BUSINESS: Company Bans Employees From Smoking - Anywhere

Weyco, a healthcare firm in Michigan, has banned its employees from smoking - even at home. Four employees who refused to take a test to see if they've quit smoking have voluntarily left their jobs, although they would have been fired. A legal challenge is surely going to follow, and if survived this sets quite a precedent for the amount of power an employer can have over its employees.



Unfortunately, in my opinion, this private company has every right to have it's employees quit smoking or lose their jobs. At least they gave them a years notice. Also, in the field that they're in it makes sense. As a smoker I'd be pretty mad if I worked there though!

My workplace doesn't allow smoking on company property for healthcare costs - this seems like the next step. Although I don't see that this will be a trend sweeping the nation, unions would go nuts.

Next on Weyco's list: overweight employees.

Related News Links:
www.weyco.com
www.detnews.com

[edit on (1/27/0505 by PistolPete]

What you do on your own time is your own business. A better solution would have been for the smokers to pay more for there health care.

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
A better solution would have been for the smokers to pay more for there health care.

yeah they already do.

insurance costs more if your a smoker. and lets not forget to mention all the diseases associated with smoking and the meds they have to pay for

this is a sign of things to come, I fear. companies faced with double digit increases evry year on their health care premiums have to either stop offering them or reduce their claims.....after the smoking will come weight loss, maybe even genetic screening for family histories.....

Hrm, I have to agree that its nobodys business what you do in your home, and your employer shouldnt be able to say anything unless it directly and more importantly immediately affects your work. If this goes unchallenged its concieveable that companies could take the same stance towards employees drinking while at home, and I will be damned if I will ever work for a company that infringes upon my right to enjoy a beer with my dinner and movie at home.

i was thinking about what alternateheaven had to say.

about 6 years ago or so i went down to visit my aunt and uncle in north carolina and a saw all the tobacco fields. my uncle explained to me that if they outlawed tobacco that our economy would be in major trouble. mostly due to all the tobacco farmers whom would be jobless. he explained that this is all these farmers know how to do, and it would take away what little they have.

so when i got back. i sent an email to thetruth.com asking them how they felt about the possiblity of putting so many people out of work. when i finally got a reply, their thoughts were they would rather see people homeless than have to deal with peope smoking.

i'm not a smoker myself, but their reply disgusted me. it too oftens feels like i was BORN, AND RAISED in a country where i have to put aside my freedoms for someone who isn't even a citizen here. yes i am all about equality, but when you take away my rights cause you don't believe in them, thats just wrong

An addict has low self-concept. His self-respect and ego cannot reach the height of a non-addict. He cannot perform at work as efficently as a non-addict especially if the firm is an 'enabler' and allows him cigarette breaks. He is a threat to his own health. He is a threat to the health of others around him, including his family. He is a threat to the health insurance premiums of the others he works with. I would have reservations about hiring an addict. I can see the firm's point.


[edit on 3-2-2005 by jupiter869]

Jupiter
That was certainly insulting for those people who smoke for a reason other than sheer addiction. Does it matter that you are no longer making that distinction? I think so. Does it matter that personal choice was an absolute value in the founding of this country? I don't think anybody cares anymore about values, despite all the lip service that word gets. This private company is well within its rights, but I don't think anybody in their right mind will want to work there anymore. The company will pay the ultimate price for their intolerance. In the end it's shortsighted stupidity, an absolute denial of the facts on the part of the company in question. If it can prove smoking, or second hand smoke, can actually do the harm they say, I challenge them to bring it in to a court room and show the world. It's smoke and mirrors, bogus assumptions and flawed, monetarily influenced research.

The employees in question could have been making the choice to smoke for any number of reasons. Maybe they wanted to increase their chance of survival in case of nuclear fallout. Maybe they were just trying to survive the nuclear tests already conducted in this country by coating their lungs in extra muccous. Maybe they enjoyed the increased neuronal activity, maybe it helped them concentrate at their job. Maybe they were trying to calm down in the midst of another day at their thankless job, obviously policed by fascists. People are entitled to make their own mistakes, unless those mistakes injure others. Your insurance premiums are not more important than the ideal of freedom of choice. If you want to martyr yourself for insurance premiums, be my guest, but I wouldn't personally reccomend it because it seems shallow and ill considered.

If I ever start a private company, it will be required that my employees smoke cigarettes, get piercings and tattoos while smoking, pour bourbon on the wound and curse fluently and creatively in several languages. I can't stand people who think they're smarter or better or the master of another man, just because they pay attention to the propaganda and can regurgitate it on command. This reeks of hubris and a coddled existence on the part of the employer. He should be able to hire anybody he wants, sure, well then so can I or anybody else. This will set a precident that will have consequences, mark my words.

