Company Fires Smokers

[Kadie]

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.

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/4125477/detail.html

[CO Liberal]

1. Is This Legal??

Any lawyers out there? :shrug:

[indianablue]

2. I guess it could fall under drug policy..

if cigarettes was added to their list of prohibited drugs.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ldf]

64. union slugs?

huh? if it weren't for unions we would all still be making minimum wage.

[RogueTrooper]

73. if it weren't for unions

there would be no minimum wage.

[saigon68]

220. Adios

Go back to your web site.

[HuckleB]

176. If it's a "right to work" state, then probably.

:(

[serryjw]

214. We are a 'right to work' state here in CO

I'm sure you would have no problem doing it in any state that is..My problem is not what he did..he certainly gave all employee fair notice and an opportunity to quit. BUT what about the alcoholic? What about the person that is 100 lbs overweight? Are we only going to hire 'perfect' people?

[Pirate Smile]

3. Oh, geez. I can see where this is headed. What about if you are

overweight? What if you are diabetic, do you have to disclose that to your potential employer?

This looks like trouble to me.

[diamond14]

21. reaguns FIRED Federal employees with diabetes, claiming that

diabetes made them a RISK to others....reaguns fired all AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS, CHEMISTS, TRUCK DRIVERS, etc. etc.....and put forward NASTY restrictions denying people with diabetes the ability to drive school buses, interstate trucks, government cars, fly planes, etc. etc.


it has taken many many years for people with diabetes to get their rights back....BILLIONS in lawsuits...and still....many are still unemployed under reaguns policies, and under bush*...they are DYING from lack of insulin or healthcare....or victims of police brutality resulting in death....


bush* has also withdrawn all Federal support for hiring people with disabilities, which include diabetes....many people with diabetes were pushed out of Federal employment since shrub stole the pResidency....WAKE UP AMERICA.....


first they came for people with diabetes, but you did NOTHING because you didn't have diabetes....NOW, they come for YOU....

[superconnected]

30. good post

I remember a little of that, but I needed that refresher.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. Smeagol?

[mogster]

65. Good post, agree

Didn't know this about Reagan.

Do you have more background info on this?

mogster - don't have diabetes, but DO smoke ;-)

[Red State Rebel]

66. I've never heard this, do you have a link??? n/t

[FizzFuzz]

83. I didn't know this!

:wow:
I am ashamed of my ignorance.


reagan; How very very disgusting.

[barb162]

118. excellent point, beside that, who is perfectly healthy and expects to

remain that way?

[Rockerdem]

77. I think this is different

Firing people or jacking up their insurance rates for a condition is different than this. This is preventable behavior. Employers and insurance companies dont have to expose themselves to risk because of a persons dangerous activities. For example, a stunt car drivers insurance is a lot higher than the regular commuters. For that matter, the insurance rates of a bad driver are higher than a good drivers, just because of the added risk. I dont see this anything other than an incentive to lower risk, and, hey, if a guy still wants to smoke, let him foot the higher bill. Do you want to subsidize his habit, do you?

[lynne]

100. No, I sure as hell don't want to subsidize his habit -

- nor the habit of drinkers, those who speed when they drive and those who have sex outside of a committed relationship. All three behaviours increase a persons chance of illness or injury and all three behaviours are elective.

What's the difference???

[me b zola]

136. What about a person with disabilities?

A person with CP or MS? The list could go on.

Should these people not have the right to work? Do you want them to settle for a disability check---oh, wait...that is currently being dismantled. :eyes:

[Rockerdem]

138. Speeders and some drinkers DO pay higher insurance when nabbed

I say pay for the risks that you take. I dont want some skydiver/hang glider badgering me to pay for his thrills gotten from doing dangerous things. And as far as those who want to dally on their partners on the sly, fuck them. They'll get theirs, and it will be worse than $50-100 a month from the insurance company.

[Acryliccalico]

161. Well lynne if you let them determine who they can and can't ostracize

they won't stop and then they will be discriminating on more and more things. Eventually they will be discriminating on hair color, or color of eyes. You have to understand that FREEDOM is a fragile thing. We have to stick up for the rights of the ones who have problems weather they are elective or not. Usually the elective problems ie; Alcohol, drugs, smoking, diabetes and so on are caused by issues that those people can not control let alone cure.

[lynne]

222. That is exactly my point -

- that if this door is opened, it will never be shut. The drinkers will be fired next - then the obese - then the speeders, as they are all "elective" behaviors for the most part.

It will never end if we allow it to gain hold.

[vduhr]

115. I think you missed the point...

These people were "fired" for smoking, even for smoking on their own time!

[me b zola]

134. I don't believe that they will stop at 'preventable' behavior.

This is truly scary stuff.

[AuntiBush]

162. Thank you!

You took the words right out of my mouth! No kidding! Seen it on the news earlier and I couldn't believe it.

Doesn't seem to be legal!?!?

Shouldn't this fall under "Discrimination." I know someone that sued local, on up to the Supreme Courts and won all the way! It had to do with what he did on his time away from the job. Can't these employees hire a law team? And don't they use prior cases for referrals?

