Company fires all employees who smoke!

[Space05us]

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

But now you know who WEYCO Inc is.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by 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!!

Wrong! It only "worked" because of you... when reading articles I always skip names of the organisations/companies when reading, unless it's a specific case where knowing what company is being talked about is important...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

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

just fine thank you. freedom of association.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
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?

I'd think it personally sucked, but since I'd have had two years to try and do something about it, I could complain, really. Furthermore, I'd show them that I was actively losing weight and attempting to comply with their policies. If that failed, I'd go collect unemployment.

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.

The vast majority of smokers are not social smokers. In my experience, social smokers fall into two catagories, people who used to smoke but have quit, and people who haven't become full-time smokers yet.

[Atahualpa]

I am a social smoker for over a year now and as it looks I am never going to start that **** for real and I never smoked for real. I don't like the taste and I don't like the smell.

I've got two packs at home, which I haven't touched since new year's day or so.

[Provost Harrison]

Absolutely out of order. I think smoking is a terrible habit but it is a socially acceptable addiction. Dismissing people for that is highly intrusive. Bastards like Henry Ford used to pry into people's private lives to justify the money he paid them...and this is no better

[Harry Tuttle]

Maybe for the next act they could fire all the overweight people. Then the people who eat to much red meat. Or the ones who drink. Or the ones who are too old. Or the ones who have a family history of cancer. Or the ones who drink caffeine. Or the ones who are susceptible to being pregnant. Or the ones who live in a high smog area. Or the ones who don't wear podiatrist approved shoes. Or the ones who can't run fast enough. Or the ones that live in old houses with lead paint. Or the ones who don't wash their hands. Or the ones who sunbathe. Or the ones who used to have aspestos in the home. Or the ones who never got the measles. Or the ones who never got chicken pox. Or the ones without smallpox vaccination scars. Or the ones who never got their appendix out. Or the ones who have tattoos. Or the ones who use to much mayonnaise on their sandwich.


I call bull****.

[Dr Strangelove]

I'm willing to bet that there will be a lawsuit over this and it will be successful eventually. The government has no interest in protecting companies from having their employees rack up a big medical bill on company insurance, because the alternative is having them rack up a big medical bill on the government provided insurance.

[Asher]

The government has no interest in protecting companies from having their employees rack up a big medical bill on company insurance,

And in states like this one, they also have no interest in protecting the former employees.

[alva]

Originally posted by 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"...

Sums it up quite nicely.

[Ming]

I have no problem with the OWNERS of the company making it a no smoking work area. Their right. But to fire people who smoke because of "possible" additional health care costs... that's just pure BS. If I was one of the employees, I'd laugh all the way to court knowing a VERY BIG pay day was coming at their expense. Their medical insurance costs might go down, but they will need the money to pay off the team of lawyers who are doomed to lose

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is quite ridiculous. Of course, it'll work, PR wise, because while smoking isn't illegal, it doesn't enjoy the best of reputations. I would be interested if companies fired those over a certain weight for prohibitive health care costs or those that live in certain dangerous areas, to see the reaction of people.

[Ming]

PR wise is nice... but they will lose in court on this one.

If this passes the "legal" test, it opens the door for all kinds of discrimination. Watch it you Fatso's... you're next

[Imran Siddiqui]

but they will lose in court on this one.

No, they actually won't. Michigan, IIRC, is an at will state. As long as you do not fire someone for being a member of a protected class (which smokers are definetly not), you can fire people for anything.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ming
If this passes the "legal" test, it opens the door for all kinds of discrimination. Watch it you Fatso's... you're next

If it encourages people to lose weight, I can't say it's all that bad.

But perhaps there are better ways. IBM has a free company gym on-site that employees can use from 6am to 9pm 5 days a week, including classes (Yoga, kickboxing, etc).