Posted on 02/25/2005 6:28:40 AM PST by T.Smith
Feb. 24 - Weyco may be one of the only large companies in the country that can boast not only a smoke-free workplace, but a smoke-free workforce. Achieving that status, however, didn’t come without a lot of effort—and controversy.
Howard Weyers, the founder and CEO of the Michigan-based health-benefits-management company, attracted a lot of media attention—and the ire of workers’ advocates—when he let go four employees recently after they refused to stop smoking. Civil-rights activists accused the company of discrimination, arguing that Weyers was punishing workers for engaging in a legal activity on their own time.
Weyers claimed that he gave his employees plenty of notice and opportunities and incentives to quit. “I gave them a little over 15 months to decide which is most important: my job or tobacco?” says Weyers.
That’s a question that more Americans may be asking themselves these days. Most companies already ban tobacco use in the workplace and more than a half dozen states and hundreds of cities have enacted laws to the same effect. Now, citing rising health-insurance costs and concerns about employees’ well-being, a growing number of companies are refusing to hire people who smoke, even if they do so on their own time and nowhere near their jobs. An estimated 6,000 employers no longer hire smokers, according to the National Workrights Institute, an affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
They should raise the fine to $5000 for guys like you.
I am more than happy to pay the $20 fee for violation of a city ordinance, after creating a major disturbance costing the city well over $1,000 in legal fees.
What a good citizen.
In that case, you should be charged with disturbing the peace and disorderly conduct. The fine should have legal fees tacked on.
I study the laws and use them. If I can pay a small fee for the violation of a local city ordinance, and invoke a large legal cost upon the city, then I will do so.
As a citizen, and a member of 1/4 of the American population, I can and will fight back.
Call this Legal Judo.
Unless he owns a bar or a restaurant and wants to have a smoking section.
Becki
That was not possible, since I was always polite and complied with everything else that under the juristiction of the Federal Goverment while passing though Customs.
The anti-smoking regulations were a local city ordinance, and did not apply in a Federaly regulated portion of the airport building.
Of course, you could suggest that a city ordinance may overide anything that occurs in at Airport Customs, and a few million illegal aliens would applaud you!
Your choice dude! Does Fedearal law or a city ordinance have priority?
Total nonsense. Property rights go both ways. Your "right to choose" ends at my rights.
Liberal enforcement of Politically Correct behaviour should have a cost.
Property rights are not a liberal concept.
As a citizen, and a member of 1/4 of the American population, I can and will fight back.
You should fight back against any attempt to pass anti smoking laws which violate property rights. I will help you.
Your problem is that you assert rights which do not exist.
People who violate the rights of others using "legal judo" are despicable and they ought to suffer the most severe consequences possible for violating those true rights.
In a just society, people who do what you do should have escalating consequences.
First offence would be concidered a mistake and the proper fine imposed. $100 should be about right. Second offense makes you a scoff law, $5000 and one night in jail. Third offence, one year in prison and $50 grand. It keeps going up 'til we get your attention.
Violating rights is a serious business in a free society.
In Delaware a legal way has been found around the smoking ban and several bar owners have beaten being cited for violations of it.
The statute specifically states TOBACCO........nothing else (remember cannabis is in a different statute, and so I'm not talking about that). Several enterprising bar owners have stopped selling tobacco products in their bars, thus denying the state of those revenues, and now only carry legal products that do not contain any tobacco.
The nannyists haven't figured out yet how to get around a little quirk in the Delaware Constitution regarding the "title" of sections of State Code, and so thus haven't figured out how to prohibt the smoking of non-tobacco products.
What products that can be smoked other than pot are you talking about?
There are cigarettes that are made from the leaves of plants other than tobacco - I've tried a few of them, not that bad.
Apparently they have improved the process over the years, since the advent of "lettuce" cigarettes back in the 70s.
Yuck
Then you should have no problem in supporting me when I fight back against the government enforcing anti-smoking laws upon private business property?
