Just a few random thoughts on this.
This has been going on for centuries. I think Henry Ford was an avowed anti-smoker and didn't allow his employees to smoke if he could help it. I think the same was true for Edison.
Weyers' policy to not employ smokers is surely acceptable as a private company employer, but I'm not so sure the way it was implemented was entirely legal or ethical. This is not simply a matter of smoking itself, but his insistance these employees submit to a test. I'm not sure that even illegal drug testing has been declared legal for all jobs, at least not in all places. It may be in some places, but mostly those type of policies are enacted for situations in which there are safety considerations for other employees and customers, such as airline pilots. Heck, good ol medical profession is a notorious trade for producing drug addicts, but prescription drug addicted physicians and surgeons rarely get more than a slap on the wrist even when identified as operating a scapel under the influence. These women working for Weyco were paper pushers. Certainly no ominous safety considerations there. From what I understood of the situation, old Weyers didn't even know these women were smokers, and one worked for him for over fifteen years. She had been holding up her portion of the employment "contract" or agreement, until ol Howard decided to change the rules.
This will undoubtedly open the doors to a gamut of employer intrusions into employees' personal lives until legislators draw the line. Where do you think the line will be drawn? Could you imagine an employer requiring all employees to submit to a DNA test to look for genetic disposition to see if he'd like to employ them? And then, since he framed his whole argument around medical benefit costs, what if the employer inquired as to family members habits under the guise of "saving costs"?
His only justification for implementing this policy was that the insurance companies charged him higher rates for employer covered healthcare premiums. He didn't necessarily have to fire them, but could have made them make up the difference in insurance premium costs or procure their own insurance. Heck, workers with children normally incur far higher annual medical costs than childless smokers so I don't understand why health coverage wouldn't be higher for them. And then there's the issue that smokers would consume less pension benefits due to estimated shorter lifespans. I'd love to see Kip Viscusi's figures factored in to see how much having smokers in his employ might "save" him money.
But most importantly, under implied contract rules, the employees were fulfilling their part of the employment contract. They really weren't fired "for cause", but for refusing to submit to an obtrusive test. When conditions of employment change such as this tenured or vested employees are generally grandfathered in. It's true that no one "owns" their job, but employment is a contract and both parties are expected to fulfill their portion of the agreement. However, it is better off they're gone, for he could have made their employment miserable by scrutinizing their work habits daily to look for some other cause to fire them.
Anyway, my beef isn't with goofballs like Weyers and Weyco. I'm more concerned about government agencies following this same policy. There a sheriff in Arizona, several State Attorneys' Offices in Florida, the city of Miami, among others who are getting on this only non-smoking employees allowed ban-wagon. A police dept in Massachussetts fired a cop simply because someone saw him light up in a bar while off-duty. I don't even think he was a full-time daily smoker, but just happened to feel like having a few while at the bar. There are many more casual smokers these days, who don't smoke daily, but will have a cigarette or two while relaxing with a drink. Heck, smokers also pay their fair share of taxes and then some, so no government agency has the right to restrict employment. Even those police and fire departments who claim that smoking employees can't perform under the rigors of the job shouldn't be able to make arbitrary and capricious judgements. Some smokers are more physically fit than couch potatoes who don't smoke. People are employable as long as they can continue to meet the physical requirements under annual testing criteria, whether they smoke or not.
But as far as the private employers rights are concerned, Stossel is right. But in being right, the anti-smokers who support this just shot themselves in the foot on smoking bans implemented "for the employees' health". They are contending that if it's ok to fire smokers, then no employees should have any right to employment. Someone doesn't smoke and doesn't like to be exposed to it in the workplace, then too bad. Tell em if they don't like it to go work for Weyco.
Oh boy.............
When it comes to government employment as far as I am concerned this is an absolute no-no..........absolutely NO taxpayer otherwise qualified for a government job should ever be excluded based on private legal practices that do not impact job performance.
Private employers to me are a different story - while I owuld sure like it to be the same, I truly despise more government meddling in private business practices beyond the basics
As far as the antis shooting their foot here - I've got to think on that - I hadn't look at it that way because most antis have been claiming since smokers say non-smokers can find other places to work they shouldn't be whining now that the shoe is on the other foot.
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.