Oh. Wait. That was before Nov 2, 2004. Shoot! Freedom sucks, huh.

See. Tort Reform & Caps give BIG CORP'S a ticket to ride all over American's.

[pokercat999]

230. I can't say it often enough.

The real enemy of the American people is Corporate Un-America. You are correct of course any "unhealthy" habits or lifestyle will soon be an excuse to fire someone.

[merwin]

4. This has already happened here in WA State n/t

[uppityperson]

9. Where? n/t

[merwin]

11. Some medical offices in the seattle area.

[uppityperson]

48. Thanks. While banning smoking at work is ok, not outside work

I can see banning smoking at work, making sure you don't smell like smoke at work, etc. But what you do in your own time is your own business. I don't care if it's a medical place. Private time is private time.

I hate hate HATE massaging people who smoke and smell of it and hate having to air my room out afterwards. Ick, ugh and yuck. I can "not work" on people who smell like smoke, but if they smoke and don't smell of it, I don't think I can ban them.

Private time is private time.

[Skittles]

49. what about those with just plain old BO?

nt

[uppityperson]

50. Hold nose, eat cough drops, advise bathing next time

Feet though can be bad. Try massing feet that have been in boots for 8+hours. Oh dear. I really appreciate people who wash their feet first. Way appreciate. But smoke is just rank. Makes me smell for hours, yuck and yuck.

[Skittles]

53. there is just no way in hell I could feel up strangers for a living

I'd rather work in a gas station. I realize someone has to do it, I'm just glad it's not me. :o

[uppityperson]

62. Most don't stay stangers for long, though some are pretty strange.

And, by the way, I do massage therapy, not the kind you might get on vacation and pay extra for. Couldn't pay me enough for that either.

[me b zola]

58. Heavily perfumed people offend me

When can we fire them?

[Dulcinea]

111. People who crack gum offend me.

Worse than smoking, any day!

[barb162]

119. or the ones who chew with their mouths open

[left15]

167. depends where you live.

Illinois has employment at will. So unless you are under a contract, you can ne fired for no reason at all, or because of too much perfume, or because your a Packers fan. Execept for race, gender, religion, and sexual orentiation, you can be fired for anything.

edit: also, can't fire someone for a disability.

[jswordy]

109. "Private time is private time."

That hasn't been legally true since drug testing was phased in to regulate a behavior that most often occurs offsite. The attack on our privacy is massive, crosses party lines, and is cancerous at this time.

The words you speak on your company phone, even in private conversations, belong to the company and can be legally monitored. You can be fired for what you say privately. Your emails and all other actions from a company puter are property of the company, and can be monitored.

At home, if you use a phone that is wireless to the base, your conversations as they travel between the handset and base are NOT legally protected. They can be wiretapped without a court order.

Add in the ability of the cops to use drug sniffing dogs at traffic stops minus probable cause, and you have a vastly whittled down privacy right on every front.

[serryjw]

215. What about the person that takes drugs

on his 'private time'? This could potentially effect everyone? BTW.I am a smoker!!

[pinniped]

5. They are probably planning to add alcohol next.

I don't think this sounds right.

[LosinIt]

14. they should, they already won't hire people if they smoke pot

so why not alcohol?

And what about fat people, their health care costs could also be greater than that of a normal weight person.

And what about people who don't exercise?

It goes on and on.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

25. At least pot is illegal

But firing people for using a legal substance is beyond nuts.

[gulfcoastliberal]

151. You either have the right of privacy on your own time or you don't,

regardless of whether what you ingest is legal or not. The drug testing industry is worth billions every year. Workers are subject to pretty much whatever kind of rules a company wants to implement. The last place I worked at didn't hire smokers and it was a phone/internet company. Next they'll fire anyone with high cholesterol because they eat too much red meat.

[mcscajun]

38. The health costs for a fat person could also be less…

…than a “normal weight” person.

"Could" doesn't qualify as a reason to exclude someone.

[Red State Rebel]

67. Obese people are already discriminated against in jobs

I saw a show about obesity where they had conducted research having people with identical qualifications apply for the same job, obese person was turned down EVERY time.

[mcscajun]

102. You'll get no argument from me on that…

When I was first hired in the early 70's, my firm wouldn't cover my health insurance for the first year, and I wasn't all that 'overweight', either. I just retired after 32 years, having put on more weight over the years. I cost them next to nothing in health care costs, was rarely absent except for the flu, and only had one surgery 'on their dime/time'. So there.

[BiggJawn]

26. No, not Alcohol.

Too many CEO's and Evil HR Directors like their drinkee-poos, y'know...

Drunk drivers kill more people than smoke drivers, but just GUESS who the pariah is.

I can't STAND to be around somebody who smells like a nightclub's trash barrel! Stale booze, Yech!

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. I heard Sprint was planning on

doing this also. But that was several years ago and they have laid off about 30,000 employees since then. So maybe they scrapped their fire the smokers plan.

[LosinIt]

15. or maybe they DID use that as one of their criteria

and just didn't publicize it.

