You smoke? You're Fired!

[HellDragon]

Found this one on Fark (it's a website, I can't post the URL yet, I'm sure someone knows it). More and more, I see in our daily lives shades of 1984...and "their" intrusions into our daily lives are not getting the point across. Shit like this, not the drivel coming from the Fight House, is what makes me realize how few rights we actually have.


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.

On the company's Web site, it states:

Weyco Inc. is a non-smoking company that strongly supports its employees in living healthy lifestyles.


What the hell??

[Tequila Zaire]

This is not 1984 dude...a health care company with only 200 employee's is NOT Big Brother for making a policy of having NO employee's that smoke. If the image they want is one of a healthy lifestyle then it makes sense they would not want smokers in their ranks. It's part of buisness and when working for a PRIVATE company you CONFORM to THEIR guidelines and regulations...if that means altering your lifestyle then you better decide whether you want to stick around or not. 1984 had lack of personal freedom as part of it's over all theme. Any of those employee's are free to leave if they wish. They are free to continue smoking in other areas of employment. It's not violating personal freedom in any way...a health care company not wanting those they employ to engage in an activity that goes against what the company stands for makes sense. A company telling you how it wants you to live can sound creepy and 1984ish..but given the warning time given of the policy, the nature of the compnay, the reality that employee's CAN find other jobs, and the fact it has only 200 employee's...it's just not all that truthful as an example of the themes in 1984.



"1984" like genius is thrown around way too loosely these days.

[One Eyed Cat]

I'm currently a smoker, am not offended by that at all. I think any organization should be free to determine who has the right to associate with them: as long as it is not based on immutable traits such as gender, race, sexuality etc. I also draw a sharp distinction between the actions taken by a government as opposed to those taken by a private business.

OEC

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

Henry ford did something similar in 1914. Employees were given bonuses if they lived "properly" and were denied the bonus and eventually fired if they did not. I wanto to say it was the $5 plan or something to that effect. This could include things like not being married, having a messy house, drinking. Since it was financially unsustainable it never found it's way to court as far as I recall.

But how is this ok? Sure smokers are not a protected class, but it is an employer manipulating your personal life and more importantly intruding to do it. Guidlines at the workplace or that impact the workplace are one thing, but if you need a test to tell if they are smoking then it is not impacting thier work. How far is No smoking? No Drinking? No casual sex? No associating anti-company people? No eating junk food? They say it is because they don't want to pay higher health care costs. That seems reasonable on the surface but look at how many things you do that effect your health. What if they were firing people who fell outside of the body mass index? Or people with high blood pressure? Or people who played sports?

Sure, technically you can just get another job, but when has that ever been the reality of the situation? It is not like the unemployment lines are just people who are too lazy too find work.

Invasive seraches into your personal life should not be a condition of employment.

[pagan]

I don't think its right to do drug testing at a workplace, this just takes it to the next step. My arguement is same as always. What someone does on their own time is their own buisness. If anything ever has an effect on their work well by all means fire them. If they do a good job and don't mess up anything at work then who cares what they do on the weekend.

[Tequila Zaire]

Henry ford did something similar in 1914. Employees were given bonuses if they lived "properly" and were denied the bonus and eventually fired if they did not. I wanto to say it was the $5 plan or something to that effect. This could include things like not being married, having a messy house, drinking. Since it was financially unsustainable it never found it's way to court as far as I recall.

But how is this ok? Sure smokers are not a protected class, but it is an employer manipulating your personal life and more importantly intruding to do it. Guidlines at the workplace or that impact the workplace are one thing, but if you need a test to tell if they are smoking then it is not impacting thier work. How far is No smoking? No Drinking? No casual sex? No associating anti-company people? No eating junk food? They say it is because they don't want to pay higher health care costs. That seems reasonable on the surface but look at how many things you do that effect your health. What if they were firing people who fell outside of the body mass index? Or people with high blood pressure? Or people who played sports?

Sure, technically you can just get another job, but when has that ever been the reality of the situation? It is not like the unemployment lines are just people who are too lazy too find work.

Invasive seraches into your personal life should not be a condition of employment.

How is that worse than what say a nightclub does with it's own set of guideline and rules for you to enter their establishment? There are many clubs (both social and nightlife oriented) that will bar you for much of what you listed. The reality is that organizations can make up their own rules to a large degree and if you wish to be a part of them or join into them...you have to make sacrifices.

