Posted on 04/20/2005 5:36:46 AM PDT by FlyLow
It's nice to hear Americans talk about privacy and fighting for their rights. But sometimes I have to say: Do you know what you're talking about?
In Okemos, Mich., a 71-year-old health nut named Howard Weyers runs a health-care benefits company called Weyco. Weyers thinks his employees should be healthy, too, so years ago, he hired an in-house private trainer. Any employee who works with her and then meets certain exercise goals earns a $110 bonus per month.
So far, so good. But then, in November 2003, Weyers made an announcement that shocked his staff: "I'm introducing a smoking policy," he said.
"You're not going to smoke if you work here. Period."
No smoking at work. No smoking at home. No nicotine patch or nicotine gum. The company would do random tests and fire anyone with nicotine in his system.
"Two hundred people in a room," Weyers recalls, "and they went at me."
"I yelled out," said Anita Epolito, "'You can't do that to me, it's against the law.'"
That's not true. In Michigan and 19 other states, employers have the legal right to fire anyone, as long as they don't violate discrimination laws (for age, gender, race, religion, disabilities, etc.).
Weyers gave his employees 15 months to quit smoking, and he offered assistance to help.
Today, he calls the policy a success. Twenty Weyco employees who smoked, stopped. Some of their spouses even quit.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Or extremely obese.
But most folks replying to this thread seem to be blissfully unaware of that, and prefer to stay that way, thankyouverymuch...
Just wait till they find a "tobacco" gene! SMOKING IS A DISEASE! RACSISM!
In a truly free nation, there would be no such thing as "anti-discrimination" laws in the first place.
I think I'd love working for him!
My main problem with this is that some of these employees had worked for the power mad megalomaniac for many years, smoked, and he did nothing about it.
It seems to me that to be fair, these employees should be 'grandfathered' in.
IOW, any new employee signs the papers that says no smoking, period.
Yeh yeh, policies change, but many times employees are grandfathered in for various things when the policy changes.
Well... take it a step further to where I want it....Only republicans need apply......That's the kind of company I want to work for.......
I forgot to add to #15 that I wholly support this crazy person's right to run his business anyway he sees fit. I am wholly opposed to his ideas becoming mandatory for every employer.
Wait till he goes after those who have disabled children because they increase the cost of the companies insurance premiums,due to more freuquent doctors visits.Or maybe he'll target pregnant females next.Gonna cost more for family coverage ya know.Then there's motorcycle riders,older employees,diebetics,phenylketonurics(which two of my children are),etc.,,He can just go down the list and before ya know it,he'll have the "perfect employee".Wait,I think that's been tried before in some country with its citizens,who weren't the "perfect race".
Also true is that adversely affected employees can sue the employer for firing without just cause. The employer should focus on job performance issues.
On a personal level, I would not want to work for a company that 'enforced' lifestyle choices, or in this case, addictions. Targeting smokers as a group is no more palatable than targeting ethnicity or race (either pro or con).
Once you get away from individual job performance, you are on a slippery slope indeed. Affirmative action, now affirmative life styles. What's next?
The point is, it's HIS business. If you don't like the rules, don't work there.
I know people who refuse to work places if they're required to wear a uniform. Or if there are rules about beard length or wearing a tie. Or if they have to be "team players". They just look for work where they think they'll fit in and be happier.
You're free to leave if the company changes the rules and you don't like them.
Stossel is right. It's a shame to read that there are only 19 states that permit an employer to hire or fire whomever they choose.
Let me clarify that cause I know it's going to be taken wrong.It actually sounded worse after I read it.I'm not comparing the atrocity that took place against the jews as a parallel to this.Just that it could open a new door for employers to fire someone for various reasons,other than just smoking.My apologies.
This is where you are wrong. The employer should focus on whatever the hell he wants to focus on -- that's what it means when he is the employer. If he wants to make a habit out of firing competent smokers and hiring incompetent non-smokers, then he'll be out of business in a hurry.
Affirmative action, now affirmative life styles. What's next?
We're talking about a private employer here. There's a reason why "affirmative action" is largely confined to government -- it's because in most government jobs the competence of the employee doesn't really matter all that much.
"I" missed the point? And just what point would that be?
We talked about this at great lengths on several threads when this first came out.
What point are you talking about?!
>>>Health care costs for the employer would go down which could result in higher wages for myself and co-workers.>>>
That is a myth that is hooey. It is a reason for busybodies to attempt to order around other people.
Our local school board tried to implement a policy that would have prohibited teachers from participating in an after school Bible study for kids hosted by a private group, but in space rented from the school. The concern was that kids might think the school was (gasp) promoting religion if they saw their teacher participating in this program.
The case went all the way to the Federal Court of Appeals with a unanimous ruling throwing out the policy stating that the school district could not in effect limit the rights of teachers in their non working hours.
I see a court challenge to this policy resulting in the same decision.
Sorry, I missed the other threads. Maybe I misunderstood your comment.
The point is, this guy is a private employer, not a government employer. He has the right to set his own rules.
As I said already, it's a shame that only 19 states allow an employer to hire or fire whomever he/she chooses.
I agree with Stossel. Do you?
Posted on 01/26/2005 4:13:55 PM EST by Middle-O-Road
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else.
Next on the firing line: overweight workers.
"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," Weyers said.
Last year, he banned smoking during office hours, then demanded smokers pay a monthly $50 "assessment," and finally instituted mandatory testing.
Or they should surrender their special privlidges granted by the government, and give up their korporate charter and start a sole propreitorship.
Today smokers. Tomorrow gunowners.
And statist thugs here will still be proclaiming "hey, you don't have to work there".
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.