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