The right not to employ someone

JWR ^ | 4-20-05 | John Stossel

[FlyLow]

It's nice to hear Americans talk about privacy and fighting for their rights. But sometimes I have to say: Do you know what you're talking about?

In Okemos, Mich., a 71-year-old health nut named Howard Weyers runs a health-care benefits company called Weyco. Weyers thinks his employees should be healthy, too, so years ago, he hired an in-house private trainer. Any employee who works with her and then meets certain exercise goals earns a $110 bonus per month.

So far, so good. But then, in November 2003, Weyers made an announcement that shocked his staff: "I'm introducing a smoking policy," he said.

"You're not going to smoke if you work here. Period."

No smoking at work. No smoking at home. No nicotine patch or nicotine gum. The company would do random tests and fire anyone with nicotine in his system.

"Two hundred people in a room," Weyers recalls, "and they went at me."

"I yelled out," said Anita Epolito, "'You can't do that to me, it's against the law.'"

That's not true. In Michigan and 19 other states, employers have the legal right to fire anyone, as long as they don't violate discrimination laws (for age, gender, race, religion, disabilities, etc.).

Weyers gave his employees 15 months to quit smoking, and he offered assistance to help.

Today, he calls the policy a success. Twenty Weyco employees who smoked, stopped. Some of their spouses even quit.

[wmichgrad]

Ping!

[cripplecreek]

Conflicting rights.

[wmichgrad]

Freedom includes the right to quit your job, but freedom also includes the right not to employ someone you don't want to employ. No one forced Stiffler and Epolito to work for Weyco. But now, they want to force Howard Weyers to employ smokers. He built the company. He owns the company. What about his freedom?

I asked Epolito if she "owned her job." No, she said, but "there's a relationship there."

There was a relationship, that's true. To put it simply, the relationship was that Weyers thought employing Epolito was a good thing and Epolito thought working for Weyco was a good thing. Weyers doesn't own Epolito; she's entitled to pursue her happiness, not his, and if that means smoking, that's her right. But Epolito doesn't own Weyers; he's entitled to live by his values, not hers, and if that means not employing smokers, that's his right. Government smoking bans take away our freedom. But all Weyers did was exercise his.

Well said!

[Thebaddog]

I wouldn't want to work for that wiseacre in the first place. But a job is a privilege and not a right, unless you are in the protected classes. Any guesses as to the complexion of the fired employees?

[xrp]

I'd love to work for an employer who doesn't employ any smokers.

Health care costs for the employer would go down which could result in higher wages for myself and co-workers.

[PatriotEdition]

"Weyers gave his employees 15 months to quit smoking, and he offered assistance to help."

Well, if that's the case, I think it's a fair deal. However, had he suddenly made this decision, and expect employees who may have been smoking a pack a day for 20 years to just quit on the dime without patches or gum or anything, I think it would indeed be a conflict of rights.

But being that he did offer 15 months along with assistance in quitting, I think it's fair.

Billy

[2banana]

Wait until people find out that the "gay lifestyle" is much more unhealthy than smoking...

[Gabz]

I think the guy's a jrk and wouldn't want to work for him - but with that said.........I support his right to do this.


And I do not support further govrnment rules/regulations/laws, etc., to stop others from doing it either - it opens the door for far too much.

[SheLion]

Oh yes. The dried up old prune who wants to control his people. Now he is going after his obese employees. Must be nice to have this "Power over the People," eh? Especially when people have to work!

[Publius6961]

But a job is a privilege and not a right, unless you are in the protected classes. Any guesses as to the complexion of the fired employees?

Bingo!
The analyses here are right on, except for one tiny detail. The "protected" classes are arbitrary and capricious; to say nothing of absurd.

A 300-pound slob male can come to work as a woman and since the law "covers" him, it's OK.

I could live with a totally unrestricted right to work for someone, or not; and to employ someone, or not.

The analysis here applies simply to losers and the marginally competent. Where I work, I am sure if any smoker is singled out and fired, every smoker would quit.
Incidentally, the marginal employees, the chronicaly absentee and irresponsible are usually non-smokers. and female.