[youngdem]

7. What next?

The right to drink Coffee in the privacy of ones home?

[0007]

34. ....and making all the folks that comply wear Mormon underwear

[mtnester]

86. Or eat a Twinkie, with all the shades pulled

this country is getting out of hand

[me b zola]

139. Next thing you know

They will be sticking their noses into our bedroom to make sure they approve of our sexual behavior....oh, wait, these sick bastids have been doing that for years.

[kuozzman]

8. This is supposed to become quite common. n/t

[sweetheart]

10. Wow! That's draconian

I can't help but see that as a criminal thing, that, against the EOE
legislation. If i go to holland for the weekend, get stoned off my ass
and come back and get a piss test on tuesday morning, have i committed
any offense?... no. So, this enforcement of off hours laws is arbitrary
and horrendous. I'm sure those smokers are better off not working at
a company of assholes anyways. Surely they'll be happy with health
insurance before they go bankrupt. Bad karma and all...

[eyesroll]

12. In Wisconsin, use of legal products on one's own time is a protected

activity...unless said product interferes directly with the mission of the employer. (i.e. the American Lung Association doesn't need to hire smokers, but most other employers do.)

[LiberalFighter]

32. It is also illegal in Indiana

A business owner didn't want his employees smoking or drinking. State Supreme Court ruled that he couldn't fire employees for legal activities on personal time. Or at least smoking outside the workplace.

Best Lock
1989

[makhno]

13. Interesting

Could there be differences in health-care costs based on, say, gender or perhaps one's ethnic or social group? Loathsome as many people find smokers, this is perhaps not a road society wants to travel.

[mrdmk]

17. Back down the road to Prohibition

How some people do forget or never took a history lesson.

Speaking of history lessons some may or may not know that the original Prohibition of the 1920's was in fact sponsored by corporations, in the background of course. This thinking was for the working person to produce more while on company time (i.e. not to come into work with a hangover). Of course it took the crash of Wall Street to make Big Business look like a bunch of idiots and eventually have the law removed. But, Big Business being back in the saddle once again, we are about to revisit the past. So D.U.'ers, forward to the past.

This rant is from an ex-smoker.

[Fovea]

27. Big Business back on top

And setting up for another big crash.

[SOS]

78. And as prohibition

was easily circumvented, so will these policies.
Just start chewing nicotine gum right before the test.

[serryjw]

18. Ted Turner did this years ago

He would not hire a smoker and gave free treatment to any one whom wanted to keep their job by stopping. There is really logic to it with company paid health care that soars because of smoking related illnesses. I'm a smoker and I really do understand.

[genieroze]

46. Couldn't they require smokers to pay the extra money for insurance and

then offer to help them quit so their rates would go down? Yes I am a smoker.

[jocal]

70. That is exactly what my employer does

If they fired all the smokers, they'd lose some of the best talent.

[RobinA]

87. Any Actual Proof

out there that smokers eat up an above average number of company health care dollars?

[American Tragedy]

54. Should this also apply to obese people?

People with diabetes? Crohn's disease?

[alarimer]

107. let's fire everyone who gets sick

I am sure cancer and heart patients cost a lot of money. While I do like smoking and don't want it near me, I have seen no evidence that the rise in my health care costs have anything to do with smoking.

And even if it does cost more to insure snokers, why don't companies offer incentives to get people to stop? Well I guess they's get to keep their jobs.

This is insane- it will never end. When will companies start asking for DNA to see if you have an conditions you might pass on to your kids if you have any.

[serryjw]

137. Robin & American tragedy

Robin.....If most heart disease and many cancers are directly attributed to smoking; I think logic prevails that health care cost are much higher because of smokers

An article was written by some cartiologist a while back and any child born today can easily live to 100 and be healthy and vital if they did a few basic things..
1) don't smoke
2) get reasonable amount of exercise daily
3) eat sensibly
4) no recreational drugs or sensible amount of alcohol
5) learn coping skills for stress

I am a midle age Breast Cancer survivor, with asthma and I still smoke. Is this smart? I know I'm stupid and not going to defend the stupidity.

American tadedy.....These are genetic diseases and with the exception of Type 2 diabetes there is nothing one can do.

[isit2008yet]

16. Its just a matter of time for corporations petition

congress for access to medical records. Health care is expensive so reducing the cost comes down to employee behavior. Since our current GOP congress is enacting new regs and programs on behalf of large drug companies we can't expect them to cap the costs of health care. One of the complaints about Bush* tort reform is that it doesn't require health insurers to lower costs if they do cap awards. Besides that, the tort cap the Bush wants represents less than 2% of health care costs. Welcome to the new "ownership society" which is Bush speak for "corporation owned" and if you don't suffer from diabetes, arthritis, cancer, or some other malady, you might be employable.

[SoCalDem]

23. I guess the "unacceptable" folks must be "eliminated" too

because if they lose their jobs because they are fat, smokers, have diabetes, high blood pressure, use alcohol, or any number of "other" identifiable health-liabilities, and they are technically "employable" at "other" jobs that are impossible to even GET, just HOW are they expected to support themselves and their families?

