[N8 v2.0]

...damn... just damn!


Okemos company fires 4 employees for refusing smoking test
ASSOCIATED PRESS | January 24, 2005

LANSING -- Four employees of Okemos-based health benefits administrator Weyco Inc. have been fired for refusing to take a test that would determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

The company instituted a policy on Jan. 1 that makes it a firing offense to smoke -- even if done after business hours or at home, the Lansing State Journal reported Monday.

Weyco founder Howard Weyers said previously that he instituted the tough anti-smoking rule to shield his company from high health care costs.

"I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.

The anti-smoking rule led one employee to quit work before the policy went into place. Since Jan. 1, four more people were shown the door when they balked at the anti-smoking test.

"They were terminated at that point," said Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes.

Even so, Weyco said, the policy has been successful. Climes estimated that about 18 to 20 of the company's 200 employers were smokers when the policy was announced in 2003.

Of those, as many as 14 quit smoking before the policy went into place. Weyco offered them smoking cessation help, Climes said.

"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.

 

[Echo]

Man that kicks so much ass. I wanna work for that company.

 

[mack]

Smoking is just a nasty thing to do at work.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Thats a great way to fight high health care costs. I wonder if they get a discount on their policies?

 

[Motionboy2]

Man that kicks so much ass. I wanna work for that company.

Me TOO!! I am jealous. As much as I don't know if smoking is a firing offense I would be psyched to work somewhere that NOBODY smoked!

 

[Ridemonkey]

Better yet...Anyone who drinks will be fired starting Jan 1st because more than likely you could get liver cancer, and I don't want to pay for the health care.

Post some statistics please. I heard that smoking is the #1 health problem in this country. Do you know something I don't?

 

[Snacks]

Wow...I never would have thought he could get away with that.

Wouldn't that be pretty close to saying. All gay people will be fired because you may get AIDS, and I don't want to pay for health care.

So are you saying that only gay people get AIDS?

I think it's a great idea!

 

[JSB]

So are you saying that only gay people get AIDS?

I think it's a great idea!

Dang...your right I fumbled that one.

 

[JSB]

Anyone that has unprotected sex will be fired, do to sexual transmitted deseases, and I don't want to pay for the health care....And Jackson is our new editor.

 

[Ridemonkey]

Anyone that rides mountain bikes, may get hurt, and I don't want to pay for the health care.

Terrible anology. Maybe I am mistaken though, do you have some stats to back up the rise in health care due to mountain biking accidents? While you are looking for those, don't forget to also calculate the drop in health care costs associated with the mountain bikers being more fit and healthy as a group. Oh wait, could that mean that despite the fact that people get hurt on bikes sometimes, that overall the effect on health care costs is a net reduction? Well I'll be.........

 

[I Are Baboon]

A non-smoking company? Sign me up!

 

[Snacks]

Quote from the American Lung Assoc. site.......

Smoking-related diseases claim an estimated 430,700 American lives each year. Smoking costs the United States approximately $97.2 billion each year in health-care costs and lost productivity. It is directly responsible for 87 percent of lung cancer cases and causes most cases of emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

www.lungusa.org

 

[Echo]

JSB, are you even bothering to think, or are you just typing random things without putting any actual thought into them?

 

[dan-o]

Post some statistics please. I heard that smoking is the #1 health problem in this country. Do you know something I don't?

Actually, I think obesity just surpassed smoking as #1.

 

[Echo]

Actually, I think obesity just surpassed smoking as #1.

I don't think that has anything to do with smokers getting healthier

 

[JSB]

Post some statistics please. I heard that smoking is the #1 health problem in this country. Do you know something I don't?

Well it probably is, but I've also heard other #1 stats. Everyone has one. Breast Cancer I'm sure has said it's number one in women.
Car accidents I'm sure have a #1 deaths stat somewhere. That wasn't my point.

I don't see how you can be fired if you smoke, drink, take or do things that can cause some sort of health issue.

We all know several things we do everyday cause health issues. Who is he to decide you can't do a job because you smoke. Seems a little Anti-American

 

[Echo]

Who is he to decide you can't do a job because you smoke. Seems a little Anti-American

Who is he? The owner of the company, that's who. The dude who signs the paychecks. As long as he isn't discriminating based on race, gender, religion, or sexual preference, he can hire and fire whoever the hell he wants.

 

[JSB]

JSB, are you even bothering to think, or are you just typing random things without putting any actual thought into them?

Actually I wasn't puttingmuch thought into those. I'm trying to get Chevrons crapping retail cycles running again before there management jumps down my case.

I was actually trying to sound rediculous, because that's how I took his new rule.

