Thanks for the PONG. heh! :)
But I was in bed when you sent it, which is the reason I just found this thread this morning!
Thanks, kingattax! 
Trying to ketchup!
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.
Got it, thanks. Like I said, I've given urine so many times (and blood), I can only imagine what they can to with it (either legally or illegally). If I ever run into a clone of myself because they were doing off the wall genetic experiments, I wouldn't know what to do. LOL...
Seriously though, or not seriously... However you wish. People do some very strange things. Not to start any conspiracy theories, but how would one be absolutely sure that they are not giving samples that are going into some supersecret DNA database? Just because I may be paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't taking such liberties... Privacy Act notwithstanding.
Some people are ready to quit. Others are not. My mother smoked for 38 years. One day she lit a cigarette and it made her feel sick (she was on some medication at the time). She put it out, threw her pack away, threw away the ashtrays, aired out the house and has not smoked a single cigarette in five years. No patch, gum or anything.
Her son (me) has no desire to quit anytime soon. I know it is bad for me but I really don't care. I've given up all of my unhealthy vices except for caffeine and nicotine and I enjoy both of them. Maybe one day I will decide I don't like smoking anymore. Maybe I won't. It's hard to say.
I quit plenty of times before. My joke was "I know I can quit, I've done it a hundred times. I was around 40 when I finally quit. I LOVED smoking and if it wasn't bad for you I'd start up tomorrow.
Some of those memories are priceless. Spinner was always able to get under Ginny's skin.
I have not posted at, nor even bothered to look at, either Yahoo or iWon in about 2 months.........I gave it up for Lent and then forgot that Easter has already passed................ :)
That seems to be the way it is for a lot of people.
In fact, I have noticed that those who quit for that reason do not become part of the anti-smoker brigades.
Of course the anti-smoker brigades will say it is impossible for your mother to have done such a thing because they say so - but I see it happen on a regular basis.
You enjoy the nanny government telling business owners that it is not the business owners decision to allow a legal activity on the business owners private property?
Change your poster name to "Docile Bill 10" and await instructions from your city council.
I agree with you. I would like to keep the option of being able to hire only smokers......
"I would agree, but what if, as an employer, I were to decide that I wanted to employ ONLY smokers? Any non-smokers who worked for me would have a limited amount of time to take up smoking or they would be fired. Would you still support my rights as a business owner?"
Yes.
Great points. Your argument is one of the few that has made me think about how far the private employer should be allowed to go. Thanks for the input.
The best solution is to allow employees to opt out of the company provided health plan, or to buy a catastrophic coverage policy only. I tried to do this at my employer and was told it was not accpetable and no catastrophic policy is available. They need me to offset the costs of all the people that actually use their health coverage.
In this particular case, one of the effected employees was not covered by Weyco's health plan. She was covered by her spouse's plan. What this control freak has just done is fired an employee that costs him $0 in health care and he will need to replace her with an employee that could very well cost him more. Therefore, his argument about reducing costs is not valid. He is simply a control freak and I agree with his right to make poor business decisions.
In another article he stated he would like to be the benefit provider for the Big 3 Automakers. Now, with this policy he has just alienated that market by upsetting the UAW.
Thanks for the PONG. heh! :)
But I was in bed when you sent it, which is the reason I just found this thread this morning!
Thanks, kingattax!
Trying to ketchup!
good mornin !....youre welcome :)
Which reminds me of a Jerry Senfield episode. Elaine loved to eat rolls loaded with poppy seeds.
Her boss wanted her to take a physical so she could go over seas with him. Well, she tested positive for OPIUM!
She couldn't figure it out until one guy noticed she was eating a roll with poppy seeds. And he told her that her urine would show that she was taking opium when she was not, just because of her eating poppy seeds.
Me either!
Ever!
That's a crock of chit and you know it!
When I was working and was busy, I had no thoughts of having a cigarette. As soon as I slowed down and was able, I would pop outside to grab a quick cigarette, making sure I could still hear my phone if it rang.
If smoker's are outside all the time smoking, then that means there is not enough work for them to do and the employer needs to down size!
And I never missed work once from being sick. Not once in 8 years. The obese non-smoking man I worked with was off sick all the time. Guess who got the can?! Yea, the obese guy!
One more thing: my hubby was a 1st Sergeant for the Transportation Squadron in the US Air Force. He was on duty 24/7. He smoked. Now do you think for one minute that he was ever off sick? "There ain't no way joe!" That man never missed work either just because he was a smoker.
So stop spewing your deceitful lies around here.
And I am sick and tired of his forking lies. I won't stand for it!
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.