Of course there might be a "waiver" that they might be asked to sign, removing just THEM from the company coverage.. You know ... the "responsibility" clause.. Then they could be the "cheapest" workers in the workforce..

Welfare is not part of the "ownership" society, and the powers that be want to further extend the "retirement ages" for their "watered down" version of SS..

Seems to me, that there are likely to be gazillions of 40-60 year old people who will be the "new homeless" of the 21st Cebtury..

Nice Legacy, Dumb-ass..

[TygrBright]

47. This is not so far-fetched...

...considering that little bootsie's family has a long history of support and involvement with creepy eugenics stuff.

Yes, eugenics. The pseudo-"science" that was supposed to help Hitler create a "master race."

So, if we just kick all the "unfit" people off health insurance, deny them jobs, induct their offspring into the military as cannon fodder, eliminate all social safety net programs, etc....

....how long will it take to eliminate the "undesirables" and leave America with a population of lean, fit, healthy, "genetically sound" individuals?

Oh, yeh. And the Catholic Church and the fundie nutjobs are worried about abortion and euthanasia?????

Talk about fiddling while Rome burns!

incendiarily,
Bright

[havocmom]

31. Decades ago, wasn't it the Ford Co that would send inspectors to homes

of employees to check on lifestyle and whether healthy foods, and so on were in the homes? There was some large company which insisted on the right to do that to employees homes. Look for those days to return. Corporate rights trump privacy now

[brook]

35. I think it must have been...

some other company.. My father worked for Ford from the 30's til the 60's. We never experienced anything like that.

So far I haven't had my bosses come after me for smoking - but I have been given a couple of warnings about expressing my political opinions.

[Occulus]

41. Actually I remember hearing that it WAS Ford

from http://www.uaw892.org/news/november2000/presiden.htm :

"The five-dollar profit sharing plan was designed by the company to include only those who were "worthy" and who would "not debauch the additional money he receives." The rules governing eligibility were:

"Every male employee over 22 years of age who leads a clean, sober and industrious life, and who can prove he has thrifty habits, is eligible to share in profits.

"Every married man, no matter what age, who can qualify as to sobriety, industry and cleanliness can participate if he is living with his family.



"Every young man under 22 years of age who is the sole support of a widowed mother, or next of kin, and who leads a clean and sober and industrious life, can participate.

"All women employed by the company who are deserving and who have some relatives solely dependent upon them for support can receive benefits through profit sharing."

To insure only deserving workers received the money, Ford established the Sociological Department to administer the program and to investigate the home lives of workers. Investigators from the Sociological Department visited workers' homes and suggested ways to achieve the company's standards for "better morals," sanitary living conditions, and "habits of thrift and saving."

I guess it's true?

I'd like to add: those are some of the rules Dominionists would like us all to live by. By force, if necessary.

I found the above by doing a search on Google for Ford +employees +behavior +history.

[brook]

145. Thanks!

Read your link and some others. Never too old to learn. I had not been aware of this - and from what I read the intrusiveness was gone by the time my Dad went to work for Ford.

What I can say is that the company offered me a full scholarship to the Ivy League College of my choice and when Dad retired, his income and medical coverage were just about what they were while he was working. After he died, those benefits went "in full" to my Mom. He also left us over 1000 shares of stock.At least then if you sold your soul, you got 'something' for it. Not so today.

Again, thanks for pointing me to that information.

[Patiod]

168. I had mis-diagnosed panic attacks one summer

and I asked the doctor not to write down her diagnosis of "bipolar disorder". I respectfully disagreed with her call and refused any meds or further investigation; since I was there for a sinus infection, and had simply mentioned the panic attacks, she didn't need to write in the code for bipolar to get paid. She agreed.

There was no WAY I wanted some incompetent IM's wild guess that my panic attacks were an indication that I was bipolar (?!) to go on records that employers would be likely to see.

And I believe that HIPA or not, employers can get at them if they want.

[lanlady]

20. this has been a long-time policy at CNN

Although Turner made exceptions for "stars" like Larry King. 2 friends had to quit smoking when they joined CNN in the early 90s, on health insurance grounds. (Plus, isn't Jane Fonda a big anti-smoking crusader?)

[Danmel]

22. This just seems excesively intrusive to me

What else can they search your body for? Can they do a DNA sample and determine whether you are at risk for a genetic disease? Seems like a way too slippery slope. I can understand discouraging smoking, providing courses and support ot enable people to quit, but firing them for smoking at home? What about eating a bacon cheeseburger? Riding a motorcycle? Having unsafe sex? Where would it end?

[Redstone]

24. Oh, yes.

DNA samples are next. You just wait.

Carrying a gene that indicates a predisposition for breast cancer? No job for you, lady. And no health insurance, life insurance, car insurance, or homeowner's insurance, either.

Can't risk the corporation's profits, you know. Bad for America if we do.