Don't penalize others for their firmer grasp on reality. A smoker, a non smoker, our planet, our universe, could blink out at any second for any number of interesting reasons. Your insurance premiums don't matter! I can't stress that enough. Compared to the universe, our God ourselves, the sun and every worm that crawls under it, your insurance premiums don't stand as a point of importance! Your insurance premiums don't stand up on the cosmic scale of relevance. Smoking tobacco on the other hand, is a spiritually fulfilling, natural, ancient, perfectly acceptable ritual form of drug use.

I should go around and tell you all mayonaise causes cancer. You'd believe me if I was on television.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

I should go around and tell you all mayonaise causes cancer. You'd believe me if I was on television.

Actually, tobacco causes cancer... cancere causes white mice, and mayonaise causes bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwiches.

While it is a private company they do have to the right to mandate smoking at their business but I strongly believe that no one has the buesiness to mandate what you do in your privacy.

So, what will happend when the next target becomes over weight people?

Will that be called unconstitutional? or How about people with certain health problems? Will that be called human rights? How about foods that are high risk for cholesterol.

Hey maybe it will be companies with strick vegetarian diets to be follow by their employees or else.

Hummm will companies be allowed to monitor sex preferences?

This is becoming ridiculous and an invation of privacy.

Jupiter, you show you ignorance people who smoke are addicted to nicotine yes, but i promise there is something your addicted to be it caffine, anti-depressants, pain killers etc etc. So for u to say that someone with a addiction is bad for the company then you may aswell fire everyone from the company.
This is totaly wrong that an employee can be fired for what he does in his own privacy, i understand if a company doesnt want their employee's smoking on the companys property, or taking smoke breaks while they are surpose to be working. But their is nothing wrong for a person on their lunch break after they have eaten their lunch to smoke a cigarette after their meal, without wasting the time of the company.
This is ridiculous, and i really hope this business gets its pants sued off them.

I wonder how many people are addicted to the glues and adhesives that they have to work around at the employers request...

Originally posted by wang
This is ridiculous, and i really hope this business gets its pants sued off them.

Sued or whatever, I am sure they will have more trouble from the radioactive particles circulating around the air ducts - maybe they should ban the government for nuking them - how about that, hey? hey?

smokinjoe

Another factor is health coverage costs. If the company can prove (though testing) that employees do not knowingly participate in something that is known to cause respiratory problems (cancer, emphysema.etc), then healthcare costs will be cheaper overall for the company. With the rising costs of healthcare, you really can't blame them for looking out for themselves and their employees.

Originally posted by SupaFly
Another factor is health coverage costs. If the company can prove (though testing) that employees do not knowingly participate in something that is known to cause respiratory problems (cancer, emphysema.etc), then healthcare costs will be cheaper overall for the company. With the rising costs of healthcare, you really can't blame them for looking out for themselves and their employees.

Dependency will always lead to servitude and enslavement. Doctors and drug comanies weren't happy with their pay that provided a comfortable lifestyle and earnings reports and wanted more...so they increased their fees and began relying on the insurance companies to pay them...
The insurance companies and upper management weren't happy with their comfortable lifestyle and earnings reports, so they hiked up their premiums...which forced the government to step in on behalf of the low and middle income americans. So, now, they are at the bidding of the government.
The employers wanted more also, so they decided that their employees should paid less and not more, driving them to the government asking for the help. And, also making the insurance even more necessary for the employee.....so now they get to sing to the tune of the goverment and insurance companies.
And, of course, us the employees, get to sing to all their tunes and kiss our freedom goodbye!!!

Originally posted by dawnstar
The employers wanted more also, so they decided that their employees should paid less and not more, driving them to the government asking for the help. And, also making the insurance even more necessary for the employee.....so now they get to sing to the tune of the goverment and insurance companies.
And, of course, us the employees, get to sing to all their tunes and kiss our freedom goodbye!!!

This link agrees with you:

money.cnn.com...

I don't understand why this is a big deal! If you want to smoke, don't work for that company....the owners of the company can rule it as they see fit....just like those that do periodic drug testing.....no one is forcing anyone to work there if they want to smoke.

If I start a company, I'll only hire smokers. They'll need to test positive for nicotine every day or they'll be fired.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

That was certainly insulting for those people who smoke for a reason other than sheer addiction.

Denial of additction is the commonest and one of the poorest excuses addicts pose. People will not choose to smoke, (barring smoking as a fetish) knowing the health hazards it causes. Yes, we've heard them all: I have something to do with my hand when I am on the phone, it relaxes me, I am insecure, I love the way it "tastes", etc. etc. There are a thousand excuses, well all know them well. But in fact, these are all excuses the addict uses to justify his continued support and enforcement of his addiction rather than face the difficulty of overcoming it. There's no denying it, overcoming addiction is NOT an easy thing. Those that continue to use excuses rather than fight their addiction are really those of the lowest self-concept and have the very weakest "grip on themselves". Some could argue that they are a threat to the stability of the American ideal working environment. Those that do overcome their terrible addictions are very strong indeed and should be very proud of themselves. Please don't be an enabler and do not EVER use excuses to justify addiction again! Especially in front of those that had the strength to overcome their own.

[edit on 3-2-2005 by jupiter869]