Posted on 04/08/2005 9:06:37 PM PDT by sharktrager
Workers Dismissed After Rejecting Employer's Smoking Policy
April 8, 2005 — If you don't like your job, you can quit. Does it work the other way? Can my boss quit me if he doesn't like, say, something I do at home? An employer in Michigan has done that, and it's making lots of people say Give Me a Break.
Howard Weyers runs WEYCO, a health-care benefits company in Okemos, Mich., and he's a health nut.
He's 71 years old, but still lifts heavy weights. One day, he decided his employees should be healthy too. First, he hired an in-house private trainer. Any employee who goes to see her and then meets certain exercise goals can earn a $110 bonus per month.
Mindy Tiraboschi, one of his employees, thinks it's great. "He wants to help us be as healthy as we can," she said.
"I want to be a good influence on my employees. What's wrong with being healthy?" Weyers said.
Two years ago, he went further after concluding that smokers run up higher medical costs and are less healthy in general. He introduced a smoking policy, telling his employees, "You're not going to smoke if you work here. Period."
He was not just talking about smoking at work, but smoking anywhere — even at home. He would do random tests and fire anyone with nicotine in their blood.
Anita Epolito and some other workers were furious that day when Weyers told them, you have 15 months to stop smoking. "No patch, no gum, you had to either been completely you know, just healed from tobacco, or you're not working at Weyco," she said.
Weyers said he took a lot of flak from his workers when he announced the policy. "I just let them attack me. I had 200 people in a room and they went at me," he said. Epolito was one of the people who let him have it. "Immediately, when he said it, I yelled out in the meeting, you can't do that to me, it's against the law," she said.
But Weyers' company is located in one of 20 states that allow employers to fire anyone as long as they don't violate discrimination laws for things like age, gender, race or disabilities. Of the 24 Weyco employees who smoked, most stopped.
Weyers was pleased with the results. "Twenty out of 24 broke the habit. At least three spouses that we know of quit with the employee. So it was very successful," he said.
Some employees, like Chris Boyd, are grateful that Weyers pressured them to quit.
"I'm glad I did. It was the best thing I could have ever done," Boyd said.
But the four employees who didn't quit were fired, and they are angry that Weyers put their jobs on the line. Epolito was among the four who lost their jobs. "I did my job, an excellent job for this man, and he became a god in his own mind. And that's wrong, that's wrong," she said.
Weyers says he's not playing God; he's just helping people become healthy. He even put a scale in front of the cafeteria vending machine, and he stocked that with alternatives to junk food. He also pays for weight management programs, nutrition counseling and diabetic training.
His critics say, so what!
The Drug Policy Alliance compares Weyers' policy to totalitarianism. They say a company has no right to fire you for what you do on your own time.
So you'd think I'd say "Give Me a Break" to Weyco. After all, Weyers is prohibiting his employees from ever smoking — even when they aren't on the job. And I've said Give Me a Break before to politicians who've outlawed smoking in restaurants and bars.
But there's a difference between government smoking bans and Howard Weyers setting one. We only have one government. When government bans something, it bans it for everybody, and government can use force. It's why the Bill of Rights restricts government power. But Weyco is just one company. No one has to work here.
Boyd agrees. "This is Howard's company. If you don't agree with it, that's fine. Don't work here," he said. Those who don't want to work for this health nut, who built this company, have lots of other choices.
I looked through area classified ads, and saw lots of job listings.
But Weyers' employees seem to believe that after working hard for Weyers for years, they're entitled to their jobs.
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.
But there are lots of employers that might hire the smokers who lost their jobs at Weyco. Why can't one employer say, "I don't want smokers working here."
"We have decided as a society that you can't discriminate on race, on gender, you know, pregnant women," Bernero said.
But are we going to amend discrimination laws to include smokers?
Bernero is fine with that. "Hopefully, we'll have an amendment for legal activities, for privacy outside the workplace. Because this goes too far," he said.
But Weyers built the company, doesn't he have rights? Epolito is now collecting unemployment. Cara Stiffler, another of the dismissed employees, is working as a file clerk.
She's happy with her new job.
So why is she angry at Weyers? "I had to give up my health insurance for my children, but I want my children to see that I stood up for my rights as an American, that's what the men are over fighting in Iraq for, is my freedom," she said.
Fighting for freedom is one thing. But freedom doesn't mean you own your job. Give me a break.
>>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.
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"?
"And as our overlord, the judiciary, has no objections, that's that."
You said it.
Fat?
sexual habits?
TV viewing habits?
recreational sports?
There is NO difference!
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"
Look up WEYCO. It will be spelled out for you.
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.
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.
Based on your answer, you clearly do not understand "Employment at will".
How do YOU know that he won't decide this next or another employer might decide to enforce them?
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.
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.
Based on your answer you don't understand the concept of what an employee does on his OWN time is his OWN business.
Curious....Is he required to pay health cost/insurance for his employees?
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.
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?
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.
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.