Redstone

[SoCalDem]

55. If you have EVER had a blood test

can you be sure that your "samples & slides" were disposed of? What if they are all just flied away waiting for the time when it's acceptable for those smaples to be "sold" to the highest bidder...just like your name address, phone numbers are currently "marketed".?

[Rush1184]

39. Ever seen the movie Gattaca?

It is a must watch movie dealing with the subject of DNA testing and discrimination.

[Enraged_Ape]

90. Excellent film

And it gets more chillingly plausible every day.

[mcscajun]

104. Yes, I've seen that one — and I think we're heading there.

Slowly, a step at a time, and with only minimal resistance from the population at large.

[KTM]

28. Considering what Weyco does

This is not as draconian as it may seem. I actually went to their web site to ensure I never purchase anything they make or sell, but I may not have a choice. They are a Health & Welnness benefit management company. I'll still do what I can do not give them any money, but I'm afraid employees have little to no choice when it comes to their employers choice of healt care companies.

On a side note, Weyco is partnered with "Medications Canada," saying "Save time and money by using Medications Canada for your maintenance drugs. By visiting the Medications Canada web site, you can find out if a specific drug is available and the cost of the drug."

[proudbluestater]

29. This is HORSESHIT

[TahitiNut]

36. Older people have higher health insurance costs, too.

As do black males (hypertension). This company should have its business license revoked.

When they do blood tests, maybe they'll fire those with high cholesterol?

[Carolab]

37. Say, um, DOESN'T LAURA BUSH SMOKE?

Okay, Laura, you're FIRED!

[Kimber Scott]

40. Does she work for Weyco? nt

[Carolab]

43. No, she works for the taxpayers of the United States.

I don't want to pay HER higher health costs because she smokes, either.

So, LAURA: YOU'RE FIRED!

[Red State Rebel]

68. Technically I don't think she's an employee...n/t

[Carolab]

129. I didn't say she was. But we pay for her "services" as First Lady. n/t

[wildflower]

42. Will this make people finally see...

the problem with privatized health care?

I guess the counterargument would be that if everyone is covered by government health care, that gives people an excuse to be unhealthy as they feel like while being on the dole for the medical costs.

But it's odd: in some ways the liberal and conservative viewpoints almost seem to switch here. People not being allowed to smoke by a company would, I think, be construed by conservatives as liberal "nanny state" coersion. But in defending privatized health care, they'd have to support the measure.

I wonder where it will all end up.

-wildflower

[American Tragedy]

56. That's bull.

People have a vested interest in their own health regardless of whether they can afford health care. In fact, financially secure individuals are overwhelmingly more health-conscious than their indigent counterparts.

It's not like some rich person decides that they might as well drink themselves to oblivion, now that they can afford a liver transplant.

And if people do indeed become terribly ill and can't afford the medical costs, they know full well that they won't be turned away in the emergency room.

[wildflower]

57. I'm bleary-eyed (not enough coffee this AM :)...

But I think you're saying the right-wing argument (nanny state, etc.) would be bull? I'm confused. Time for some more :donut: I think. :)

-wildflower

[American Tragedy]

110. I'm sorry, I should have clarified

I was responding to the following:

<<the counterargument would be that if everyone is covered by government health care, that gives people an excuse to be unhealthy as they feel like while being on the dole for the medical costs.>>

[wildflower]

132. Thanks...yeah, I think that would be the right-wing argument,

though I'm not sure, and your argument against it is definitely sound (that people are health-conscious whether or not they can afford care).

But wouldn't some right-wingers still say that people who get free health care wouldn't have an incentive to eat right, etc.? (Especially those who believe that fast food has no part in the obesity problem, because that problem is all about personal responsibility?)

-wildflower

[Georgian2005]

152. This isn't privatized health care

It's not privatized healthcare. It's the government forcing the employer to cover the healthcare of individuals.

Let me say first that I believe (and hope) that public outrage will quash this trend. Also, some here are comparing smoking to diabetes and homosexuality in terms of what companies are looking to cut. Remember that smokers make a choice to hurt their state of health.

Back to my point above, this is why it's so expensive to buy healthcare on an individual basis. The government forces and subsidizes companies to cover health care costs for employees. As a result, companies look for ways to cut these costs, and smokers are what you might call low-hanging fruit.

If instead individuals were the ones that were subsidized, the market would focus on them and not the companies. That would mean better individual service, lower cost, and more tax breaks for covering your own health care. It would also mean you wouldn't have to be employed to have adequate health care (provided that you save enough money to cover this expense while you are unemployed).

I realize that not everyone will be able to or willing to pay for their own individual health care coverage. That's why I think a two-tier system (a real one), where uncovered individuals are covered by the government, and those that can pay for their own healthcare can do so on an individual basis.

This would at least limit somewhat the tax liability for tax paying citizens, and I believe that those that earn (or addmittedly in some cases, inherit) the ability to pay for better health care can do so, but everyone still has a safety net.

[wildflower]

156. Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear in my original post.

I meant privatized health care as opposed to single-payer (government-covered) health care for all individuals.

My point was that we have health care through private insurance companies, and costs are going up. Thus employers can't afford them and start dropping high-risk employees, such as smokers. This wouldn't happen under a law that every single citizen is covered by the government.

