MalloryKeaton

http://images.ibsys.com/sh/sponsors/...22004-504.html

Company Fires Smokers
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

Posted: 5:53 pm EST January 24, 2005
Updated: 6:26 pm EST January 24, 2005

Lansing, Mich. -- A Michigan health care company has fired four of its employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

The company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after-hours, or at home.
The founder of Weyco Inc. said the company doesn't want to pay the higher health care costs associated with smoking.

An official of the company -- which administers health benefits -- estimated that 18 to 20 of its 200 employees were smokers when the policy was first announced in 2003. As many as 14 of them quit smoking before the policy went into effect.

Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Anabela

Is that legal?
I smoke, but never inside my company's building because nobody else smokes here and I don't want them to breathe my second hand smoke. But when I go home, I smoke and I don't think my boss has nothing to do with that. I'm on my own home, on my own time.
Sure, they don't want to pay higher health care costs. Who does? But I don't think they can do that. Since I'm not a lawyer, maybe I'm wrong. But it just sounds illegal.

- Jen -

I dont smoke, and frankly, people who smoke when at work piss me off, especially when they take smoke breaks, even though those who dont smoke arnt allowed to take extra breaks...

that being said, if people smoke at home, i dont see why it is the companys business at all....

Ai Ninjai

that company's got a point though-- there taking such a strong stance against smoking will be good for everybody --ultimately.

*Lauren

Of course it would be good for them, but you can't tell people how to live their lives. Can they next ask for stomach samples, to make sure they're eating right? Put a gym in the office, and make everyone exercise for half an hour after work?

Ambular

I agree, how far can they go with this? Fire someone for not wearing a seat belt in their car?

I can appreciate the intension, and it's good to discourage people from smoking, especially in the workplace; but what someone does on their own time is truly their business.

mh67511

Actually no, my healthy lifestyles teacher said that in fact because many smokers die before they can retire, we don't have to pay them nearly as many retirement benefits. If they had a spouse or children they get survivor benefits, but it can actually save taxpayers money.

Why doesn't the company just set a cap on how much employees can use in insurance? You go over the cap, you pay out of your pocket. Simple as that. Or they can make a rule that diseases caused be "personal lifestyle choices" are not covered, or something like that. I don't even know if they can do that though.

Ambular

I think that's far too much of a gray area. I mean, everything short of accidents (or cancer, excluding from smoking), are because of "personal lifestyle choices." What we eat, how often we exercise, what we do for a living, etc., all dictate our overall health (obviously). So it probably wouldn't work

Lorna

I think in principal, this is a good idea. But I would imagine it'd be hard to enforce -- and no doubt there would be some people suing because they were sacked. It would probably end up costing more in court fees than the insurance premium....

I can't imagine my boss ever agreeing to it... he smokes like a chimney all day and has 3 on the go at once -- depsite the fact we are actually a non-smoking office!

mh67511

That's true, but I don't want to have to pay higher health insurance costs because Joe Schmoe is a lard-ass who doesn't evercise, eats greasy, unhealthy food, and smokes a pack a day. Maybe they should give a break for people who don't smoke, eat well, etc.?? You'd think an insurance company would WANT to do that because the end they would probably be paying out less.

Drekkan

Phillip-Moris actually did a study for the Czech government, I believe, that said that they should get a tax refund from the government for killing off seniors so earlier - thus reducing retirement benefits.

However, I can't condone this. If they want to ban smoking in the building, fine. If they want to get rid of smoke breaks, once again fine. It's company time and it's their rules. However, the company shouldn't be allowed to fire workers for being smokers.

That said, the company should have the power to deny smokers health benefits - or charge them higher premiums then non-smokers who also take part in the programs.

In Fair Verona

Eh, I despise smoking and I do see where they are coming from, but what a person does at home is none of their business. I understand and support them not allowing smoking during work hours, but not at home. That's a person's personal decision and honestly, they're going to get theirs for smoking in the end anyway. They should just charge higher for smokers, why didn't they think of that?

Cantbehrit

I smell a lawsuit coming on......

Vampires_Bite

I dont see how they can say what you can or can't do at home, or fire you for it if its not illegal!

And since a few people have brought up the whole charging more for smokers -

If they charge people more for smoking, they should also charge overweight people more aswell... Its been proven that being overweight shortens your life! And not doing anything about it makes you as accountable as smoking... IMO

CrabbyCancer69

Quit Smoking or Quit Your Job, U.S. Company Says

By Andrew Stern
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else.

A ban on tobacco use -- whether at home or at the workplace -- led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco Inc., which handles insurance claims.

The workers refused to take a mandatory urine test demanded of Weyco's 200 employees by founder and sole owner Howard Weyers, a demand that he said was perfectly legal.

"If you don't want to take the test, you can leave," Weyers told Reuters. "I'm not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here."


Next on the firing line: overweight workers.


"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," Weyers said.


He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 bonuses and plans to offer $45 vouchers for health club memberships.


The 71-year-old Weyers, who said he has never smoked and pronounced himself in good shape thanks to daily runs, said employees' health as well as saving money on the company's own insurance claims led him to first bar smokers from being hired in 2003.


Last year, he banned smoking during office hours, then demanded smokers pay a monthly $50 "assessment," and finally instituted mandatory testing.


Twenty workers quit the habit.


Weyers tells clients to quit whining about health care costs and to "set some expectations; demand some things."


Job placement specialist John Challenger said Weyco's moves could set a precedent for larger companies -- if it survives potential legal challenges.


"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue: rising health care costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual," Challenger said.


So far no legal challenges have been made to Weyco's policies.


someone sent this to me too