When you want to establish a certain tone or look of a compnay...some people are not going to fit. Would I want to be in buisness with a health company who had visibly unhealthy or grossly overweight people as a part of it? Not really...it would make me question their effectiveness. That pops up in many peoples heads and giving the benefit of the doubt is not always possible.

You can live how you want to live but it will at some point conflict with others and at that point you have to choose what is more important.

In this case....a job or smoking?

May sound harsh to some but it sounds perfectly fair...if you are going to work for a company going for a VERY specific work ethic and style...you gotta conform or bow out. That's not new and that's not fair. I find it MORE of a problem when individuals try to force themselves into places they do not belong or maintain behaviour that conflicts with what is trying to be established.

The company gave fair warning...and those who failed to live up to it were booted. Rightly so too...they failed to honor what they agreed too. If you AGREE to a policy then you have to honor it...can't yell sour grapes after the fact.

Plus lets face it...our work IS very closely linked to our personal lives and how we live those lives do effect our work and thus the places we work for. There is some give and take to be had. It may sound a bit too much in this case but given the specifics of the situation...it's totally fair.

Kinda like health clubs wanting their employees to be physically fit.

[nyar]

Im actually for the company- sorry-
but it does make sense-
Its kinda another case of a few ruining it for many- Some smokers are smoking 2-3 packs a day- which reeaaally is frowned upon by the healthcare industries- understandably- so they have to make shit up for smokers that includes those people- unfortunately that will also include smokers going through a pack a week-
most smoking laws are a result of something similar

[keiko]

I am of two minds about this particular event. Part of me says that if it's a health oriented company or any private company that could suffer if a dozen or so employees were on a smoke break at a critical moment then yes I could see saying that smoking at work or anyhting else that causes you to be lack in your duties should be grounds for some kind of punnishment. I agree with their giving people several weeks notice that measures would eventually be taken against those who did not quit as they were recommended to do. In fact most people I know are looking for a good reason to make them quit smoking and the idea that you could loose your job sounds like decent motovation to me.
However, the fact that they want to test these people not for narcotic drug use but to see if they smoked a cigarette on their way to work, or at the bar last night is just plain wrong. What you do on your time is your buisness, what you do on my time is my buisness. Also their reasoning, the fact that they are cheap bastards that don't want to pay health care premiums, that is just a little much!
Anyhoo, that's my 2 cents.
K

[KilLAtomiK]

well i know for a fact that if you are in the LA city fire department you can get fired for smoking because you sign a contract when you get hired

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

How can you say that they agreed to the tests if the other choice was unemployment? That is the rough equivilent to saying mugging is consentual, after all you gave the guy your wallet. A choice made under threat is not really choosing is it? People seem to forget how important being employed is. No one really agreed to take that test, they were compelled to.

Just as an example, what if the company would only hire married men or women? Or only women who have had a baby by 30, you know to save on health costs? Look carefully through your lifestyle and decide which parts of it you think people should be allowed to compell you to change.

Also, I was asked what the difference was between this and a social club excluding you for vatious things. There are two basic differences. First, clubs are entirely optional, an income is not. I do not need a club to feed myself or cloth myself. Second, night clubs don't test you at the door. They may say don't smoke on our property, or don't come in unless you are dressed right, but they do not send people out to make sure you wear the right clothing elsewhere.

Employers should not have the right to invade and manipulate your personal life unless they can prove that it is nessisary, such as security checks for people who build bombs. People should not have to surrender personal liberties just to survive.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

well i know for a fact that if you are in the LA city fire department you can get fired for smoking because you sign a contract when you get hired

Fired for smoking, or fired for smoking on the job or in the firehouse?

[KilLAtomiK]

i belive its fired for smoking period but i dont see how they would enforce it il have to check back on you with the answe i know alot of people in the LAFD so it shouldnt take long the reasoning behind it is that they wwant evryone in top shope cause those hose packs and stuff are heavy

[Ichigo]

I think that's ridiculous. People should be able to do what they like in their personal lives.

[DharmaLion]

This same Michigan company also wants to fire overweight employees. Does this change anyone's opinion?

[DharmaLion]

However, the fact that they want to test these people not for narcotic drug use but to see if they smoked a cigarette on their way to work, or at the bar last night is just plain wrong.

Cigarettes are actually narcotics, they just aren't illegal.

[Tequila Zaire]

This same Michigan company also wants to fire overweight employees. Does this change anyone's opinion?

Not mine...it IS a health care company. Do I agree with the idea? No, I think it's a bad one since someone being overweight is not an automatic "you're not healthy" sign. It ranges from genetics to simple bad luck. Plus it sets a pretty unhealthy mind set that is already going through our society at an alarming rate "You gotta look good". Innocent sounding but it usually means "Look good like those photoshopped people in magazines". This company thinks it'll work for them though based on the kind of company they are...it's a hell of a gamble since you can easily alienate those you are trying to please.

It sounds like they are trying to force an image they may not be able to produce honestly.

[One Eyed Cat]

This same Michigan company also wants to fire overweight employees. Does this change anyone's opinion?

Absolutely not. I think Tequila makes a good point, however, it may well alienate those who it is trying to attract to the company's products. That is the perogative of this company. I think the best thing to do would be to boycott their products if you disagree with these policies.I just don't see obesity as a civil rights issue in this instance. It would change my opinion were it done by race, gender, religion, sexuality etc.

OEC

[DharmaLion]

Absolutely not. I think Tequila makes a good point, however, it may well alienate those who it is trying to attract to the company's products. That is the perogative of this company. I think the best thing to do would be to boycott their products if you disagree with these policies.I just don't see obesity as a civil rights issue in this instance. It would change my opinion were it done by race, gender, religion, sexuality etc.

OEC

I tend to agree with you both, but I also think that the owner of this private company has a point. is it OK for strip clubs to only hire (a generalization I know) skinny women or men...or a health club only hire skinny folks to do their arobics classes?

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

I tend to agree with you both, but I also think that the owner of this private company has a point. is it OK for strip clubs to only hire (a generalization I know) skinny women or men...or a health club only hire skinny folks to do their arobics classes?

In the case of strip clubs it is ok because appearance is part of the job. I think we can all agree that the job requirements for say an exotic dancer and a file clerk are a little different. Even the firedepantment has more justification on the smoking thing, since smoking can directly effect job performance.

I have to ask, if it is ok to fire an employee for a lifestyle choice like smoking what lifestyle choices should a company not be allowed to fire someone for?

[Morning Glory]

but smoking isn't just a lifestyle choice. neither is being "unnattractive" which is almost entirely subjective. yet it's ok for strip clubs to discriminate based on profitiable appearance, but not ok for a company to discriminate against individuals that choose to use a substance that causes decreased lung capacity and stamina IE: effects that limit their ability to work productively, not to mention an addiction that causes them to take their mind off what they are doing?
and if you don't believe it, if you're a regualr smoker, try going without one for a day and see how well you're able to concentrate on what you're doing.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

A strip club runs on the idea that people come there to see attractive people. Likewise the NBA runs on the idea that people come to see people who play basket ball well. If a person is not perfoming well because a lifestyle choice is decreasing thier production to an unacceptable level then you can fire them for decreased production. Likewise, most strip clubs would happily keep an unattractive stripper if she brought in customers, and fire them if they lost customers. Strip clubs are not really a good place to judge employment standards to either, since they break many of the normal employment rules.

I just remembered what this whole debate reminded me of, lie detectors. Laws were eventually passed to prevent employers from using polygraphs except under specific circumstances. Why is testing for smoking different? Both invade the employees personal life to save the employer money. Why is one worse than the other?

And back to one of my other points, what health risks should an emploer be able to fire you for? Smokers are generally villanized so it is easy to pick on them, or the over wieght. What about paticipating in sports? That can be pretty dangerous. Should they be allowed to fire people who drive more than 20 mile to work? The risks on that are frightening. Promiscuous sexual practice? Eating too much red meat? Being homosexual? Being genetically predisposed to cancer? Having diabetes? Eating raw oyseters? Not being married? Owning a pet? Where exactly is the line drawn on how much an employer can demand of your life away from the office?

[Morning Glory]

I'm sure they would judge you if they could for those things. the difference is that they can't tell those things by taking a blood or urine test. they have to be able to tell your work related hinderance on the job site, so as to be able to rationalise it being related to your job. if they could get away with spying on you at home, i'm sure they probbily would.