Okay guys, what do you think about this? An employer is telling it's workers they have to quit smoking at work and on their personal time, or they have to quit their job.

Personally, I think this is going a little too far, encroaching upon people's personal right. If I worked for this company and smoked, I'd keep smoking at home, just cut it at work....they'd never know.


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

Wed Jan 26, 3:05 PM ET Health - Reuters


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."

I think it's valid. Smokers cost the company money both in terms of lost time for smoke breaks and the need for higher insurance premiums. Not to mention the foul odor that anyone in the building must endure when they are approaching or leaving the building. Discrimination against smokers is legal since it's not discrimination based on age, gender, color or creed. Smokers can always quit. If cigarettes are more importan than their job to them, then that's an indication that they are very weak people. Something that I think is kind of pathetic.

I think it would be a good idea but how can someone tell me to quit smoking or quit my job is not right. Plus what I do at home is my business. If I wanted to smoke before work then I can. If he wants to not haveing smoking at the job them put in a no smoking workplace and make a place outside away from the entrance for smokers. As for the being fat part I think he will have problems too along with the smoking, you can't tell somebody to lose weight or quit smoking or they are going to be fired. If I had my boss come tell me I am too skinny and to gain weight or quit we would clash real bad. The only thing he should be concerned with is the work quality, if they are getting the job done in a timely manner then leave them alone if they are happy.

Actually, it still costs your employer money in added health coverage if you smoke at home. I'm all for this. Smokers cost us all a lot of money in increased medicare expenses, etc. Recently, many states sued the cigarette manufacturers over this. We do have a pretty huge amount of money won from tobacco lawsuits, but really, as much as it is, it's a one time settlement that won't even scratch the surface.

Actually, your boss can do that. In many jobs, your image is very important. I used to work retail. One of my retail jobs was at The Sharper Image. I can tell you for a fact -- if you didn't look healthy, you wouldn't even be considered for the job. Image was very important there. People assume certain things about overweight folks (this comment is based on research) -- they assume that they are lazy, slow, etc. When they see a fit person, they usually see them as charasmatic, attractive, competent, etc. Besides that, fat folks have more health issues just like smoking. Many companies do not put their management in a position to tell employees to lose weight, but they often do provide on-site workout facilities. If your employees are physically fit, theoretically, you'll have a lot less medical expenses and sick days (I'm not sure, because I tend to injure myself when playing sports, but that's another thread).

If smoking cost health coveerage what about drinking. It causes health problems. What about the aclholics, they have liver problems. What about telling somebody they have to quit drinking or quit there job. I drink sometimes but its rare I get wasted does that mean I need to quit my job? If smoking is health issue than tell the companys making th ecigs to stop and shut them down, as long as the cigs are made there are goign to be smokers.

The company absolutely has the ability to do that. They can discriminate on any grounds as long as they don't discriminate based on race, color, creed or gender. Other than that, they can fire you for being gay, because you smoke, because you're fat, because you drink, or simply because they don't like the cut of your jib.

I'm not making any value judgements with my statement, I'm just stating facts. Now, you ask the question whether or not I think it's morally right? That would be a different discussion -- a lot more complex and philosophical.

Lose weight or lose your job
Business owner who forced workers to quit smoking now wants them to get skinny, too.
January 31, 2005: 12:50 PM EST

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight.

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."

Also a health concern: 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. Top of page

If you will notice, which you didn't, the article you posted is the same one Patrick posted in the first thread. I think we all read it, so we didn't need to read it again. Maybe you ought to look before you post? Hmm.

Ah.. oops. For some reason, I was thinking that this thread was started with an article about just the smoking.

Anyhow... I still think that the employer should have every right to do this. Good for them. A healthy employee is a better employee.

I agree. I've always wondered how employers felt when they were interviewing someone that smelled like a tobacco factory . If I were the employer, I sure would not want to hire them, especially because they are more at risk of having to take sick leave because of their smoking. I also agree that a healthy employee is a better employee.

There is one thing I have always been curious about......why is it that when a coughing smoker has a bad cold, or even the flu, and they are coughing their guts up, they still feel the need to smoke? Doesn't that just prolong the illness?

Or better yet, I am always impressed by the folks who have had tracheotomies (sp) and still smoke through the hole in their throat. That has to be my favorite.

What really makes it disgusting is that there's no buffer between their stinking respiratory system and your nose when they're close to you... Quite disgusting.

Here's a little follow-up on this topic:

"Where There's Smoke, It Wouldn't Lead to Firing

Tue Feb 8, 7:55 AM ET Top Stories - Los Angeles Times


By P.J. Huffstutter Times Staff Writer

CHICAGO — A Michigan state lawmaker said Monday that he planned to introduce a bill to bar companies from firing employees for smoking on their own time.

The proposed "lifestyle legislation" comes in response to a policy at Weyco Inc., an employee benefits firm in Okemos, Mich., near Lansing. On Jan. 1, Weyco began randomly testing its 200 workers for nicotine use, saying it would fire those who tested positive and refused to quit smoking.

Four Weyco employees have said they were let go under the policy.

"Two of those employees are my constituents, and they came to me asking for help," said state Sen. Virg Bernero, a Democrat from Lansing who plans to introduce his bill in the next three weeks.

If passed, Michigan would become one of the few states with a law expressly stating that employers could not fire or refuse to hire people for engaging in legal activities on their own time.

