Company fires all employees who smoke!

[Dis]

http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html

Pretty radical in my opinion. And this comes from someone who does not like smoking. Or the fact I have to pay higher insurance costs because of it.

While I do not like the restrictions in individual freedom, or the possible things that can come of this (such as firing unhealthy fat people in the future). I can't help but think it's fair for non-smokers not to have to pay higher insurance to cover their smoking co-workers.

Why should we have to pay for other people who want to kill themselves?

I'm really divided on this issue myself. I'm not sure how to vote. In this case, it's good because it forced many non smokers to quit smoking. Isn't that a good thing. But I hate the restrictions in personal liberty. I could go either way on this issue- the flip-flopper that I am.

[Sava]

That's retarded... it says the company won't even allow people to smoke on their own time.

**** THAT COMPANY!!

[chequita guevara]

OMF, Smoker oppression!!!! tey are teh suxors!

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
OMF, Smoker oppression!!!! tey are teh suxors!

So you think it's okay that a company can fire people at will for private lifestyle choices? You want companies to be able to control your behavior?

[Odin]

I agree with Sava.

[Boris Godunov]

Holy crap.

Yeah, that's a bit extreme. I do see the company's point though about controlling healthcare costs and how it's unfair that the nonsmokers should have to shoulder the burden of extra costs for smokers. I am guessing Michigan is an at-will state.

But couldn't they have compromised? Perhaps they could give smokers the chance to pay extra into the health plan to cover potential increased costs for the company? Seems to me there are reasonable alternatives than just firing people (though the people were fired for refusing to be tested, not for being smokers, it seems).

At any rate, I imagine lawsuits are already in the making.

[Q Classic]

Though their goals (getting people to quit smoking) are admirable, their methods are not.

While I cannot honestly forsee ever using Weyco's services, this action has made me decide to never support them financially.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Sava
So you think it's okay that a company can fire people at will for private lifestyle choices?

Isn't that what you get in states without discrimination protection in firings?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
So you think it's okay that a company can fire people at will for private lifestyle choices? You want companies to be able to control your behavior?

Companies have every legal right to hire/fire people based on their committing illegal acts outside of the work environment. That's why companies routinely conduct criminal background checks and drug screens of prospective employees. So I don't think it's an issue about companies right to "control" behavior--to a degree, they have it.

That smoking is legal is what makes this different, of course. But their rationale isn't entirely flawed, IMO.

[Adagio]

Sounds fair to me... they had 2 years to quit smoking (or find another job), so no problems here...

I know many people who smoke now, but have tried to quit some time in their life, often without luck... I do believe something like this would encourage employees to stop smoking, so the chances of success is greater. Since many people are trying to quit I see this as something they should be happy about...


...of course, on the other hand there's many people who don't want to quit, so they'd just get mad at this

[Japher]

The city of San Jose doesn't allow their cops to smoke. Yet, that has to do with the fact that cops are suppose to be in shape.

Still, the company is paying for insurance on their employees, right? They should give them the option; no health or life insurance or you quit smoking.

[GePap]

I think the action is extreme, and in fact smoking is not illegal for adults, so I am not sure about the legality of druge testing designed to find if someone has been doing something they can legally do.

[Thucydides]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Companies have every legal right to hire/fire people based on their committing illegal acts outside of the work environment. That's why companies routinely conduct criminal background checks and drug screens of prospective employees. So I don't think it's an issue about companies right to "control" behavior--to a degree, they have it.

Since when is smoking in general an illegal act? This sort of reminds me of a story about Henry Ford, how he felt he had the right to walk into someone's home and fire them for having alcohol in their house.

If I was working at the company, I think I would quit just out of principle, even though I don't smoke cigarettes.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher
Still, the company is paying for insurance on their employees, right? They should give them the option; no health or life insurance or you quit smoking.

Legally, the company probably has to provide a health plan for all employees, so they couldn't go this route.

Thucydides:

I did add the difference between legal and illegal acts. But that wasn't the point of what I posted--the point was that, to some extent, companies can make employment decisions based on non-work related behavior. So there is a precendent established.