-wildflower

[Georgian2005]

159. Thanks for clarification

I still would prefer to pay for my health insurance than to have it handed to me by the govt, which I always resent and don't trust, if I can afford it, so I support a two-tier system as opposed to universal. I don't want my trip to the doctor's office to resemble a visit to the DMV or the Post Office, no offense to the government employees here. Your thoughts?

[wildflower]

166. I see what you're saying, though I'm thinking of people who...

can't afford to buy health insurance. As for what it would be like, I guess I have no reference since we've never had it here, but I understand what you mean about the bureaucracy.

-wildflower

[genieroze]

44. What's next, caffeine, cholesterol levels, political affiliation? eom

[NuttyFluffers]

45. i'm so fed up with the direction america is moving in...

i so want to leave... must hit those books hard.

*sigh* ... must... escape... Fortress America....

[Withywindle]

51. Horrifying....

...particularly for the "slippery slope" aspects. You know they're just dying to drop all sorts of people from the rolls. Drinking and obesity are next.


But damn, if they tried this where I work almost all of my department would be gone.

[Scairp]

52. I don't think this will fly

For all the reasons mentioned, diabetes, drinking alcohol, poor eating habits causing obesity, etc. What, a person gets cancer and they can fire you over the cost of your treatment? I am the last person in the world to defend smoking or cigarettes, but you cannot go down this road without affecting a huge number of insured workers who have nothing to do with smoking. What if you live with someone who smokes but you don't? Second hand smoke is suppose to cause health problems too. I see a huge lawsuit and years of court cases ahead over stuff like this.

[spunky]

59. Such crap. You can't just pick on smokers

I've read several times recently that obesity is about to become the number 1 cause of death in the US, surpassing smoking. So if they are not going to let people smoke (off work) then they need to fire all the fat people, all the people who eat fast food more than once a week, have a box of twinkies in their house, etc. etc. etc.

And while they are at it, better fire anyone with genetic predisposition to heart disease, stroke, cancer etc.

Just because people think smoking is nasty doesn't mean you can discriminate against smokers. I think its nasty to watch someone eat a big fat greasy fast food hamburger, but I can't walk around calling overweight people fatty. That's insenstive. F*!@ing double standard.

[Samurai_Writer]

60. BMC Software tests for nicotine...

in their pre-employment drug screening. Have been doing it for a decade, at least. They advertise themselves as a non-smoking company, and make no qualms about doing it to lower their medical benefits costs. I actually liked working there, because as an asthmatic, if I'm in the same room with a smoker (doesn't have to be smoking, just the scent of smoke clinging to them), I start wheezing badly. I had fewer sick days because of my asthma there than anywhere else I worked.

[Suziq]

71. Yes - But You are Missing the Point!

Every public building in New York City is non-smoking. The point of this post is that companies want to monitor what you do OUTSIDE the job on your own time.

My company charges smokers (which I am one) an extra cost on their health insurance which I have no problem paying. My problem is when are they going to charge people who are overweight more for their health insurance? :smoke:

[spunky]

76. Exactly. I smoke, but I'm a vegetarian and otherwise in good health

If I would have to pay more for insurance to work somewhere, so should an overweight person.

[dmallind]

92. Overweight is not a valid comparison

The risks associated with being overweight are simply based on increased incidence of certain conditions within the population - in other words indirect causation.

Smoking on the other hand causes, directly, damage to lungs and other tissues.

One other difference is that "overweight" is difficult to define. For example I am a former football player and weightlifter. While I am unequivocally overweight and make no bones about it (partly because so few of my bones are visible - humor ! :-)), I remember a conversation I had with my physician:

Dave you need to lose weight - you are WAY into the obese level of this ideal weight chart (the new version based on BMI)

Yep I agree - what do I need to weigh to be not overweight?

173 lbs

Geez Doc I weigh 275. What's my body fat percentage we just tested?

28% Dave

So in other words at 0% body fat I'd still weigh 200lbs and be obese? Even though 0% bodyfat is neither possible nor desireable?

Yep

Well what use is the overweight chart?

Well not much for you.........

[Suziq]

93. Being Overweight CAN Cause . . .

high blood pressure, can lead to diabetes, stress on the heart which can cause a heart attack, etc. Direct, indirect - no difference as far as I am concerned.

IMO, overweight people are just as much a burden on the health care system as smokers. Not every smoker develops problems from smoking.

:smoke:

[dmallind]

96. You fail to see the difference though

Nope not all smokers develop symptoms from smoking related conditions. However all smokers - like all drinkers and I'm one of them so this is not a partisan issue - DO have their bodies affected negatively by smoking. Smoking causes tissue damage - in EVERY smoker. Whether that damage ever needs treatment is arguable, but the damage is not. Being overweight does not cause damage in EVERY fat person.

And you still face the question of overweight as it should be defined. If I weighed 210lbs I'd be rated well into "obese" (I'm 5'10). However at 210 lbs I'd have about 5% body fat - a remarkably low and athletic figure. I would be in better shape than 99.9% of the population, but still obese. It is physically impossible for me not to be overweight.

