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.
I would say he was within his right to insist that any new employees didn't smoke, and to continue to offer incentives for those who manage to quit, but I find it a little screwy to arbitrarily decide that those hired as smokers need to quit or leave.
I understand the plight of the employees. But the employees should have negotiated as a condition of employment termination only for cause. If an employee accepted at will employment, the employer does not need any reason to fire him. So he certainly can fire him for a reason not contemplated when the employee began his employment.
I didn't say it was fair. But it is within the law in his state. Personally I think he is a jerk. If fired for this I would roll my pension into a private account and screw this guy every way I could think of.
The law in his state permits it, so he is within his rights. A jerk yes but within his rights.
BTW. I once interviewed for a job that I thought I really wanted. The employer made the offer and I told him I could start in two weeks. At that point this heavy breathing grossly obese man said by "the way we do not allow our employees to smoke during the day because we don't want them smelling like smoke so you can't even smoke in your personal car or at lunch off site and nowhere on the grounds."
I looked at him and asked, "Are you an ex-smoker?" He said no. I said, "Well you need to skip a few meals before you have a heart attack, Keep the job". I would have done the same thing had I been working there and he decided on this policy.
This will be self-correcting. If no one agrees with his policies, no one will work for him. If enough people agree to work there, then his policy seems justified. No worker is being forced to maintain employment with him, however. Time will tell how this one turns out.
I would. You have every right to make dumb business decisions.
Agreed.
"Our Government is teaching and advocating intolerance of legal activities and the intolerance and demonetization of those who indulge in them."
You mean the intolerance for people smoking?
Or do you mean the intolerance for employers making rules their employees must follow to retain their jobs.
Both are legal activities.
Company closed versus termination = two different issue in most states. In Alabama a vested employee who is terminated (theft would probably be an issue) from a business that stays in business, gets to take over their pension account.
He was still changing the implied contract. If they did not wish to quit smoking, he could have used the money he would have spent on stop smoking assistance for job hunting assistance.
I must be one of the weirdo ex-smokers - I don't like being around too much smoking, but I am willing to move instead of asking everyone else to stop.
Our company used to have a similar policy. Our company was recently purchased, so I don't know if the policy is still in effect or not.
Our company a number of years ago started a no-smoking policy.
You haddn't been alowed to smoke indoors for quite a while, but they made additional restrictions on where you were allowed to smoke outside.
They also started a policy of no new hires of people who smoked. They did not require current employees that smoked to stop.
About a year ago we were hiring a new receptionist. The candidate wanted to accept the position, but they smoked. They were told that they would have to quit smoking as a condition of employment.
The accepted the job, but only lasted a couple weeks. They said they were unable to quit smoking and resigned.
I never smoke inside, even at home. I do smoke in bars, but that is not too often. I don't smoke in restaurants, but I will not patronize a restaurant that is smoke free. I don't spend money in cities that have extensive bans on smoking.
That is true - but he didn't do that. Lousy thing to do, but it was his perogative.
I don't like what he did, nor advocate others doing it - however what he did was within the law, thus really a moot point.
My biggest problem is that now people are now advocating for more government regulation on businesses to prevent this from happening in the future - and people wonder why so many businesses are closing, outsourcing or just plain moving out of the country?
Contrary to what it sometimes appears to be, you are actually with the majority of ex-smokers. There are really few in comparison that are whiney crybabies about it. You are also the type that smokers will respect and not try to bother you with it.
Company policy - told up front...no problem with that at all. She was correct in resigning as she knew the policy ahead of time.
Probably the same thing that happens to people who like poppyseed bagels, poppyseed buns, etc.
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.