A Job or a Cigarette?

Newsweek ^ | Feb. 24, 2005 | By Jennifer Barrett Ozols

[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.

[Gabz]

I wasn't thinking of an airport, you got me there.

I was thinking more along the lines of places like the Motor Vehicle office, or a court house ----- those types of places.

I fully support designated smoking areas EVERYWHERE when it comes to government property - I support the right of business owners to make choice for their own private property.

Entering a designated smoking area can not be harmful to me as I would be freely entering it to have a smoke!!!

[Protagoras]

Every free citizen has a choice. This is my choice.

Sorry. There is no legitimate choice to violate rights. You cannot rightfully "choose" to murder for instance.

Actions which violate rights have consequences. I hope you pay dearly. If I was a judge, I'd lock you up anyway I could.

You are the reason people hate smokers. People who do what you advocate are called liberals.

[-YYZ-]

Yes, just like the thugs who elected representatives who took away the rights of property owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is the reality. You can only push people so far before they will react. I'm not expecting anyone to come to the defense of smokers, pariahs that we are, but if people start to see too much interference with THEIR private lives they will do something.

[Stu Cohen]

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.

Not exactly. There is no such thing as a "smoking section". I have yet to see a puff of smoke that can read signs. I'm not saying that smoke is not an intelligent life form - i've just never personally encountered a well-read cloud of it.

I am old enought to remember when there were "smoking" and "non-smoking" sections of an airplace. Of course, when I was seated in the row directly in front of where the smoking section began I was more or less in the smoking section. Along with everyone within about about 10 rows in front of it.

And of course, there is really no such thing as a "smoking section" in a resturant either. The whole concept is really kind of silly. A resturant is either smoking or not. Unless the smoking section is enclosed and fan ventelated, the whole returant fills with cigarette smoke.

It's one of those little niceties of "you can't complain, because we but the smokers in a seperate section". And they do put the smokers in a seperate section. But not the smoke.

And I think for most people it is the smoke that causes the problem ... not the smoker.

[Stu Cohen]

And you have no problems with designated smoking and non-smoking sections on public property?

Inasmuch as I have a problem with any other form of recreatioal drug use on public property, I have the same with smokable tobacco.

Most places around here ban open alcohol containters in public, yet this is rarely perceived as a violation of human rights even though the alchohol enters the users body directly and rarely get's into the GI tract of a non-user.

I'm not sure why smoking is somehow more repressive than this.

[Protagoras]

Yes, just like the thugs who elected representatives who took away the rights of property owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking.

Those people are cowardly turds.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but it is the reality. You can only push people so far before they will react.

Yep, there is a war coming, I hope I'm dead before it starts.

I'm not expecting anyone to come to the defense of smokers, pariahs that we are, but if people start to see too much interference with THEIR private lives they will do something.

Yep. And there is a poster on this thread who does his best to push people to hate smokers.

He disregards everyone but himself and thinks it's clever to run up the cost of government in doing so. He proudly states that he lights up on private property against the owners wishes.

Hard to imagine why people are starting to hate smokers. These same people think there is some "right" to toss their garbage all over the ground whenever they please. Including throwing it out the windows of their cars. Littering like that ought to carry a $1000 fine for the first offense.

I spend a tremendous amount of time on this site defending the rights of these people even though many of them make me puke.

[-YYZ-]

Back when I did smoke at work (I've been trying to quit and not smoking at work is one of my first steps), I'd guess that I spent less time outside smoking (maybe 3 or 4 cigarettes from the time I came until until I left) than most of my co-workers spent hanging around in the kitchen area making and drinking cofee, and yakking.

[Stu Cohen]

Back when I did smoke at work (I've been trying to quit and not smoking at work is one of my first steps), I'd guess that I spent less time outside smoking (maybe 3 or 4 cigarettes from the time I came until until I left) than most of my co-workers spent hanging around in the kitchen area making and drinking cofee, and yakking.

Back when I was a young kid I used to work for a company that allowed "smoke breaks", but nothing else (don't ask me why). I used to bust my #$%^ for 10 hours per day, with a half hour for lunch (maybe), and I remember the "smoke breaks" of 5-10 minutes ever hour that the smokers got. They didn't work any harder than us the other 50 minutes, and didn't get paid any less. Being a smoker back then entitled you actually get frequent breaks, while having someone "cover for them".

I always thought it was odd, but those were different times.

[-YYZ-]

Yep. And there is a poster on this thread who does his best to push people to hate smokers.

I can only assume he thinks that there's nothing left to lose for smokers, and he may be right. Still, even though (some) non-smokers have done everything they can to take away some of my freedoms, I'll still be civil and follow the rules and respect their desire to breathe smoke-free air

Hard to imagine why people are starting to hate smokers. These same people think there is some "right" to toss their garbage all over the ground whenever they please. Including throwing it out the windows of their cars. Littering like that ought to carry a $1000 fine for the first offense.

Around where I live a lot of people throw a lot worse than cigarette butts out the window - coffee cups, fast food wrappings, pop and beer(!) cans, and so on. I'll admit though, the number of pieces of garbage they throw out is probably not as great, but the volume is. I used to do it myself - just never really thought about it, to tell the truth.

