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 ...
Man, that's all I heard back in the 80's when drug testing became all the rage. Ahhh....the chickens....they roost rather hard these days. ;)
so them what is keeping your employer for stating that it is a new condition of your employment that you don't drink - even on your own time. are you saying that the only recourse is to quit?
or maybe that you don't watch fox news, or don't drink coffee, or eat chocolate, or eat at MacDonald's, or own a firearm, etc..?
There I go again ... not portraying my meaning.
It should have said take a look at post #10. ;)
Sooo, if an employer wished to unilaterally revise the employment contract, that's just hunky-dory, right? After all, the victim employees can kleave and start their own company, right?
The quote I have is from a list of quotations attributed to Gen G. S. Patton Jr.
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.
Okay. I missed this sentence:
"Several companies that SHRM interviewed said they have programs in place to help employees with specific health issues like diabetes or asthma."
These two groups, and I do have asthma as do all my relatives from childhood, have some specific demands to avoid illness. Some attacks are just unavoidable.
How on earth will they penalize asthmatics who can lose work time due to attacks. All the steroid sprays, antihistamines, targeted meds like singulair, inhalers, flu shots, clean air in the world will not stop an attack. They happen. Just catch a cold.
What next, fire the genetically predisposed?
Hi T.Smith!
I think it is up to a private company who they hire or not hire,but to fire some one after they already worked there, before such a policy was introduced, even with ample warning,is not right,IMHO.
For the present.
Twenty five years ago I didn't think the insurance companies had the clout to make seat belts mandatory either. ;)
I think Wolfie said it best when he stated ... " Man, that's all I heard back in the 80's when drug testing became all the rage. Ahhh....the chickens....they roost rather hard these days. ;)"
Wouldn't it be a hoot if this Orwellian schlub suddenly dropped dead of a heart attack and was found by two overweight smokers?
(obligatory Denis Leary reference)
Unrelated to this article, but YES.
In the construction industry 'most' field personnel (on the job-site) are required to take drug tests. And the trade unions can do squat if someone if fired for failing the test.
(note: I speaking of the Chicago metro area)
That's right - it's the God-given right to run one's business in whatever way the Petty Tyrant sees fit.
Unless the company raised wages to 168/40 times the before-revision rate, the company has no right to dictate or punish off-duty behavior. None. If the company wants to control behavior during off-duty time, they will have to make it on-duty time and compensate its employees.
Yes - going forward into the future not hiring smokers, that's one thing and is OK by me.
The company unilaterally changing the terms of employment contracts to punish off-duty behavior, that's not. That smacks of indentured servitude.
Human Nature 101 teaches "EVERYONE" never supports everything.
I think it's in chapter two.
Nothing, they can do that. No problem. In fact, I know of companies who do not allow their employees to even be in the company of drinkers at parties and gatherings and such. Moody Bible Institute has such rules.
are you saying that the only recourse is to quit?
You don't like the deal, haul ass.
or maybe that you don't watch fox news, or don't drink coffee, or eat chocolate, or eat at MacDonald's, or own a firearm, etc..?
Righto. People have no gun on them to work anywhere.
In fact, I don't allow my employees to eat at McDonalds. Of course, I work for myself, so it's no problem.
For exactly the same reason, bars and restarants who chose to serve smoking customers, should be allowed to only hire smoking employees.
All State laws which restrict smoking in bars and restarants based upon "second hand smoking" health reasons, would then become null and void. These laws would not apply, since every employee in the company is also smoker.
No - the rules were changed, in the case of one fired individual, 15 YEARS after that person started working there.
Well, again, there's a safety issue with that. "Pot"'s intoxication lasts into on-duty time and affects performance. It is not unreasonable to require employees to be sober while on duty, especially when one's dealing with dangerous heavy equipment.
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.