Posted on 02/07/2005 12:47:37 PM PST by SheLion
A state lawmaker from Lansing wants to change employment rules in Michigan that allowed an Okemos company to fire employees for smoking off the job.
Sen. Virg Bernero, a Democrat, said he will introduce legislation today that makes it illegal to fire an employee for engaging in legal activity outside the workplace.
Meanwhile, four fired employees of Weyco Inc. are taking their story public this morning with appearances on national news shows.
"When this happened, I said, 'You can't do this to me,' " Anita Epolito told the State Journal on Sunday, speaking publicly for the first time about her firing.
Epolito, of Haslett, is scheduled to appear on ABC, CBS and NBC today with her three fired co-workers and Bernero.
"I felt so violated that something I do in the privacy of my home that is legal can get me fired," she said.
During her 14 years as a receptionist and special events coordinator at Weyco, Epolito said, she called in sick no more than five times and never received health insurance from the company.
Officials at Weyco, an insurance benefits administrator, have said they won't employ smokers because of the increased cost of health care due to the effects of smoking.
Gary Climes, Weyco's chief financial officer, said Sunday he had nothing to say about the proposed change in the law. If passed, it wouldn't affect the Weyco firings because they already have taken place.
"We're not going to lobby against it," Climes said.
The company instituted a policy on Jan. 1 that makes it a firing offense to smoke. Weyco notified employees of the change in November 2003. One employee quit before the policy took place. Epolito and her coworkers were fired after refusing an anti-smoking test.
The case already has drawn international attention and spurred debate over Michigan employment law.
The state's at-will employment law gives bosses the right to fire people for nearly any reason, or for no reason.
Michigan also lacks "smoker's rights" laws found in 29 other states.
Bernero's bill would prohibit firing anyone for legal leisure time activities, including smoking. There would be exceptions for behavior that affects an employee's performance or creates a conflict of interest, Bernero said.
The bill will go to a Senate committee for review. A timeline has not been set.
"The question is, 'Where do you draw the line?' " Bernero said. "The way it is now, you can be fired for coloring your hair or wearing a blue shirt on Sunday."
Bernero said he believes he'll get support for the bill from lawmakers in both parties.
State Sen. Michelle McManus, R-Lake Leelanau, said she's willing to consider the bill.
She's not overly empathetic, however, with employees who get fired because they violate company policies - no matter what those policies are.
"If you know that going into the situation, you're aware of what could happen," she said.
Contact Sharon Terlep at 377-1066 or sterlep@lsj.com.
Ping to the Crew!
I can see this precedent eventually being applied to those who ride motorcycles in their spare time.
martin, if this isn't nipped in the bud now, it will never stop. Everyone will be hit by some control freak boss that doesn't like what his employee's do on their off time.
This has to be stopped.
Ahem, when the one employee started working there 14 years ago, there was no such policy. That added to the fact that she didn't take the insurance through the company....that little tidbit says loud and clear that this policy has nothing to do with "health".
How long did they give them to quit?
That said, I like the concept of not letting companies fire people for legal activities outside the workplace. But it could not possibly be enacted without putting into play the law of unintended consequences.
Bottom line is that as long as a company is reasonable within the standards of the general culture within which they do business, they should be able to do what they want. The market will correct them just fine.
In other words, this never would have flown, with or without government intervention, back in the 1960's.
Does anyone know if this company also has a rule that no employees can drink alcohol in their off hours? I'm sure hangovers are a prime source of "sick days." Not to mention all those liver ailments.
BIG GOVERNMENT scares me. When will it stop, how far will it go?
Or I as a top corporate exec skydive as a hobby.
Or I fly to Ireland where I have a second home.
Scary.
Exactly, Annie. 14 years ago, they had no idea that the boss was going to turn fanatical.
Personally, the ones who were fired? If that was me, I would much rather find another job then go back to work for that idiot.
But that is not going to happen, elected officals like BLIMP MAN (E.K.) would not allow it to pass.
The company should be able to deny smoke breaks and make the smoker pay the difference for health insurance. It's obvious that these employees habit costs the company through health care costs and the company should be able to take action. This ultimatum is taking it too far though.
--or own firearms---
What a surprise! The Demorats love to put a gun to the head of anyone they can.
My understanding is that health costs related to smoking aren’t significant. Not if you want to compare it to costs associated with childbirth, for instance.
I was always under the impression that they were minimal 2 – 9% or so, increasing with age (with < 40 y/o or so there being no significant difference in smoker vs. non), and that most of the costs would be faced post-retirement (60+).
That, as opposed to employees demanding contraception be covered, procedures associated with conception and whatever-complications they face be covered – and then there’s the little issue of them wanting 12 weeks off when they do give birth, etc. Those are all costs that’ll be incurred way before retirement, usually.
What if you ingest drug-masking products that allow you to pass company drug tests?
I read somewhere that the boss put out a letter late 2003. About a year and a half ago that he was going to do this starting in 2005. Alas, once again, the people who smoke just thought it would never happen to them. Well, here they sit.
In other words, this never would have flown, with or without government intervention, back in the 1960's.
People were much more tolerant of others back in the 60's. I miss the attitudes today that people had back in the 60's.
This boss idiot stated that he WAS going after his fat employees next. From there it was an open field for him to control his employees. Like the thread yesterday "The Stepford Employees."
I don't know. I'm just hanging on for the ride.
I am leery too, believe me.
But that is not going to happen, elected officals like BLIMP MAN (E.K.) would not allow it to pass.
Oh yes. When Fox News interviews the ones from the Hill, so many of them have that famous "red nose."
That's why I believe in term limits. It's time for them to GO!
It's not obvious at all! The one woman who was fired worked there for 14 years and never had to use health insurance from this company.
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.