[Hunble]

Unless the smoking section is enclosed and fan ventelated, the whole returant fills with cigarette smoke.

In the State laws regulating designated smoking sections, the ventelation (usually 2 meters per second) is specified.

If a designated smoking section was in violation of the law, then that problem should have been addressed.

You have failed to provide a single example of a smoking section that forced you into a situation where you had no choice.

In a pitiful attempt, you have talked about the "buffer zone" (usually three seats) on an airliner between the smoking and non-smoking sections. Pressurized air on an airline flows from front to back, and smokers were located at he rear of the airliner. That has not been allowed for almost 20 years now. Talk about grasping!

Once again, can you give us a single example of you being forced into a smoking section, when it was not your own personal choice?

I am more than happy to listen to all valid arguments on a topic, and can be convinced if the examples are factual. So far, you have lost my respect by using deceptive examples.

[Ginifer]

First of all, I am not talking about myself.

As you pointed out:

"but don't employers have a right to hire the person who projects more energy, confidence, self-control--and is, statistically, less likely to miss work because of illness, and more likely to be productive?"

I don't see how you can prove that someone who might carry a little more weight, eat junk food, or drink/smoke moderately would be less productive. After all, there are plenty of people employed who do fit those categories.

Second of all, your point about:

"I will default to paraphrase what many people say on this forum all the time: If you don't like the rules of your company, you are free to find another company.

So if you follow the rules like a robot instead of an individual then your opinions and attitudes don't matter..after all, we should all just march to the beat of one drummer.

Third of all, your point about:

"a functional alchoholic can "perform" his job--but I'd rather have someone else performing it, thanks. Someone who's more productive, doesn't increase my liability, and is less likely to cause injury to himself or others."

I've meet plenty of people who are "as pure as the driven snow", but yet still are terrible workers. They may not drink, smoke, eat junk food, or suffer from lack of exercise, but that doesn't make them IDEAL workers. It is all based on the work ethics and morals.

Fourth of all:

Be honest: If you bid out a remodeling job in your home, are you more inclined to give the job the the trim, clear-eyed, articulate contractor...or the slovenly slob who projects an image that sets off your alarms"

I think I would hire the person who has the best skills and not based on what they looked like. I've met plenty of people who are nothing but a bunch of suits with no work experience or knowledge.

Fifth of all:

"No, I'm not an employer."

It's a good thing you are not, since I believe you would have difficulty finding the "perfect" person for the job.

[Hunble]

Being a smoker back then entitled you actually get frequent breaks, while having someone "cover for them".

I will say this once again: Those smokers were more than happy to smoke at their desks while working. They were forced to take breaks by people like you. If they had designated smoking offices, they would never need to take a break.

And you dare to complain, because people like you forced them to take breaks?

Please step back and look at this logic....

[John Robertson]

I am not looking for "perfect." But, from the hysterical tenor of your response, it seems you think no one has the right to look for the best--near-perfect, at least. "The best-qualified, the most willing"--God, what are you, a pre-school teacher. We're NOT all equal. Deal with it.

[Ginifer]

"How is controlling your own business "socialist"?? I would think EVERYONE on this site would support a persons right to hire/fire ANYBODY for any reason if it is thier personal company. Man you guys all like freedom until it cramps your style. I don't smoke, don't care if you do...but I DO own my own business."

Don't have a problem with how he wants to operate his company, but I do have a problem with him infringing on my right to what I can or cannot do on my off time.

[Protagoras]

So far, you have lost my respect by using deceptive examples.

That's rich. A person who tries to cause society to lose money as he flaunts the law and brags about how he smokes on private property and dares someone to do something about it has lost respect for someone? LOL

A person who doesn't respect anyone doesn't carry much credibility on that account.

[Ginifer]

"I am not looking for "perfect." But, from the hysterical tenor of your response, it seems you think no one has the right to look for the best--near-perfect, at least. "The best-qualified, the most willing"--God, what are you, a pre-school teacher. We're NOT all equal. Deal with it."

Yes, you are looking for perfect. As far as being hysterical, I was quite rational (unlike you). We may not all be equal, but we are supposed to be. Now I am moving on since you seem to be quite persnickety.

[Gabz]

I spend a tremendous amount of time on this site defending the rights of these people even though many of them make me puke.

I know you do, and I appreciate it, because 98% of the time you and I are in agreement.

[Cultural Jihad]

perhaps a company can then ban it's employees from . . .

Freedom is a scary thing to those without a moral anchor. In case you were wondering, there is no inalienable right to a camping trip. Yet millions of people succeed at it every year without resorting to establishing campers as a protected class.

[Protagoras]

Freedom is a scary thing to those without a moral anchor.

Freedom is a scary thing to most people. That's because at some point they figure out that in order to be free, you need to let others be free as well. And you have to take responsibility for your own choices. That scares people.

They want a daddy to clean up after them and force others to do what they want them to do.

[zoobee]

You make absoultely no sense. The smokers I work with spend just as much time outside smoking than they do working at their desk.