Posted on 04/20/2005 7:49:38 AM PDT by VRWCmember
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.
But the four workers who didn't quit were fired, and they are furious.
"I'm just thrown out because this person decided, one day, this is what he wanted to do," said Epolito.
Virg Bernero, a Michigan state senator, wants to make such firings illegal. He helped publicize the fired Weyco workers' complaint -- in the process publicizing himself; he's expected to run for mayor of Lansing this year -- and now he's introduced a bill to prohibit employers from firing anyone for anything legal they do at home.
"What's it going to be tomorrow? That you['ve] got to lose a certain number of pounds . . . in order to keep your job?" Just as the law restricts discrimination on the basis of race or sex, he said, "we'll have an amendment for legal activities, for privacy outside the workplace. Because this goes too far."
Bernero's thinking is muddled. I think whether you smoke, get fat or go skydiving should be your choice. I say "Give Me a Break" to busybody politicians in New York and California who've banned smoking in every bar and restaurant. But there's a big difference between government banning things . . . and Howard Weyers doing it. We have only one government. When government bans something, it bans it for everybody in its jurisdiction. That's why the Bill of Rights limits government power. But Weyco is just one company. Its employees have other choices. There are other jobs available in Michigan.
Cara Stiffler has already found a "better" job but still told me it should have been illegal for Weyers to fire her. "I want my children to see that I stood up for my rights as an American. That's what . . . the men are over fighting in Iraq for, is my freedom."
Give Me a Break. 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.
John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Give Me a Break," just released in paperback.
Gabz and CG, I'm interested on your take on this column. As you both know, I usually stay away from the smoking threads, but when I read this column at Townhall.com I wondered what people were saying about it over here. I found that it had not yet been posted, so I posted it to see what kind of discussion would follow.
PONG
I smoked 20 years and told my wife "this is killing me, I know it." I never lit another one, no gum, no patch just one day at a time. I was soooooo hooked and if I could do it ANYBODY could do it.
Nevada includes smokers in the state civil rights code--FYI
AS far as I am concerned he is within his rights as a business owner. No one has to work there?
>>>>The company would do random tests and fire anyone with nicotine in his system.
And what happens to people that eat potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant and red peppers???????
There is another thread on it - but that one is only an excerpt.
I don't like the guy's policy - but defend his right to it.
I agree with Stossel that this is not the government doing it, but a private employer. I do not wish to see additional government restrictions on private businesses - so many here scream about how everything in Walmart is made inn China and other businesses are outsourcing to India - wel guess what - it's because of over regulation of business.
Don't get me wrong, I realize a certain amount of government oversight is needed - but there has to be limits on it.
I agree with you Gabz.
I have tried that question in regard to this guy's testing before and have basically been laughed at.......
But I get your point.
You shouldn't be laughed at. You will test positive for nicotine from eating them. They, including tobacco, are all from the nightshade plant family.
And what does that have to do with legal activities, off the clock, being limited by employers???
shhhhhh. Don't point out that other plants contain nicotine!
I figured you would.
I am far more interested in private property rights than smoking and this to me is just focussing on smoking when it shouldn't be at all.
These disgruntleld employees are looking for Big Brother to solve a personal issue and I don't like it. Such a law as being suggested in the article will hit ALL businesses and not this one at all.
I have no problem with the guy getting publicity - for good or bad - but I dislike this in that it is paving the way for BIGGER big brother on everyone.
Believe me - I know that, which is why I have been bringing it up for years. I get hit with ridiculous quantities of those veggies that must be eaten to equal the nicotine content of one cigarette.
My buddy Lockjaw has done extensive work on the issue of testing for nicotine, which actually can't be tested for - it is a by product of nicotine - serum cotinine - that I believe what is tested.
lock, old buddy - can you help me out here????
But this is a private employer using his power as an "Employer" to limit standard constitutional freedoms while not on his property or performing job related duties, etc.
He's basically creating a scenario of full time employment regulation (24/7) which superscedes constitutional guarantees of freedom, in return for a 40 hour paid work commitment.
The employers rights should stop at the time clock. Medical insurance may also have to stop there.
This thing is just warming up. Break out the popcorn. :-)
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.