Again I do NOT support the idea here, but lashing out at other perceived risk groups is not the answer.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

218. That is scientifically incorrect...only smokers with a clinically

significant smoking history have the tissue damage you allege. It is best to avoid use of the word ALL when making a scientific point.

[eridani]

164. No, being insulin resistant leads to weight gain

and eventually diabetic. You have it assbackwards.

[spunky]

103. I'd say obesity leads directly to health problems

stroke, heart attack, knee problems, diabetes, etc.

According to Tommy Thompson (from webmd http://my.webmd.com/content/article/67/79946.htm)

* We spend $155 billion a year on tobacco-related illnesses, and 400,000 Americans die from those illnesses each year.
* We spend $132 billion a year on diabetes-related illnesses, and 200,000 Americans are dying each year. You can change those individuals who are pre-diabetic, which amounts to 16 more million Americans, by encouraging them to lose 10 to 15 pounds, and by walking 30 minutes a day five or six times a week.
* We spend $117 billion a year on obesity-related illnesses, from which 300,000 Americans die. Upwards to two-thirds of Americans are fat and obese.

So, that seems to be 300,000 people dying directy from obesity.

Heavier Kids Face Health Dangers Early

Health problems associated with adult obesity

Includes diabetes, breathing problems, cancers, and digestive problems.

[dmallind]

108. Ermm no

Again you seem to think I am making a value judgment or that we should compare these two risks to see which is worse. That is irrelevant.

There is a reason why insurers actively offer smoking and non-smoking rates yet do so much less (NOT never)with obese and non-obese rates.

You seem to think I'm arguing that obesity carries no risk. That is not my point at all.

The difference is it is merely a risk factor. People can die of strokes, diabetes, heart attack etc and be scrawny rails all their lives. Heck Jim Fixx springs to mind of course. Am I more likely to have these than a person with my exact characteristics other than weight? Absolutely - my risk is higher.

BUT obesity causes no tissue damage - no direct attack on the body. There is nothing whatsoever damaging to health that happens to ALL overweight people. I don't know how I can express this more clearly. Smoking causes damage to tissues - period - every smoker - no exceptions. This is not the case with overweight people.

I'm not speaking at all of which is riskier or whether obesity increases risk. That's inarguable.

One other wrinkle in this is that there is a huge overlap in the conditions where obesity elevates risk and where smoking also does. Strokes. Heart attacks. Certain cancers.

The difference between risk and damage is not just sophistry. It is impossible to say if I drop dead tomorrow of a heart attack whether I would have done so had I not been overweight. It is statistically speaking true beyond question I am increasing my probability of one, but aggregate statistics do not necessarily imply discrete causation. While the same can be said of many smoking related diseases, what cannot be argued is the tissue damage smoking does. In other words it's MUCH easier to prove in individual cases that smoking causes damage than it is to prove in individual cases that weight caused a heart attack.

No value judgments, no comparisons on which is worse, no argument that one should face discrimination while the other doesn't is or has been implied. All my point is is that overweight status and smoking cannot be compared in a valid way in this instance. That makes neither of them fair game for firings and makes neither of them more or less damaging, merely different. That's all I'm trying to show.

[Scairp]

94. Gee

Why do you bother being a vegan if you smoke? It won't make the chances of your getting lung cancer any lower. If your gonna smoke, might as well just go for the gusto and eat high fat, high calorie meals and drink like a fish. At least you would have some fun in the short time you'll be here.

[spunky]

105. I'm vegetarian (not vegan) for moral, not health reasons

I smoke because I smoke, and I will likely quit sometime in the future, not because of health, but because they are about to up the cigarette tax another $1 in my state. Can't afford it. (You don't see them taxing fast food though. . . )

I don't care that its bad for me. We all die. I could get hit by a bus tomorrow. . .

[denverbill]

61. Check out the freeper reaction.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327482/posts?page=1,50

Pretty damned funny if you ask me. They have absolutely no problem with companies discriminating against women, gays, or minorities, but by Jebus keep your mitts off of my cigarettes!!

Funny thing is they think this is somehow 'leftist'. What the hell could be more right wing that a corporation worrying about it's own bottom line at the expense of it's employees?

The freepers are all for calling a lawyer on this case:). Damned trial lawyers.

[Georgian2005]

155. Freeper Reaction

What's interesting is that both sites have people on either side of the fence. A divisive issue, smoking.

Ever notice how poorly formatted that site is compared to this one?

[ncrainbowgrrl]

158. Hi Georgian2005!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Georgian2005]

160. Thanks!

[arwalden]

63. Did Their Smoking Affect Their Ability To Do Their Job?

If not, then this shouldn't have happened. Could the company have just not offered health care coverage to smokers? Could the company have just included the difference in the worker's paycheck, and let the worker arrange from their own health insurance? Could the company have charged a higher rate for smokers' health insurance?