 

[Snacks]

Breast Cancer I'm sure has said it's number one in women.

Another Quote from the American Lung Assoc........

The January 22, 2005 reports that lung cancer is the leading cancer killer of women with an estimated 70,000 women in the United States dieing from the disease. According to Dr. Jyoti Patel, an oncologist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, and a specialist in women's cancer, "Lung Cancer causes more deaths among women than breast, uterine and ovarian cancers combined, but I don't think this is on women's radar screens at all."

Link to rest of the article.....


http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthology/story?id=433853

 

[N8 v2.0]

Smoking sucks, but I wonder if there would be so much support for a just-as-tough anti-drug (to include weed) policy.

Smoke weed on your non-company time, get popped on a manditory pee test, good-bye...

I'd like to work for a company like that. The only place I've worked with that restrictive of a drug policy was the active duty US military.

 

[dan-o]

I don't think that has anything to do with smokers getting healthier

Unless the decline in smoking is directly related to people being too lazy to walk/drive/roll to the store for another pack!

 

[clancy98]

thanks so much for spamming the hell out of this thread JSB.. as for the company, his company, his policies, put up or... all the examples you gave also presented situations where there is a "safe" option. protected sex, body armor. There is no safe way to smoke cigarettes. at all.

The man is trying to save healthcare costs, and therefore I dont think that there is a problem with singling out those who are guaranteed to increase those costs.

 

[Velocity Girl]

Actually, I think obesity just surpassed smoking as #1.

Found on webmd...

"The results appear in the May 14 issue of the journal Health Affairs.

The study found that Americans spent $78.5 billion in overweight and obesity costs in 1998 ($92.6 in 2002 dollars). That figure translates to 9.1% of all national health care costs. Researchers say those health care costs are comparable to those associated with smoking, which are estimated at between 6.5% and 14.4% of total spending. "http://my.webmd.com/content/article/64/72524.htm

So would people then agree that it's ok to discriminate and fire obese people? (Just playing devil's advocate here because I do believe that smoking is a nasty habit, smoke-free for 10 years now, but I do think it could potentially open a pandora's box)

 

[Echo]

but I do think it could potentially open a pandora's box

I say pop that sucker open and let's see what happens :devil:

 

[Echo]

Smoking sucks, but I wonder if there would be so much support for a just-as-tough anti-drug (to include weed) policy.

Smoke weed on your non-company time, get popped on a manditory pee test, good-bye...

I'd like to work for a company like that. The only place I've worked with that restrictive of a drug policy was the active duty US military.

Well, so far I've only had to get tested when getting hired, but almost every company I've worked for since leaving the military has made me sign a form consenting to random tests for as long as I'm employed. I think they just don't do them because of the cost, but they certainly could.

 

[DHS]

sign me up!
i hate any kind of smoking. thats just wrong for the lungs!
cheers!

 

[dan-o]

The obesity issue is a tough one. Sedentary lifestyles are supposedly the #1 cause of obesity.

This country needs to do something drastic to stop the fat trend. Firing people is a little extreme (and would gut the workforce) but something more moderate like not making size 58 pants would be a good start.

 

[JSB]

thanks so much for spamming the hell out of this thread JSB.. as for the company, his company, his policies, put up or... all the examples you gave also presented situations where there is a "safe" option. protected sex, body armor. There is no safe way to smoke cigarettes. at all.

The man is trying to save healthcare costs, and therefore I dont think that there is a problem with singling out those who are guaranteed to increase those costs.

Sorry for the spamming...I deleted them. I just thought it sounded rediculous. I've been smoke free since Dec 31st 1995. I think it's a bad habit, but I don't think people should be fired for a bad habit. Like some have said, it's going to open up a big can of worms. At least in my opinion.

 

[JSB]

The obesity issue is a tough one. Sedentary lifestyles are supposedly the #1 cause of obesity.

This country needs to do something drastic to stop the fat trend. Firing people is a little extreme (and would gut the workforce) but something more moderate like not making size 58 pants would be a good start.

At least most the tech support, at my company.

 

[dump]

So would people then agree that it's ok to discriminate and fire obese people? (Just playing devil's advocate here because I do believe that smoking is a nasty habit, smoke-free for 10 years now, but I do think it could potentially open a pandora's box)

I see this action by the employer directly linked to certain health insurance providers that use "smoking/non-smoking" as a determining factor in the cost of the policy... costs that can be infinitively high when split company-wide.

think

I don't agree with the boss' actions in the least - if you're going to change your policy, the right thing to do (in my mind) is to provide steps to rehabilitation, etc.

