the plan fails because of... well, a lot of reasons.

But the point is, the world remains as full of weirdos today seeking to create the perfect person as when Pygmalion tried many centuries ago. Now, the "Stepford Search" has come to corporate America.

Weyco Inc., a Michigan company, has decided to fire any employee who smokes. Not just any employee who smokes on the job. Any employee who smokes anywhere, anytime, anyhow. Why? To help the employees make healthful life choices and become better persons; to help the employees "manage their health care."

How does the company ensure its employees remain truly and permanently "smoke free?" Mandatory "drug" tests. If traces of the "devil weed" tobacco are found, the hapless employee who thought he or she lived in a free country — one in which a citizen could practice such horrible habits as lighting up a cigarette or cigar in the "privacy" of his or her home — is summarily fired.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the decades of my misspent youth, we harbored the illusion such menaces as nuclear war or communist invasion were the real enemies of freedom. How wrong we were. The good folks running America just four or five decades later, including the Weyco Gestapo, know the real enemy of man is not the trivial nuclear holocaust, but smoking. And they will leave no freedom unturned in their zeal to root it out wherever it might still lurk.

[SheLion]

Exactly my thoughts when this whole thing came out. Obviously, the agenda is the most important thing...long time employees be damned.

And what about the employee's who have been there a long time and who smoke and are getting ready to retire soon?

If they can't quit smoking, is this just cause to fire them and their pensions go out the window?

[SheLion]

Will have to wade through the thread when I get back a bit later.

This has been an eye opener for a lot of people today.

The FReepers see where this might be heading.

Smoker's today, obesity tomorrow........then who?

[divulger]

You haven't been paying attention to what I'm saying.

I haven't? Hmmm. Thanks for letting me know that.

I'm talking about what should be legal and you're talking about what people should do.

Tell me G.Love, how is a policy of not allowing people to smoke at home or at any other location outside their work place (something people "DO" and what YOU'RE talking about) any different than creating a policy requiring women employees to get on their knees and perform Lewinskis (another thing "people DO")?

There's a difference between something being legal and it being the right thing to do.

Your point?

Legally, I can spray paint my own house with grafitti if I want to. That doesn't mean I am going to do it.

That is YOUR CHOICE, and in my opinion, NOT your employers.

I am not in favor of this policy. Good grief, I'm a smoker! All I am saying is that it should be legal for Weyco to make this policy or any other policy it wants to.

So let me get this right. What you are saying is that an employer, in your mind, can not only regulate what goes on while his/her employees are on the clock but, according to you, should be able to regulate what goes on at your home while on your own time... is this correct?

Hmm, I thought only those people who were public servants (military, Congressmen, police, etc.) and those with a Securities License etc. were the only people required to give up their "private lives."
Silly me.

It should be able to choose the kind of person it wishes to employ.

"It?" When did a company CEO or any other human hiring and firing, become an "IT?"

Oh right. I forgot about the "transgendered" sodomites. Please forgive my oversight.

And the current employees and general public should be equally free to protest, demonstrate, boycott, and use any other peaceful means to try to get Weyco to change its mind. But they shouldn't be able to sue, and if they do, they shouldn't win.

And these opinions of yours negates my points how again?

It IS NOT ILLEGAL for people to smoke cigarettes.

We elect congressmen to legislate, not businesses. For a company to forbid American citizens the freedom to exorcise their rights during their free time is stepping over the line. Telling employees that they can't smoke at home because they might get sick is akin to telling all female employees they can't make love to their husbands because they might get pregnant.

You want to talk legalities^? I suggest you bone up a bit on "the law."

One more thing. I’m an employer. If my employees want to practice destructive behavior which causes our insurance rates to climb during their off time then I will be forced to lower their wages; but I would NEVER inject my values on my employees private lives by raping them with unethical and ridiculous rules and regulations. I want my employees, while on the job, to be a GOOD representative for my company. I “LEGALLY” have no business making that same requirement on their private lives. All I can “legally” do to one of my employees who’s private life is suspect is if, and only if, that private life prevents them from doing the job I hired them to do. For example, if one of my employees is always getting drunk and calling in sick or showing up to work with his/her head up his/her a**, then I owe it to my other employees, and more importantly, my customers, to fire him/her. Or, if one of my employees is hired for his/her appearance and he/she goes out and changes his/her appearance by say, shaving his/her head, getting visible tattoos and/or piercings, etc., then I have a right, provided I made the job requirements known when he/she was hired, to fire him/her.

Capisca?

[eno_]

Could cut down on the oral fixation aspect of smoking. I'll put that in the HR suggestion box.

[longtermmemmory]

What I find troubling about this is that it is not an employer simply saying they will not cover smoking illnesses, it is an employer saying that because they pay you 9-5 they can now control you 24 hours. If they are going to control and have authority to order an person 24 hourse then employment must be paid on a 24hour cycle. This means overtime and anything else that goes with such employement.

The logical extreme is to say only sterilized employees may work for the company. This will allow the elimination of all child/pregnancy related expenses.

