Where There's Smoke, They're Fired

ABC 20/20 ^ | 4/8/05 | John Stossel

[1L]

>>as long as he pays for the gyms and plastic surgery<<

This is truly idiotic, and you know it. He's forcing them to QUIT SMOKING. He's not forcing them to look a certain way. His gym stuff are INCENTIVES, and his smoking issue was based on a business reason.

Just because I did a high dive off the 10 meter once doesn't mean I would also want to high dive off Niagra Falls. Your analogies are just as ludicrous.

[sharktrager]

He actually does provide them a gym, a trainer, and pays bonuses for meeting fitness goals.

D-cups and plastic surgery? Please... give me a break.

They had 15-months to find another job, and chose not to.

Are you familiar with "Employment at will"?

[jocon307]

"And as our overlord, the judiciary, has no objections, that's that."

You said it.

[softwarecreator]

so what else is he allowed to enforce for their own good and as long as he gives them enough time?

Fat?

sexual habits?

TV viewing habits?

recreational sports?

There is NO difference!

[duck duck goose]

20/20 ran this story tonight. This company worked in health benefits. His company was essentially a third party administration. He gave his employees 15 months to quit smoking. He paid for patches, shots, and also offered incentives to loose weight. Not only that , he had follow up care for those who had shots and patches to make sure there weren't any side effects. They were paid $110.00 a week to loose weight. His business was to be healthy and to send healthy people into the field. The longer they worked, the healthier they were, the more money THEY made as well as him. It is a win win situation. If they felt their rights were violated and didn't want to quit, they could find another job and try to sue him. But he was in the right as his business was in a "Right to Work State" HE had every right to demand what he did, especially in the field he was in.

[Kidan]

If he HIRED them with the prerequisite that they not smoke, he would be right. But the article basically states that he woke up one day and decided to put the NEW policies into affect.


so a business owner cannot modify his work policies at will? Who's business is it again?

[softwarecreator]

Are you familiar with "Employment at will"?

Yeah man, I think I've heard the term. Are you familiar with the term, illegal dismissal? How about "playing god". how about "None of his business"

[duck duck goose]

Look up WEYCO. It will be spelled out for you.

[A Jovial Cad]

I have seen how smoking can affect productivity, and if it was costing him more for insurance premiums, I see a legitimate business reason for his decision

Why stop there?

Big fat people tend to have far more health problems than folks who don't linger over the all-night buffet a little too long. This pushes up health premiums for everyone. Fire them.

People married with children whom attend Church regularly tend to be far healthier than the rest of the population, as a rule. Employees should be notified that they have fifteen months to find a spouse, impregnate/or be impregnated by them, and find a suitable Church to patronize with weekly proof of attendance from the Pastor/Reverend/Minister/Priest, or they're out the door.

People who drink a moderate amount of alcohol in combination with the "Mediterranean diet" (fish, olive oil, fruits, cereals, & vegetables) tend to live longer and be healthier during that lifespan than those whom don't. Tee-totaling is now a fireable offense, as is the consumption of Red Meat, Poultry, etc. Monthly Menus detailing the employees eating intentions will now be submitted to Company Management on a regular basis; those spotted eating cheeseburgers or any other "unhealthy" food will be summarily dismissed; Random BAT's will administered by management reps at employee's residences to ensure that "proper" level of alcohol is being consumed every evening by workers.

Since lack of exercise due to "couch-potato syndrome" is such a contributor to heart disease and stroke, employees are no longer allowed to own television sets. Failure to comply will result in termination. Radios in the home are verboten, also, since they can lead to the same thing: car radios, on the way to and from work, will still be generously allowed in employee's private vehicles.

Firearms are dangerous: any employee who does not turn their privately owned guns into a police agency for meltdown (certified) and make an "apology contribution" for having once owned such horrific tools of death to the Brady campaign will no longer have a job. See company management for details.

