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.
ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm not arguing that point.
I will be glad to.
It is perfectly legal in Michigan, which is where the company is locate. Whether it is right, moral or ethical is a different story - but it is legal.
The only question I can see being raised is that his reason was to protect the price of employee health insurance premiums, one of the fired workers, who chose not to quit was not on the company insurance policy - but even that would be a stretch.
I don't like what he did, but it was legal - and the last thing I want to see are more laws passed to keep people from doing stupid things.
Thanks for the comic relief...
I was talking about the ad for the internet sales - that was one I had not seen before.
I love that cartoon - it's a great one.
So what's the point if they are unable to smoke if they so wish?
Where will it end, Gabz? Living life is a risk. We all know that. So, when an employers doesn't approve or like something, then he can force his employees to confirm to his wishes or lose their jobs.
It might be legal, but it's despicable.
I think I've become an expert at multi-tasking - I've been cleaning, washing windows and floors, getting dinner in the crockpot, doing laundry, watching HGTV (tired of the news) and FReeping....and keeping the little one out of daddy's way as he is hanging drywall in the attic.
Well then my FRiend YOU must be a female for it has been shown through study (and talk radio) that women can multitask while men are more focused and can't perform more than one duty at a time.
I, however feel that I have proved that theory wrong for when I "do my duty" I always play electronic solitaire at the same time! : )
Oh yes! I think they are new. I just received it in email a little while ago.
Of course they do. And I oppose laws being enacted to prevent it - just as I oppose laws banning smoking in businesses. The right to permit smoking should no more be infringed upon than the right of an employer to hire non-smokers only or only smokers.
It's nice to see you and I in agreement on this.
When it becomes a non-risk, then can it still be defined as life?
And if they're black? Or Christian? Or engage in shooting sports? There is a point at which the argument you make falls flat on its face.
Why are smokers hot and bothered by this? They should be cheering that the owner is still able to practice his private property rights to the fullest? They should be standing with the employer as comrades against the bully government.
The point is such an ad placed in the newspaper would throw the antis into a tizzy!!! LOL!!!
All kidding aside, while I do not like the idea of a company basing their hiring and firing on the legal activities people engage in outside of the workplace - I loathe further government intrusion in business decisions.
I look at this issue in the same way I look at smoking bans - let the owner decide his employees and his market and keep the government out of it.
Well, we all have heard how many deaths occur in one's on tub and bathroom. And we are at a risk every time we leave our homes in one way or the other.
I sure don't want to live my life out sitting in a corner rocking back and forth. I would be ready for the Looney bin.
Be careful my FRiend when conveying such a thought.
After all there is "black and white", "Right and wrong", and now "personal preference" "gray" mindset.
Add this to the equation of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as guaranteed by the process of government back in the 18th century and today it is shown that doctrine may be a "living breathing" doctrine that is only valid if it is changeable to the liking of the majority.
I have defended smokers til the cows come home, but I'm sick and tired of them throwing their butts and ashes at me in traffic. Smokers used to have manners. Now they consider the street and the vehicles that follow them to be their personal ashtray.
I'm through defending them.
I sure don't want to live my life out sitting in a corner rocking back and forth. I would be ready for the Looney bin.
Frank Sinatra make it clear in a very popular song.
That's Life.
Now I have just created my own suffrage for that song will be going through my head for the next two day's! : (
Thanks SheLion, for I received my request promptly!
Your a pal!
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.