[Alberta's Child]

There are no "conflicting rights" here. The employer has the right to hire and fire anyone he/she wants.

[borntobeagle]

And I suppose next year this employer wil be performing breath tests on those who imbibe in an occasional drink as well.

Following that, he may as well test monthly for sodium levels, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure tests.

What an employee does after his workday is considered private and violates the right of those who desire to smoke, imbibe in alcohol and eat a few snacks.

This is a slippery slope, as far as I see it.

For those of you who have stated that your insurance will be lower, take a look at many companies' insurance plans.

First question that is asked....do you smoke?

[OldSmaj]

Any guesses as to the complexion of the fired employees?

Aw, jeez, now we're gonna throw the race card into the pot?

What possible bearing could that have upon the situation?

I'm not a racist. Argue that if you wish, I care less, but I say that only because I am a realist and I say further, that if I wished to hire only whites to do work for which I pay them, then that is my perogative.

If I wished to hire only blacks, then what the hell is the problem?

If I wished to employ only dwarf females with amputated left arms, then whose business is it, other than the persons that are being hired?

It is my company, my business, my money.

The damn bleeding hearts that support a stinking union that actually thinks it can keep me from shutting my company or business down, or the idiots that are going to tell me just who I can and cannot hire with my damn money make me sick.

Now, once I go outside the realm of private ownership, then perhaps there are other considerations.

Not that I'd agree with them, but there it is and there ain't no changing it.

Even if the guy is a butthead, I support his actions to do as he damn well pleases with his company, his money.

...unless you are in the protected classes.

And just what is that?

Union dumbasses?

Federal Employees?

What is a "protected class"?

Is that a euphemism for a "racial minority"?

I don't agree with that, either, as my rant above surely makes clear.

[whereasandsoforth]

"I'd love to work for an employer who doesn't employ any smokers. Health care costs for the employer would go down which could result in higher wages for myself and coworkers."

Well, first off, smoking is not the leader of health care cost to employers. There are many things grownups do that are not great for health. Grownup homosexuals come to mind. And people with bad diet habits. Actually, diet outranks smoking by some margin as a health risk to the general population. Who are we going to fire because their diet doesn't measure up to The Perfect Worker's Party Solution. You maybe?

Secondly, I wouldn't go spending those extra paycheck dollars so fast. The tobacco users in this country contribute a tremendous amount to the tax coffers. Those lost tax dollars are not going to be forgotten by any politician. The shortfall from lack of tax collected from tobacco users will be made up elsewhere. Like directly out of your pocket instead of the smoker's.

And finally, you are an optimist to assume that any monetary benefit an employer may realize because his health insurance costs go down will be transfered to you. May be he feels like he deserves a raise too.

[ThisLittleLightofMine]

How true, and yet government agencies are now supporting partner benefits. I wonder if people are really aware that most county and states now provide health care benefits to domestic partners.

[cripplecreek]

In Michigan and 19 other states, employers have the legal right to fire anyone, as long as they don't violate discrimination laws (for age, gender, race, religion, disabilities, etc.).


There may be no rights conflict but there's a definite double standard.

[nuconvert]

?
Sounds like you may have missed the point.

[CSM]

"I'd love to work for an employer who doesn't employ any smokers.
Health care costs for the employer would go down which could result in higher wages for myself and co-workers."

Actually, in at least one of the cases involved here that is not true. The employee was not even part of that employers health coverage package. She was covered by her husbands employer. Now, this employer must hire a new employee and risk adding that employee to the company's health coverage. Therefore, this policy is costing him a premium.

That said, he has every right to make bad business decisions that will alienate the market he desires to capture. He stated in other articles that he would like to be the benefit coordinator for the Big 3, by doing this he just alienated the UAW....

[R. Scott]

Weyers gave his employees 15 months to quit smoking, and he offered assistance to help.

In my mind, this makes it pretty fair – if the assistance was effective.