Posted on 05/14/2005 8:42:05 AM PDT by SheLion
Firing Smokers - Reading Beyond the Headlines
Trend: You smoke? You're fired!
May 11, 2005
By Stephanie Armour
More companies are taking action against employees who smoke off-duty, and, in an extreme trend that some call troubling, some are now firing or banning the hiring of workers who light up even on their own time.
The outright bans raise new questions about how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock. The crackdown is coming in part as a way to curb soaring health care costs, but critics say companies are violating workers' privacy rights. The zero-tolerance policies are coming as more companies adopt smoke-free workplaces.
•Weyco, a medical benefits provider based in Okemos, Mich., this year banned employees from smoking on their own time. Employees must submit to random tests that detect if someone has smoked. They must also agree to searches of briefcases, purses or other belongings if company officials suspect tobacco or other banned substances have been brought on-site. Those who smoke may be suspended or fired.
About 20 employees have quit smoking under the policy, and a handful were fired after they opted out of the testing. "The main goal is to elevate the health status of our employees," says Gary Climes, chief financial officer.
•At Investors Property Management in Seattle, smokers are not hired. Employees who smoked before the ban was passed about two years ago are not fired; however, they can't get medical insurance through the company.
•Alaska Airlines has a no-smoking policy for employees, and new hires must submit to a urine test to prove they're tobacco-free.
"The debate has gone from where they can smoke to whether they can smoke," says Marshall Tanick, a Minneapolis-based employment lawyer.
Such bans are not legal everywhere: More than 20 states have passed laws that bar companies from discriminating against workers for lifestyle decisions.
There are other ways that companies are taking action against off-duty smoking, such as raising health care premiums for smokers.
Employers say it's about creating a healthy workforce. But it's also a bottom-line issue: Tobacco causes more than 440,000 deaths annually and results in more than $75 billion in direct medical costs a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Some smokers' rights groups are vowing legal action.
"These matters will be decided in the courts," says Redmond, Wash.-based Norman Kjono, with Forces, a smokers' rights group. "You're creating a class of unemployable citizens. It won't stand."
And legal experts fear companies will try to control other aspects of employees' off-duty lifestyle, a trend that is already happening. Some companies are firing, suspending or charging higher insurance premiums to workers who are overweight, have high cholesterol or participate in risky activities.
First they came for the smokers and I didn't object because I wasn't a smoker...
First they came for the smokers and I did not speak out because I was not a smoker. Then they came for the motorcycle riders and I did not speak out because I was not a motorcycle rider. Then they came for the fast food eaters and I did not speak out because I was not a fast food eater. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
GMTA
Good post, SheLion.
When they come for you, there will be no one else left! :)
Thanks.
I think.
< |:P~
I wish they would stop trotting out this tired old bogus line of horse dung.
Maybe we need to get our workplaces out of the insurance coverage business.
Really, if we knew how much our insurance coverage cost, we'd be much more inclined to keep pressure on companies for their outrageous premiums.
I'm really getting tired of this. Time for some civil disobedience.
Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus.
You both are exactly right. Where will they go next? I am afraid to ask.....
Pretty soon, no one will be fit for hire if the employer's continue down this line.
The key here is that people are told in advance that this is a condition of employment. As long as they are, I don't see a problem with it.
I have to agree with John Stossel: People have a right to smoke, companies can hire and fire whom they please, and employees can accept or refuse the terms of employment.
Nurse Bloomberg, our wonderful mayor, was way out of line in telling companies they may not allow smoking on their premises. But the other side of that token is the company's right to make personnel decisions, even if they're made on the basis of something completely inane, such as smoking, tanning, or wearing red on Sundays. Must there be a law for everything?
I agree with you 100%
I wish they would stop trotting out this tired old bogus line of horse dung.
My thoughts exactly!
American Cancer Society Admits "Mistake" in Ad
At last, the unambiguous, unvarnished truth -- the ACS had lied in their ad.
I've been known to do that just to get the reaction you describe. I love the sissies that start fake coughing and waving their arms at the imagined smoke!!!!!!
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.