[Last Conformist]

I'm gonna side with the libbies on this one:

Firing the smokers

[Asher]

They just make all the smokers smoke outside 20m from the doorways here. And in the winter in Canada, that's a very, very cruel thing to do.

[chequita guevara]

Regardless of who I feel about capitalism, companies have a right to make decisions that affect their profitiablity. Health care costs are getting prohibitive, and rather than sacrifice everyone's thealth care for a few obstinate individuals, it's better to let them lie in the bed they made.

Sure, I don't think companies should be dictating people's life styles, but smoking isn't a lifestyle. It's an unhealthy addiction that costs the company money. Bunnygrrl's aunt was fired from her job for being an alcoholic. Nobody just smokes the occassional cigarette, so you can't compare it to drug use (which is illegal) or the occasional drink.

Bunnygrrl's mother was forced to quite a job because some woman at her job took a shining to her and engineered it so she had to share her office with the woman. Unfortunately for my mother-in-law, the woman was a smoker, and BG's mom was an asthmatic. Being in that office with the woman made her physically ill. I believe this happened before the ADA became law.

[Dis]

hmm, now I think of it. I could have differentiated the poll by smokers and non-smokers.

[Gibsie]

It seems to me as a liberal that this is a very bad thing. Firing people for what they do when it doesn't affect their work is ridiculous. Banning smoking breaks, now THERE's a move I'd back!

[Garth Vader]

Yeah what Gibsie said.

[RGBVideo]

The decision might be stupid, but it's acceptable. When not breaking the law, companies should be able to hire and fire everyone they wanted to.

This sort of reminds me of a story about Henry Ford, how he felt he had the right to walk into someone's home and fire them for having alcohol in their house.

Ford was a very good man... a man who truly cared from his workers.

[Shi Huangdi]

to Smokers. It isn't fair for them to impose a healthcare cost on nonsmokers because of their lifestyle choice.

Now if these people were willing to waive any healthcare benefit on any medical treatment relating in any way to their decision to smoke, that might be more fair.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Japher
Still, the company is paying for insurance on their employees, right? They should give them the option; no health or life insurance or you quit smoking.

Benefits are only tax exempt if all employees receive them.

[Zoid]

I voted no. Allthough I´m not a smoker myself and think that cigarett smoke is rather discusting, no one should be fired for a private lifestyle choice. "The land of the free" acts more and more like a mix between Soviet-Russia and Nazi-Germany IMO...

[Ming]

If they are going to do that, they should also fire anybody that's over weight... anybody that drinks... gays... and anybody else who could fall into the category of having a higher risk of health problems.

How would people feel here if the phrase "smokers" was changed to "Fat People" or "Gays"...

[Q Classic]

company should be allowed to fire them.
people should be allowed to smoke.

that said... people should also be allowed to decide whether they want to support a company whose policies, at least in my opinion, are rather harsh.

[Zoid]

...and people drive to work. Should they be prevented to do that by the Company? I mean they could end up face down on the asphalt... It gets ludicrous when you really think about it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Regardless of who I feel about capitalism, companies have a right to make decisions that affect their profitiablity. Health care costs are getting prohibitive, and rather than sacrifice everyone's thealth care for a few obstinate individuals, it's better to let them lie in the bed they made.

Just to play devil's advocate, what if a company fired you under the same rationale for your being overweight? One could argue that being overweight is as great or greater a health risk than smoking. Where do we draw the line, if this is okay for companies to do?

Nobody just smokes the occassional cigarette, so you can't compare it to drug use (which is illegal) or the occasional drink.

Not true. I know plenty of people who are "social smokers." They only smoke cigarettes while out with friends at bars. Hell, I've had the occasional cigarette myself. Probably about once a year or so.

[Space05us]

Haha you are all fools! Thier marketing ploy worked, hahahaaha!! Before you opended this thread you had no idea who WEYCO Inc was and now you do. hahahahaa!!


If I had a lot of money I would sue that company into the dumpster for being ass wipes.

[Japher]

I never clicked the link, I just started talking out of my arse like I always do...

I was not fewled