Firing Smokers - Reading Beyond the Headlines

United Pro Smoker's Rights ^ | 5-11-05 | Stephanie Armour

[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.

---

[GraceCoolidge]

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.

I agree, so long as the rules are the same across the board. I don't think, however, that is the case. Everytime I see these stories on the "health cost" justification for firing smokers, I think: okay, then what about the company that fires all gay men? Seems to me there is a health cost risk associated with that lifestyle. It just seems to me if the rule is that the company can hire/fire who it wants, then you have to apply that rule universally. But woe to the company that announces its intention to fire gay men, women of childbearing age, the obese, or any ethnic group that has a statistically higher incidence of any particular illness. Somehow I don't think the "health cost" line is going to fly in those cases....

[Gabz]

My dear FRiend - please go back and read the post I was replying to. The "morons" I referenced are the anti-smokers who keep spreading the lies about smoking.

[Publius6961]

Are you suggesting that if an owner there advertised "Smokers Only", smoking would be allowed in his office?

What is the rest of the building or other people on the block complained?

[SheLion]

I just got this in email!

 

Online Cheap Cigarettes
NO TAX REPORTING
CREDIT CARDS ACCEPTED
CLICK HERE NOW!

no reporting ever
credit cards: no problem!
fast service - 3 to 5 days
cheaper shipping
online order status
a wide choice of brands
CLICK HERE for fast
safe cigarettes service now

SAVINGS TIP:
Order 5 cartons or more to get the MOST from your shipping cost!

A few of the many discount cigarette brands we offer: American Spirit, Basic, Benson & Hedges, BRONCO, Camel, Capri, Eve, Export A, GPC, GT One, Jade, Lucky Strike, Marlboro, More, NATIVE, Pall Mall, Parliament, SENECA, SMOKIN JOE, Virginia Slim
- and many many more. . .

 

[patton]

Well, you are a special case. You are sort of adopted.

[Hot Tabasco]

Insurance companies should not be anywhere near as burdened as they were in the 70s and 80s.

Face it, everyone needs insurance and what better way for an insurance company to increase its profits than by sticking it to the already reviled smoker justifying their actions by the clever use of goverment biased statistics.

If it wasn't illegal, they would also target blacks and fat people.

Getting off target somewhat, I had to laugh when I heard that Washing state or was it Oregon that the state legislature was going to pass a $.33 per gallon tax on gasoline. That even gave the tax loving socialists a hernia. I laughed my butt off and said so what, I dont live there............ Nobody came to our defense here in Michigan when they arbitrarily raised the tax on cigarettes by $.75 per pack. Now they get a taste of what out of control govt. can do to your pocketbook.

[GraceCoolidge]

But the point of course is that contrary to the propaganda, smoking employees do NOT get sick more often or account for lost productivity.

You know, that propaganda drives me crazy. Seems to me an employer makes a decision: you get x sick days, and if you use too many, you get fired. Why is it their business why you get sick, anyway? Employers can control this mythical "lost productivity" without interfering in people's lives. To me, that is just a cheap excuse for busybody employers. If someone is abusing sick leave, they should get fired even if they don't smoke.

[Publius6961]

Bears repeating:

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Makes no sense.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Makes no sense.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Makes no sense.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Makes no sense.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Makes no sense.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Makes no sense.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Makes no sense.

[EGPWS]

The "morons" I referenced are the anti-smokers who keep spreading the lies about smoking.

I know that Gabz, my comment wasn't a comment of disparity with your post, it was just a comment of reality.

I'm typing while watching Condi on C-SPAN and I hope I didn't confuse because of my lame attempt at multitasking.

[SheLion]

They have criminalized smoking while pushing one of the most lethal life styles as normal.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Oh sure.  Everything is a go today as long as one doesn't smoke.  It's all nuts.

[SheLion]

Don't start on me with that chit. If you think I will believe anything by the professional anti's today, you have another thought coming.

What do you think? I'm a 14 year old girl???

[EGPWS]

They have criminalized smoking while pushing one of the most lethal life styles as normal.

Anal sex leads to hepatitis, anal herpes, anal cancer, AIDS, increased frequency of suicide and domestic violence.

Makes no sense.

PBS will convey via Mr. Rogers that "it's a wonderful day in the neighborhood".

[EGPWS]

What do you think? I'm a 14 year old girl???

Good Lord! Obviously, Kosak is lacking knowledge of your abilities let alone your good intent.

[SheLion]

Good Lord! Obviously, Kosak is lacking knowledge of your abilities let alone your good intent.

Well, they take up space on the same old garbage we all have seen time and time again. It's gets really old!

I just posted where the CDC was caught in huge lies, and yet he still plastered that stuff on the thread. heh!

[Publius6961]

The gullible never question a thing.
Did you know?

It all depends on your definition of smoke-related.

I do believe this is the "report" that was found to be fraudulent.
In Court! See post #111. And weep.
The CDC continues to beat their dead horse credibility.

As an example, if an 89-year old smoker drives into a bridge abutment at 130 mph, the CDC will attribute it as a "smoke-related" death...

Sound a little like pervert "science" to you?
Repeat after me: AIDS is not a problem. Smoking is....

[Gabz]

Alas, for our side, Wanda has all but retired.

There is a font of information on that site and nearly every single bit of it has been done by unpaid volunteers, many of whom have been vilified as being paid tobacco company stooges, and FORCES itself is often referred to by the antis as a tobacco front group. As a member of the FORCES Board of Directors I can state for a fact neither claim is true. Just like Free Republic, FORCES relies on reader contributions to keep the site running.

[EGPWS]

Repeat after me: AIDS is not a problem. Smoking is....

D@mn it! Tomorrow I'm giving up my cigarettes for a gay lifestyle! It's for my health doncha' know.

[Gabz]

Your sarcasm is, unfortunately, too close to reality.

[Gabz]

I understand exactly what you are saying - which is why I do not purchase tobacco products from any of the companies that have signed onto the MSA, mostly roll my own, and this year am trying my hand at growing my own.

[Gimme]

What you do on your breaks, lunch and in your home life is your own damn business as long as it's legal. I feel the insurance companies are looking for more $'s. Can you imagine getting weighed in, submitting to a blood test, (cholesterol), companies spying on your home life. GEEZ.
Employers who have those conditions are not worth working for anyway. That Michigan Company doesn't fire the DRINKERS somehow that vice is acceptable.Pretty creepy thing to do after some people worked there for years.
The reason they/HE, the owner, did this was his own personal hatred towards smokers and a reduced rate from the health provider.