I think it's very easy for non-smokers to stand here & point fingers... I think if the tables were turned, it would be a different story. Nicotine addiction is more than a physical addiction, it's also highly psychological... not something that's easily turned off w/ a switch even if the consequences mean losing your job

 

[JSB]

Just a thought...Do you really think if people stopped smoking that health care would go down. What has actually caused health care to go up. Here's an interesting read.

http://fdncenter.org/pnd/news/story_print.jhtml?id=77600016

 

[Slugman]

I think a lot of the people here allow their distaste for smoking to cloud their judgment and miss the point that JSB is trying to make.

The owner of the company should not have the right to fire some for doing a legal activity on their own time. Drug test are not testing for Advil – they are testing to see if you participate in an ILLEGAL activity. So to reference drug test is an apple to orange comparison.

Don’t get me wrong – I would like to ship all the smokers to another country (like France where they still walk through the airport smoking…), or I’d really like to see the US government make smoking illegal. However until the Government does something (which the will never do as the FDA has refused to make any rulings on smoking) I think this company is wrong and will probably see some lawsuits in the near future.

 

[Echo]

I don't agree with the boss' actions in the least - if you're going to change your policy, the right thing to do (in my mind) is to provide steps to rehabilitation, etc.

Actually it says they provided smoking cessation assistance...

 

[SkaredShtles]

I think a lot of the people here allow their distaste for smoking to cloud their judgment and miss the point that JSB is trying to make.

The owner of the company should not have the right to fire some for doing a legal activity on their own time.

I'm not sure that any rights are being violated here. The owner is discriminating on the basis of smoking, which I think is not a "protected" right.

It'd be interesting to see some legal challenges and see where they go.

-S.S.-

 

[Echo]

I think this company is wrong and will probably see some lawsuits in the near future.

Lawsuits on what grounds though? There are very specific laws regarding discrimination and employment in this country. Maybe they will try to make smoking a religion? I don't see how any legal boundaries were crossed here.

 

[Wingnut]

I have to side with JSB on this. What I do on my own time, within limits, is none of the company's business even if it may affect my health. I'm an on-again-off-again smoker, it's a filthy habit for sure, but it's tough to break.

I really can't see that company policy standing up in a court labor dispute(though Canada labour laws are a little more pro-worker versus pro-company), it's borderline descrimination. I think they should adjust the health benefits to not cover smoking related problems for the employees, not turf them...

JSB's examples were a little extreme, but I see his point. It could be because I'm on the other side of the line then most of the replies so far. But I've tried a few times in the last year to quit, but it's not working yet. I also started smoking long before I entered the working class, bad decision, but I'd fight that policy tooth-and-nail....and at least try harder to quit.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Lawsuits on what grounds though? There are very specific laws regarding discrimination and employment in this country. Maybe they will try to make smoking a religion? I don't see how any legal boundaries were crossed here.

I don't either, but I'm sure some cleaver lawyer could come up with some arguments.........

I mean, employers discriminate all the time based on education, intelligence, experience....... why not smoking? I mean, the smoking thing impacts the bottom line directly.

-S.S.-

 

[SkaredShtles]

I have to side with JSB on this. What I do on my own time, within limits, is none of the company's business even if it may affect my health. I'm an on-again-off-again smoker, it's a filthy habit for sure, but it's tough to break.

I really can't see that company policy standing up in a court labor dispute(though Canada labour laws are a little more pro-worker versus pro-company), it's borderline descrimination.

There's nothing wrong with discrimination....... People discriminate *all* the time. The world would be a mess if we didn't. I'm not sure why people always bring up the word "discrimination" as some horribly awful thing that should never be done.........

-S.S.-

 

[Slugman]

I'm not sure that any rights are being violated here. The owner is discriminating on the basis of smoking, which I think is not a "protected" right.

It'd be interesting to see some legal challenges and see where they go.

-S.S.-

Lawsuits on what grounds though? There are very specific laws regarding discrimination and employment in this country. Maybe they will try to make smoking a religion? I don't see how any legal boundaries were crossed here.

What are you two an item....

I'm not sure on what grounds... but I have a hard time accepting that my employer can fire me for doing a legal activity on my own free time.

That means if (like JSB was saying) your employer decided that they no longer wanted their employees to drink or bike, they could just fire you.

They wouldn't be violating your rights...

 

[SkaredShtles]

<snip>
That means if (like JSB was saying) your employer decided that they no longer wanted their employees to drink or bike, they could just fire you.

They wouldn't be violating your rights...

I can't see how they would be violating any of your rights if they fired you for these..............

-S.S.-