Oh! I was unaware of his retraction against his fatty employees. And I am sure he has received a lot of hate mail over his pious decision over his smoking employees.
Thanks for letting me know! 
Posted on 05/14/2005 8:42:05 AM PDT by SheLion
Thanks for posting it.
LOL I saw that guy on Fox also, whadda guy!! Their website says they believe in a "proactive plan for promoting healthy lifestyles".. hmmm.. Which means they fire you if you are a smoker.
Funny Reuters picked up the story and the owner, Howard Weyers, asked for a retraction to their report that he planned to fire overweight employees. Maybe his lawyer informed him after the Fox interview, that this would be illegal. Maybe it wiped the Smug off his face. What a goofy man.
Oh! I was unaware of his retraction against his fatty employees. And I am sure he has received a lot of hate mail over his pious decision over his smoking employees.
Thanks for letting me know!
"Maybe we need to get our workplaces out of the insurance coverage business."
My guess is that over the next 280+ responses, that will be the smartest comment I read.
If you want to talk about behavior and habits that could put your health at risk, let's start a little list of things that under this sort of logic, should get you fired:
homosexuality
motorcylce riding
hang gliding
mountain climbing
hunting
drag racing
sky diving
skiing
speeding
eating fast food
eating health food
do-it-yourself home-repairs
swimming
living in a polluted city
working 60-hour weeks
Feel free to add more as you see fit...
"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??"
That's a great list. Like I said earlier, life is a risk!
The big thing the antis use against smokers is that our second hand smoke is killing them. They will say that everything on your list is only harmful to the individual, but being around smokers will kill them! Which is absolute BS!
So, we want the government to interfere with private property to allow smoking and we don't want it to interfere when banning smoking? Why is freedom to smoke a greater right than private property?
Hmmm very interesting. I wonder how the Weyco Idiot is going to explain this?
I'd not only eat there, I would buy stock.
You totally missed my point - as usual.
I do not support either measure at all - and both for the same reason: private property rights.
Think about this for a second --- you can now be discriminated against because of your personal habits. I agree that a company has the right to hire who they want to hire, provided they don't break any laws when they do it, however, this is taking things way too far.
My employer has the right to tell me what to do for the 40-60 hours per week I'm actually in the office. After that, it's none of their business.
If I were to institute a policy that says "You cannot be black" or "you cannot be gay", or "you can't sleep with your wife on every alternate Thursday", I'd be hauled into court. However, if you claim to have the interests of you employees and shareholders at heart (when it's really all about maximizing profit at he further expense of your workers), you should get away with it?
It's the same as the resturant problem. The owner decides, the people can stay or go as they please.
More for the list:
No sugar
No Caffeine
No tap water
No Airline flights
No Three Martini lunches
No volunteer work at the leper colony
No Sitting (sedentary behavior contributes to heart disease)
No medication
No rollerblading
No ice skating
No running in the hall with scissors
Gee, I keep thinking of more and more stuff this kind of policy could be extended to cover...
In my profession, employers ordinarily retain a wide discretion regarding behavior of their employees. Employees are always seen as reflecting the firm that they work for. Consequently, they can be fired by theior bosses if they don't like the car they drive.
I submit that the cost of keeping old people alive longer in this century will dwarf the cost of treating smokers who will die earlier. If smoking is not 'productive' in a societal sense, then I also submit the question "is keeping old people alive productive?"
My point is that at some point you have to forget about the $$ and look back to the ideals of freedom and individualism vs. the collective (socialism).
I do not drink alcohol. But I do smoke. What If I and everyone else who smokes quits? Where are they going to get all that tax money from next? I have an idea what would happen. Want to pay $20.00 for a Six pack of Miller lite?
I say every smoker in America should quit out of pure spite.
And I'll be the first. :)
He explained it on a local radio show that he just plain did not like smoking or smokers and he was doing his part to rid the world of smoking! He is nothing but a control freak!
Ray, I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: despite the propaganda about caring about a worker's health, this all about money.
I'm a high-level manager at a Fortune 100 company, and I can tell you from personal experience that whenever an employer tells you they are instituting something for the employee's good, what they really mean is for the CEO's good.
Case in point, in the aftermath of 9/11, my company offered free grief counselling and psychotherapy sessions for anyone who wanted it. The real reason behind this cahrade was not because anyone cared, the thrust was to identify those workers that might crack and go postal. However, it's always good PR to offer such service to the employees.
The bottom line: I'm expected to find ways to save a buck every go*dammed day, because my CEO apparently can't live comfortably on $220 mil plus perks a year. It's all about earnings, and employers have done everything humanly possible to cut costs, except cut the top exec's pay. This kind of shyte is a perfect example of the corporate mindset: the argument will be turned away from what an employer is really doing (shafting his workers) and put into business crapspeak to further confuse people.
The issue is that it costs, on average, three times as much in benefits as it does in salary to keep an employee on. You have a situation where the employer is obligated to provide these bennies. You also have a situation where employees who don't smoke are being forced to carry part of the load for those who do. You can kill three birds with one stone with this kind of policy: you eliminate a health risk and your expense goes down, you sell it to the non-smokers as an added benefit (and peer pressure plays a part here) and you get wonderful PR for doing it.
In a day and age where employers are already skimping on pensions, 401(k) contributions, transportation reimbursements, and a host of what used to be industry standards, this is just one more dodge.
You're employer does not have the right to tell you how to live your life nor does he/she have the right to regulate your behavior except in strictly legal terms (i.e. keeping you from embezzling from your clients, dealing drugs from your desk, etc). The last time I looked, tobacco was legal product and it's use/sale is already regulated by government.
LEGAL is right. If the gooberment is so concerned let em' outlaw smoking. Talk about getting one's drawers in a wad, all those grand-standing politicians would totally freak out! Hub and I smoke, we know full well it's not good for us but by the same token it's our business and we pay dearly for our health insurance and pay dearly in taxes for this habit......as well as higher homeowners insurance, car insurance. What would the gooberment do without us? :(
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.