[SheLion]

One more thing. I’m an employer. If my employees want to practice destructive behavior which causes our insurance rates to climb during their off time then I will be forced to lower their wages; but I would NEVER inject my values on my employees private lives by raping them with unethical and ridiculous rules and regulations. I want my employees, while on the job, to be a GOOD representative for my company. I “LEGALLY” have no business making that same requirement on their private lives. All I can “legally” do to one of my employees who’s private life is suspect is if, and only if, that private life prevents them from doing the job I hired them to do. For example, if one of my employees is always getting drunk and calling in sick or showing up to work with his/her head up his/her a**, then I owe it to my other employees, and more importantly, my customers, to fire him/her. Or, if one of my employees is hired for his/her appearance and he/she goes out and changes his/her appearance by say, shaving his/her head, getting visible tattoos and/or piercings, etc., then I have a right, provided I made the job requirements known when he/she was hired, to fire him/her.

[TAdams8591]

All great points!

Although I would not advocate that the use of alcohol should be illegal, I have many, many times stated that alcoholics cause far more damge to society in EVERYWAY, than smokers. There is NO comparison.

[Richard Kimball]

How long ago were you employed there? About five years ago, at a conference, I was informed that the state had passed a law which assumed that any death from respiratory causes by a firefighter would be assumed to be fire service related. Attached to that bill was a rider that stated that within five years, all firefighters would be non-smoking. When I checked the job postings for Florida, I found this was a typical clause:

Been a non-smoker/non-user of tobacco (any form) for at least one (1) year prior to application, remain smoke free during employment/application process and agree not to smoke or use tobacco (in any form) on or off duty during the tenure of their employment.

[rawhide]

Richard, over 5 years ago. I still have former co-workers there and this has never been brought to my attention. But since the contacts are few these days, it is possible there could be a law, especially since I do not live in Florida anymore. I would think all my friends that are left would have been grandfathered in. I never been in a job where more people smoked. It was amazing.

[Richard Kimball]

Nurses are the same way. A lot of high-stress jobs have high smoking rates.

[Annie03]

From reading their policy, it sounds like they can. And now that they have gotten away with this, they are going to dictate eating and exercise as well. They may not be able to fire overweight people outright, but they sure can harrass them enough with their "in-house programs" to make them give up and quit.

[Johnny Crab]

There is no longer any question about the devastating effects of tobacco use on our society, or why it must be eliminated.

Lifted directly from the "we must do it for the children" and other hand-wringing events. We have seen it many times before. Substitute the appropriate word:

There is no longer any question about the devasting effects of guns on our society, or why they must be eliminated.

There is no longer any question about the devasting effects of automobiles on our society, or why they must be eliminated.

There is no longer any question about the devasting effects of being overweight on our society, or why it must be eliminated.

There is no longer any question about the devasting effects of alcohol on our society, or why it must be eliminated.

There is no longer any question about the devasting effects of infidels on our society, or why they must be eliminated.

There is no longer any question about the devasting effects of the weak on our society, or why they must be eliminated.

There is no longer any question about the devasting effects of lower classes on our society, or why they must be eliminated.

Sure, employers have "rights". Employees should have brains and rights. Here's one:

There is no longer any question about the devasting effects of employers who control every aspect of our lives on our society, or why they must be eliminated.

[beckysueb]

And they will leave no freedom unturned in their zeal to root it out wherever it might still lurk.

These antismoking whackos are crazed with the idea of people smoking. Like rabid dogs or something. It turns nice people into barking moonbat liberals. Even some people on FR.

[VermiciousKnid]

The employees don't have to live under tyranny. They can work elsewhere.

Those that pushed for the smoking bans in NY and elsewhere, who claimed it was "to protect the workers' health," seem to disagree with this statement.

I myself said the very same thing to those people, but they were steadfast in their belief that workers are simply not capable of leaving a job they find dangerous or unappealing to one that is "safer."

Anyway, it's interesting to see those very same folks claim the exact opposite of what they said a mere 2 years ago (i.e.; a person NEVER has to work where he doesn't like the policies).

Regards,

[SheLion]

From reading their policy, it sounds like they can. And now that they have gotten away with this, they are going to dictate eating and exercise as well. They may not be able to fire overweight people outright, but they sure can harrass them enough with their "in-house programs" to make them give up and quit.

If one of their employee's is skinny and is a non-smoker, they can carry out their job like always.  But the others who are obese and/or smoke would create a very stressful condition.  How can anyone do their job to the best of their ability when they have this other "stuff" hanging over their heads?

You know when you tell someone they can't do something, it just makes the desire that much more greater.

I feel for Weyco's employee's.  I really do, Annie.

And we all wonder why  employee's go "postal."

[sheik yerbouty]

The world would be a better place without relentless busybodies and anal retentive control freaks.

[sheik yerbouty]

Control freaketh..

[cyborg]

Oh I see. Thank yee ;-)

[SheLion]

These antismoking whackos are crazed with the idea of people smoking. Like rabid dogs or something. It turns nice people into barking moonbat liberals. Even some people on FR.

Is it any wonder some employee's go postal? I wonder if this "BOSS" has thought about that. He would be top priority.

[sheik yerbouty]

You are welcome! Employers like Weyco are overly "mawkocious"(i think that's the word).