For well over 20 years now, we have had designated smoking and non-smoking sections all over America. If you have been subjected to smoking, then you have entered, by your own personal choice, into a designated smoking section.
You are correct, your right to choose ends at my rights.
How dare you enter a designated smoking section in America, and call it a violation of your rights!
Absolutely I support anyone with that fight. And I have all over this site as well as in the public square for many years.
Such laws if they are imposed on private business are a violation of property rights and should be repealed.
If you have been subjected to smoking, then you have entered, by your own personal choice, into a designated smoking section.
Correct, no problem for me.
You are correct, your right to choose ends at my rights.
Yep
How dare you enter a designated smoking section in America, and call it a violation of your rights!
Who did that? You seem quite confused.
I think that people who smoke should work an extra hour every day. GO AHEAD AND ASK ME WHY!!!
I don't know too many people who have chosen them as a permanent replacement for regular cigarettes - but it did prove the point regarding the enforcement problems of the smoking ban in Delaware.
The "health police" could not prove at the hearings if what they saw customers smoking were tobacco or non-tobacco products. And because the enforcement regulations basically tell the agents to not confront anyone, they did not ask, and thus lost their case..............and it was more than one.
The State actually looked pretty stupid. It was actually quite amusing.
I agree, smokers and non-smokers should have a personal choice. If you are a non-smoker, you should not be subjected to a smoking environment. Smokers should also have the option of a smoking section, where non-smokers will not be subjected to their smoke.
My problem is when there are no designated smoking sections on government property.
In that situation, since the government has decided not to provide designated smoking sections, I will smoke anywhere that area I want.
Remember, this is public owned property and 1/4 of it has been purchased by smokers.
If there is a designated smoking section, I am more than willing to confine myself into that area.
while I would like to see designated smoking areas on public property - I'll go along with that ban, because people are REQUIRED to go to those places........they are not REQUIRED to go elsewhere.
That's the difference between public and private - when it comes to the idea of people being "forced" to deal with second hand smoke.......or what ever the current PC term is.
When an employee could smoke at his or her desk while working, there was no time lost.
When non-smokers require that they take time away from their office desk, who should be accountable for that time lost?
I agree, non-smokers should be required to work an extra hour each day, to compensate for their own self-inflected policies.
The smokers in the company were always willing to continue working at their desks.
Explain please, you have me totally confused.
I am not "required" to go to an airport when traveling to Europe, but can you explain how else I can get there in one day?
You are not "required" to enter into a designated smoking section at an airport. Can you explain to me how a designated smoking section is harmful to you?
I've never seen any "public" property. If you mean government property, they get to make the rules. If you don't like the rules they make, at least you get a vote on that one. You sure don't get a vote on my property.
If you are a non-smoker, you should not be subjected to a smoking environment. Smokers should also have the option of a smoking section, where non-smokers will not be subjected to their smoke.
I don't think any of those people have any "options". Owners of property have options. All others must respect those options.
In that situation, since the government has decided not to provide designated smoking sections, I will smoke anywhere that area I want.Remember, this is public owned property and 1/4 of it has been purchased by smokers.
Incorrect. It is government owned property. The "public" doesn't own anything. Many people make that mistake so don't feel bad. You are right about having paid for it. The money that the government took from you (at gunpoint if necessary) bought it, but it's not yours in any real sense of the word.
One way you can tell if something belongs to you is if you can dispose of it at your will. If I own some of this property, I choose to sell my part. Where's my money? So you see, it doesn't work that way.
If there is a designated smoking section, I am more than willing to confine myself into that area.
Goody for you.
FALSE!
However, unless the public enforces the concept of public financed property, you are sadly correct.
I for one, will invoke my partial ownership of this public owned property. If government officials do not like it, then I will create legal fees for them, that are well in excess of the property value.
Every free citizen has a choice. This is my choice.
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.