I hear THAT! 
Be a good way to get suspended. haha!
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.
GATICA! GATICA! GATICA!
No justice, no peace!
GATICA! GATICA...
I hear THAT!
Be a good way to get suspended. haha!
Corporations will do whatever they believe is in their best interest. Profit is only part of the equation. They have shown in the past a willingness to sell your rights for their bottom line.
This article started with corporations firing workers who smoked. Employment is simply a sales transaction. You trade your labor for dollars. Why do you see it as far-fetched that they would simply extend that unwillingness to buy and sell services to individuals outside their workplace? Why should they not compel you to come in at 10% lower price than your competitors because you smoke (or whatever) and add what they view is a burden to society?
"First of all, they probably would do something like that; it would make no business sense. And if they did decide to stop serving/hiring a large group of people on unreasonable grounds, it would be a business opportunity for someone to go against the tide and immediately gain a large customer/employee base. "
German corporations in the 30s did nothing to profit from treating the Jews properly. Your argument is that there would have been several profitable activities that would have provided Jews with services or provided them with work at a lower wage rate since the labor supply was available. Seems the free market does have its shortcomings at some point, and the assurances of liberty extend to all, regardless of their position in the market.
I'm as free market as the next guy, but I do not believe that corporations should be positioned to steal the liberties of others just because they have economic power.
So you missed my point entirely.
Even though there were black players could have helped any professional baseball team, it took until Jackie Robinson for a corporate entity to act in its own self interest. Wonder why? Do you think they just didn't understand profitability? Or was it something else?
Is it okay for a corporation to compel its employees (or suppliers) to contribute to particular churches or political parties? Or to compel its employees to be organ donors?
You say yes because you believe free markets won't allow that, at least not forever. I say no because I believe that the powerful should not be able to assert their will on the weak and deny them liberty, access to markets, etc.
I guess that is where it will stand.
I just got in from a 40 mile drive and not one butt was thrown out the window.
Sad that you only see the slobs but I guess that's the way it is.
People just going along doing the right thing are rarely noticed.
"Personally I happen to be against anti-discrimination laws for private employers, period"
"Smoking in outdoor dining areas should be allowed."
Frightening,isn't it!
Trend: You smoke? You're fired!
Question: would this matter if you didn't have health insurance through your employer (say if you have yours through a spouse)? Taking this the other way, can you be penalized for what others on your policy do (ie. non-smoking employee with smoking spouse)?
Right you are SheLion! BUMP
I just got home after looking at a condo in a pretty nice town near me.
It is just two units,and the realtor said that the couple next door were very nice---"They are both professionals"
I laughed and said "That's too bad,I wish they were carpenters or plumbers".
Sometimes I just can't keep my mouth shut.
Huh?
You and me both, eXe. My friend, on the other hand, goes in for all kinds of medical treatments - I don't know where she finds the time or money. And every new health food claim or product as well. I seldom use medical coverage, but am glad it is there if needed. And "well" check ups too. This is an effort to divide and get us talking about what is more fair, ie: the 19% cost over 10 years or the 10% cost over 5 - while the REAL issue is why ANY increased COST AT ALL?
Northern Maine as well! Chill Brrrrrr
That's a good question. My hubby was active duty military and I was covered through the Air Force. So, when I worked, I didn't sign up for the company insurance. So, this is a very good question. And one I'm not sure I have the answer for.
Anyone else know??
Sometimes I just can't keep my mouth shut.
My favorite.
LOL.
Pretty funny, huh?
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.