"I don't like smoking, but what this company is doing is just un-American," Bernero said. "These are things happening off duty…. If it's legal to fire someone for smoking at home, what's next? A company that fires employees for having a couple beers during the Super Bowl because the boss is a teetotaler? Firing someone because they wear clothes on the weekend that the boss doesn't like?"

In a statement released Monday, Weyco Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes said smoking was clearly a health hazard, and that Bernero's legislation would make it more difficult for employers to control health costs.

"When you do something that is extremely harmful to both yourself and others, it's not a privacy issue — it's a matter of exercising some personal responsibility for your behavior," Climes said in the statement. "Michigan businesses, taxpayers and co-workers of smokers have the right to protect themselves from the horrendous damage caused by the self-destructive behavior of a small percentage of employees."

Company officials said the policy was put into place to encourage healthful behavior among workers, as well as to underscore its health-conscious corporate culture. Inside the company's headquarters is a framed, handwritten note from Thomas Edison to Henry Ford. Dated April 1914, it reads: "I employ no person who smokes."

Weyco President Howard Weyers said last month that he also had rolled out the policy to combat the rising costs of employee benefits: "If I don't do something to change employees' demand for healthcare, I'll never do anything about costs."

Weyers estimated the company spent $750,000 a year on employee health insurance premiums and said he was concerned that it wouldn't be able to absorb additional increases.

But Anita Epolito — one of the four fired workers — said she had not been participating in Weyco's insurance plan.

"I'm covered by my husband's insurance policy, and have been for years," said Epolito, 48, who worked as a receptionist and special events coordinator at Weyco for 14 years.
Epolito said Weyers first told employees about the policy during a benefits meeting in November 2003.

At the time, workers were told they couldn't have any nicotine products in their bodies, she said. "There were some people who were trying to quit, using the patch or the chewing gum. We were told that if you're going to quit, you have to stop — and stop using those products — by Jan. 1 [2005]."

Epolito said she approached Weyco executives shortly before the deadline and asked what she should do.

"They told me to sign the waiver saying I refused to be tested so I could be given my final check," Epolito said. "So that's what I did."

Michigan's Kalamazoo Valley Community College instituted a similar policy last month, saying it wouldn't hire smokers for full-time positions. School officials could not be reached for comment Monday.

Federal and state laws prevent employers from firing or refusing to hire workers because of race, religion or gender. Some states, such as Colorado, have enacted laws offering similar protections for smokers.

Colorado lifestyle-discrimination statutes are considered to be among the broadest in the nation, legal experts said. Workers cannot be fired for taking part in legal activities, unless those actions affect their work.

Bernero said his staff was using the Colorado law as a guide for the proposed Michigan legislation."

My mom and dad lived for a year in Safford, Arizona. They lived on an estate spread over five acres. While there, they employed the services of three dobermans, a security system on all the buildings, an electric fence. and six security guards. The guards were not from a security service, they were domestic staff members under the supervsion of what is called a major domo.

My mom has, to this day, a strict policy against smoking anywhere on the property. She caught one of the security guards lighting away near the guard shack at the main gate. She told him to extiquish the cigerette and to never smoke on her property again. If he wanted to smoke, he had to go across the street to an empty lot. An hour later, she was watching the security camera at the main gate where she overheard that same guard say "I am not letting any ------- ----- tell me I can't smoke." He then lit another. My mom taped every minute at that gate. She immediatly went to the shack, ordered a staff meeting to take place immediatly, where, in front of every staff member, she fired the guard. She then called the Arizona department wh regulates law enforcement officers and had his commision stripped.

Never again did anyone smoke on her property... Even to this day.

Your mother had every right to do that. She did exactly what she should have. Glad to hear it.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

Nope, you need to put out that cigarette.

I like it Keith. I am in agreement all the way. It is time we non smokers started standing up for our rights.

I don't know that we haven't already. Ever since Waxman had his tobacco hearings back in the 90's, smokers' privlidges have been being knocked off left and right. I don't think someone should necessarily be penalized for doing something that only harms themselves, but I do agree that their ability to cause others to be exposed to their secondhand smoke, for others to not get to take the extra breaks, etc. should be looked at.

Apparently, some employers like the one in the thread's discussed article do not want to have to deal with smokers' rights issues at all. Just don't have any smokers, and your problem is solved.

I do have to question his method though -- it sounds like it would be very expensive to test employees for nicotine use when you could just forbid smoking on company property... I'm not going to sit here and do the math, but it would seem like with his testing, he's effectively eliminating any benefits he would have gained from not having smokers on the payroll. That's his decision as the owner though.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

With all the people that refuse to stop smoking in my home and the people who refuse to stop smoking in my presence, and the establishments that refuse to be totally smoke free, our rights are far from being addressed.Too many people lose their lives to smoking, and many of them endanger ours at the same time.

In your home, you are king. However, when it comes to being "around" smokers at places, you can always choose not to patronize establishments that allow smoking.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

GRanted. But that is not the point. Why should I have to refuse to go somewhere because they are too selfish to prevent smoking.

These businesses choose to cater to smokers rather than people like you and I that don't like smoke. If a bar, for example were to ban smoking while all of the other bars did not, the non-smoking bar would likely go out of business. People like to smoke when they have beers. That's the bar's business.

Even when these new rules go into effect, I understand that businesses will be able to elect to be completely "smoking" establishments.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

my only problem with this is where do we draw the line? is the next thing is to weigh people and make them stay a certain weigjt or lose jobs obesity cause health cost rises. what next your boss tells you what your bedtime is so you will be more productive at work?

Actually, several jobs do require you to wigh within a certain margain to work there. US military is one of them.