Sitting in front of a computer interacting with websites when one could be out for a healthy jog or doing push ups is another factor hampering our efforts to turn every man & woman we cut a paycheck for into the perfect picture of physical wellbeing. Henceforward, those caught in possession of a computer at home will be canned.

That's all (for the time being). Now, get back to work.

[1L]

To be honest, I think he's free to do whatever he wants. Why does his employee's so called personal freedom trump his? It's HIS office, is it not?

None of the things you mentioned, save perhaps sexual habits (which are almost always kept intensely personal and only rarely amount to serious health issues), have the health consequences of smoking. Nor do any directly impact other people as smoking, including the stench, breath, etc.

It isn't the same. There is no causal link or even a halfway good slipperly slope argument between mandating your employees stop smoking and attempting to dictate their TV habits. Arguing as much means you have no real substance for an argument on the real issue.

[sharktrager]

Based on your answer, you clearly do not understand "Employment at will".

[softwarecreator]

How do YOU know that he won't decide this next or another employer might decide to enforce them?

[softwarecreator]

If tomorrow your company decided they were going to be totally liberal and say you MUST vote democratic AND leave Free Republic (and join DU) do you feel he has that right?

Oh that's right, you do, don't you?

It's his business isn't it? And he feels it is for your own good.

[Buddy B]

"Michigan State Sen. Virg Bernero (D) said he will "solve" the problem. He'll make what Weyers did illegal.

On Wednesday, he'll introduce a bill that would prohibit employers from firing anyone for legal behavior they do at home.

"Today, it's smoking, what's it going to be tomorrow? That you got to lose a certain number of pounds in order to keep your job?" he asked."

-------------------------------------------------------

That you got to lose a certain number of pounds in order to keep your job,  ...

The US Air Force did this pound thing and some were discharged for over-weight.

[softwarecreator]

Based on your answer you don't understand the concept of what an employee does on his OWN time is his OWN business.

[Kidan]

Actually yes. It is my employer's RIGHT to create the rules by which I am employed by him. The same way it is my right to be able to quit if I cannot abide by those rules.

I owe nothing to my employer. I am not under contract, I have a business relationship with the company. I give them 40 hours a week, they give me lots of money. If I want to give someone else 40 hours a week for a different amount of money that is my perogative. If my employer no longer wants to give me money for my 40 hours, that is his perogative. It is his company.

[Troublemaker]

and if it was costing him more for insurance premiums, I see a legitimate business reason for his decision.

Curious....Is he required to pay health cost/insurance for his employees?

[flying Elvis]

I understand that he's doing a good thing by pressuring them to stop smoking, but I'm enough of a nonconformist to resent it a great deal. There is precendent here. I understand that the automakers do not allow their employees to drive vehicles made my other companies. Any of you remember the recent article about the softdrink employee who got caught drinking another brand, and was fired? Senator Bernero may have an uphill battle if the automakers realizes how it may impact them. If my employer wants to tell me what to do when I am off the clock, he will have to cough up some cash.

[softwarecreator]

Arguing as much means you have no real substance for an argument on the real issue.

Yes I do. Answer this question then: Can he decide that tbecause they are an insurance company that PC's damage the eyes and can lead to Carpal-Tunnel .. therefore get rid of you r Personal Computer and internet access ... or you will be fired?

Does he?

[A Jovial Cad]

It's HIS office, is it not?

I'm going to go reeaaal, reeaal slow, just so you don't miss anything: THESE-EMPLOYEES-ARE-NOT-SMOKING-IN-HIS-WORKPLACE/OFFICE. THEY-ARE (WERE)-DOING-THIS-ON-THEIR-OWN-TIME.

Arguing as much means you have no real substance for an argument on the real issue

Every time I see some idiot employ that line I know instinctively what it means: I'm a conservative who believes in freedom & liberty as long it suits me.

AKA, a "Cafeteria Conservative" and "situational ethics" pro.