Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Job or a Cigarette?
Newsweek ^ | Feb. 24, 2005 | By Jennifer Barrett Ozols

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: employmentatwill; freedomofcontract; pufflist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-219 next last
To: camle

In an employment at will state you do not have to give cause at all.......nor does an employee need give a reason for quitting.

It's the total opposite in a "right-to-work" state.


81 posted on 02/25/2005 7:54:11 AM PST by Gabz (Wanna join my tag team?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Mrs.Nooseman

Yes, it would have been kinder (some might say more upstanding) to grandfather the present smokers. But, in the end, I suppose he can do what he wants with his company. He certainly go a lot of publicity out of it!


82 posted on 02/25/2005 7:54:34 AM PST by T.Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: camle

LOL!!!! Of course I know that. I didn't know you the last time I did either of those 2 things..............(just kidding)


83 posted on 02/25/2005 7:55:21 AM PST by Gabz (Wanna join my tag team?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: camle
In principle, as privatly owned property, a business may establish any employment policies that they desire.

In principle, a privatly owned business would be able to fire any registered Democrates or other people with anti-business idiologies or political views.

My previous employer had a policy such as this. We would not hire anyone that was not a firm Republican. One secratary was able to sneek through the hiring process, but once we understood her political leanings, she was fired.

84 posted on 02/25/2005 7:55:27 AM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

unless your reason for firing is not discriminatory or otherwise violates a worker's constitutional rights?

i mean even in an "at will" state you cannot fire someone for being black, can you?


85 posted on 02/25/2005 7:56:32 AM PST by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it with something for you))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: camle

Race is a federal thing that supersedes state law - but even in an at will state, most already piggyback the "race, sex, religion, etc........

I remember during the battle over this in Delaware 10 years or so ago - the number of employment ads in the paper that clearly stated "smokers need not apply" I still see them, and I also see apartments for rent that will only rent to non-smokers.

It is all the same principle.


86 posted on 02/25/2005 7:59:54 AM PST by Gabz (Wanna join my tag team?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Hunble

hmm.. so you don't have to hire minorities or women if you don't feel like it, eh?


87 posted on 02/25/2005 8:00:04 AM PST by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it with something for you))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: T.Smith

Yes,you are right.
I suppose the owner enjoys the publicity.


88 posted on 02/25/2005 8:01:54 AM PST by Mrs.Nooseman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: camle
perhaps a company can then ban it's employees from having sex on their own time? or from having male children?

Companies are powerless to "ban" anything. You don't have to work there. If you agree not to have sex, don't do it. If you don't agree, leave.

if they don't like it they can quit, eh?

Yep.

how about banning employees from driving cars other than to and fro work since that is dangerous?

"Dangerous" is irrelevant. They can't ban people from driving. They can require it as a condition of employment. You don't agree? Get a job elsewhere.

they can always quit if they don;t like it.

Bingo, see? You keep repeating it, it must be sinking in.

or how about weekend camping trips? vacations to foreign lands?

Yes and yes. You can think of thousands and thousands of others I'm sure. I'll save you the trouble, anything they agree to is OK. Both have to agree, or either party may disengage from the arrangement. Get it? No force, no muss no fuss. You don't want to make the arrangement? Haul ass.

89 posted on 02/25/2005 8:04:14 AM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: camle
hmm.. so you don't have to hire minorities or women if you don't feel like it, eh?

Government employs force in those instances to get votes from those groups.

90 posted on 02/25/2005 8:07:17 AM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: camle
hmm.. so you don't have to hire minorities or women if you don't feel like it, eh?

In principle, as privatetly owned property, a business should be able to set any employment criteria that they desire. Government employment on the other hand, does and should have legal restrictions, since the government represents all citizens.

I fail to see any Constitutional justification that would authorize the employment of force against a privatly owned business to hire a specific individuals.

Is it moral? No.

Is it Constitutional? Yes.

91 posted on 02/25/2005 8:09:47 AM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Eventually, he will have a hard time recruiting folks to work for him if this prying into private lives goes too far.

Bingo! As it should be.

92 posted on 02/25/2005 8:09:53 AM PST by Protagoras (" I believe that's the role of the federal government, to help people"...GWB, 7-23-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Ginifer

"What's next? Not hiring someone because they drink, eat junk food, don't exercise, etc."

That's already in effect. If you walk into a waiting room at a company and look at the candidates waiting to be interviewed for a position, the lead goes to the trim and the fit, every time. Some of us say, I have every right to do and be whatever I want with my body. Fine, 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?

"The more these companies make stringent rules and regulations, more people will end up being unemployed." 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.

"What you do on your off time should not concern the employer as long as you perform your job!" See paragragh one. Here's an extreme example: 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.

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?

No, I'm not an employer.


93 posted on 02/25/2005 8:12:14 AM PST by John Robertson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

"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?"

Sure, why not. Just don't hire, or fire existing employees, who have any sort of pre-existing medical condition that might cost their medical insurer or result in a few more sick days.

This guy's within his rights, but that doesn't make him any less of a busybody fascist.


94 posted on 02/25/2005 8:12:41 AM PST by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kretek
Sooo, if an employer wished to unilaterally revise the employment contract, that's just hunky-dory, right?

That's one of the benefits of being the "employer".

95 posted on 02/25/2005 8:14:23 AM PST by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hunble
In principle, as privatetly owned property, a business should be able to set any employment criteria that they desire.

I agree, if you don't like the policy, do work for the employer.

Government employment on the other hand, does and should have legal restrictions, since the government represents all citizens.

I agree with you here as well, although it unfortunately is not the case in many states.

The State's Attorney office in Orange County, Florida springs to mind.........all employees were told they either had to quit smoking or lose their jobs and henceforth only non-smokers would be hired.

That I can not go along with as smokers are also taxpayer's footing the bills and in fact gaovernment employees work for the taxpayers, not the other way around.

96 posted on 02/25/2005 8:18:29 AM PST by Gabz (Wanna join my tag team?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Military family member
I just quit cold turkey eight weeks ago, after smoking 2 to 3 packs per day. I've managed to stay away, without patches, gums, pills, or anything else. I just looked at my son whenever I wanted a cigarette.

Congratulations! Yours sounds very much like my father's decision to quit on 8/1/68. Same habit, one of the same reasons for quitting (the other being my little sis), same level of success. Thankfully, the 50 pounds he gained didn't stop him from living to the age of 80 (and still going strong).

97 posted on 02/25/2005 8:20:07 AM PST by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
Actually, this is why Unions were formed in the early part of the 20th Century.

Constitutionally, any privatly owned company can establish any employment policies that they desire. The employees of that same company can also join together and shut down the company.

Today, Unions have been corrupted and cause many more problems than they solve. However, the original concept of employee unions is still valid.

98 posted on 02/25/2005 8:20:21 AM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
The State's Attorney office in Orange County, Florida springs to mind.........all employees were told they either had to quit smoking or lose their jobs and henceforth only non-smokers would be hired.

Constitutionally, that is wrong and must not be allowed to happen. I find it impossible to understand their legal justification.

99 posted on 02/25/2005 8:23:46 AM PST by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Hunble

I don't know how it is justified, but other localities have done it with police and firefighters as well.


100 posted on 02/25/2005 8:24:47 AM PST by Gabz (Wanna join my tag team?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 201-219 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson