Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

[Sonny]

This is surely interesting. I've always wondered why it hadn't happened somewhere, somehow by now:

Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

UPDATED: 8:20 AM EST January 25, 2005

LANSING, Mich. -- Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.

Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.

The rule led one employee to quit before the policy was adopted. Four others were fired when they balked at the smoking test.

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

[Gregg Pathiakis]

I don't know if it's the case all over the country, but it's illegal to smoke, on or off duty, if you are a police officer in Massachusetts. There have been many cases of officers being fired over it.

[DanGenck]

It seems like a bit of a violation of civil liberties to demand employees take a smoking test... especially considering that smoking is not illegal. I am also assuming most of these employees took their jobs without ever thinking that smoking could be used as leverage for their employment status.

This seems like a small slippery slope away from caffeine and unhealthy foods. Maybe they should fire people who eat unhealthy? That could cause the company money down the road...

[Sonny]

It seems like a bit of a violation of civil liberties to demand employees take a smoking test...

How is that Dan? It is a slippery slope, but....

A. Its not the government making this decision.
B. You don't have a constitutionally protected right to private employment (or health care for that matter).
C. This isn't a case of discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender.

[Tarzan]

Today I went to the doctor because I sprained my ACL playing lacrosse with my Men's Club. I wonder if my employer or other employers might say in the future:
"The anti-lacrosse rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of lacrosse"

[Sonny]

Today I went to the doctor because I sprained my ACL playing lacrosse with my Men's Club. I wonder if my employer or other employers might say in the future:
"The anti-lacrosse rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of lacrosse"

Now that would be an interesting twist.

[DanGenck]

You are right, Sonny. Considering that this is not a government matter, a lot of the civil liberty arguments go out the window. I suppose I was trying to infer that it would be bad policy for a company to go against the high standards the government set with regards to privacy, etc.

Of course, they do not have to... and business industry has a long history of doing what is in their best interest and not that of the common man

I wished to say more that it was a slippery slope and bad policy when compared to what the company could do.

a) Provide help for smoking employees
b) Lay out firm guidelines for employees ahead of time (which they may have)
c) Allow employee privacy with regard to lifestyle choices




It's a tough call no matter what, that is for sure.

[Danny Hogan]

why couldn't they just prohibit people who smoke from getting company health care coverage?

On a funny side note, people actually smoke in their offices and in the conference rooms at my job, our wing of the building is known as 'the bar' because people smell like they were at a bar after they come through here.

[cjwilhelmi]

Found another article about this. Seems that it isn't an isolated event.

Costs Make Employers See Smokers as a Drag[/url]