[Red State Rebel]

69. It all has to do with Health Insurance Costs, not jobs performance n/t

[arwalden]

74. If That's ALL It Is, Then The Company Should Have Considered...

... just refusing to pay for their insurance. Or, given the smoker a "rebate" that was the equivalent of what the company was willing to pay (contribute to) the health care premium of their non-smokers.

[Red State Rebel]

114. Very sensible answer

but since when are large Corps always sensible? (Speaking as a small corp here)

[brook]

146. Yeah.

I'm surrounded at work by non-smokers (all on Medicare and some on Medicaid) who are grossly overweight and diabetic. They love their sugar, fries and sodas and are in a doctor's office at least once a month.

I smoke. I work. My doctor hardly knows me.

This shite is just another diversion from the 'magicians' feeding you Zoloft, Vioox, abstinance and Leviticus. Last night I heard a town council person complain about being an asmatic, wishing they could ban all fireplaces in town.
I'm allergic to rampant stupidity. In today's America, there's no cure for it.

[Theres-a]

153. Yee-Ha and Amen! nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

72. Why not just charge them more money to make up for the increased costs?

They could do the same thing for fat people.

[sarcasmo]

75. First test you for Cigarettes, then a test to see if you are gay.

It's not far away folks.

[Georgian2005]

154. Remember "Philadelphia?"

By the way, what do you actually know about Che Guevara? I see his icon by your name. You think it's bad in the US? What do you think it's like in Cuba.

[davidinalameda]

79. I have strong allergies

and my office has a "policy" on people who use cologne and perfume

it's not official but I'm sure it could be made to

I have the same reaction around people who smoke as I do with people who wear cologne/perfume

I would love to see my office ban smoking on company time

it affects my health and I'm sure I'm not the only one

[davis_islander]

126. Affect your health? You need to stay home.

Or invest in a plastic bubble. Not actual smoke mind you, but the mere SMELL of smoke on someone's clothing or breath aggravates your allergies? Sure, it may smell OFFENSIVE to you, but a lot of things in life are offensive. Do you have the first right of refusal on the soap someone uses? The toothpaste they use? I think there might be a little intolerance going on here, or you need to look into getting on disability if your health is so easily affected by smells.

[0007]

80. This is insane!

I don't smoke and I don't care who does as long the smoker doesn't smoke in my face.

But to fire one that has nothing to do with the quality of work they do is nuts.

[egoprofit]

81. who cares? cigarettes are terrible.... IMO

cigarettes killed my grandparents and my uncle is dieing of lung cancer. so guess what??? who cares!!! cigarettes KILL PEOPLE. STOP SMOKING!!! FAMILY MEMBERS WILL HURT WHEN YOU DIE...

even though, of course, i definately think this is an INVASION of privacy... but these days companies can do whatever they want.

[FizzFuzz]

85. and for the smokers, so that when they DO have a health crisis, YOU will

be forced to care for your loved one, without healthcare.

Nice.

(but, I agree, smoking sucks. I quit a year ago, hallelujah)

[NashVegas]

130. Nice Avatar

I'm sure you only ingest via brownies, and no traces of resin could be found in your lungs.

Yes. Cigarettes kill people. I'm sorry your grandparents died, but they would have died with or without the smokes, and your family members would still have missed them.

Companies can only do what they want as long as we, the people, let them. If we, as a group, put our ethics where our mouths are on a regular basis, they wouldn't be able to. Unfortunately, we are kept from uniting often by these very same corporate entities who set us against each other on these quibbling matters and distract us from paying attention to our ever-eroding civil liberties and democracy - and from doing anything about it.

As long as smokers and the overweight are yelling at each other in this very thread, we aren't uniting to help each other fight these intrusions.

[John_H]

172. LOL!

[FizzFuzz]

82. what other groups have higher health costs? They'll be fired next.

African Americans? Women?

Bet they won't come after Drinkers, though. Ya think?

[Rockerdem]

84. I wouldnt be surprised if drinkers are next.

This is about risky, preventable behavior, not race or gender issues.

[FizzFuzz]

89. I know, and yet.....

maybe I've become too cynical...

But when I think of office Christmas parties and the fancy fetes provided for the CEO's, and cocktail parties.....I just have difficulty imagining them focusing on their own actions.

I think, (but may be mistaken) that smoking is more widespread among poor and working class demographic.......

[dmallind]

101. It is indeed - but so is drinking

Alcohol use also correlates negatively with income level - at least high alcohol use.

Drinking may be a tougher sell not because of the putative power of the executive class, which is often less than is imagined, but because it has fewer easily perceived negative external effects.

Right or wrong (mostly wrong in this case at least) smoking is an easier target to attack because smoking impacts more than the smoker in the odor issue and the "gauntlet" of smokers at the entrance to almost all workplaces. Drinking does not directly impact others and so is reviled less by those who do not do it (before you bring up drunken driving fatalities rememeber that that, however tragic, is not a universally experienced direct impact nor, incidentally, are the statistics bandied about it even remotely valid).

So smokers will indeed bear the brunt. This is not the right action for a company to take. I'd much prefer them to simply pass on higher rates if need be and offer intervention efforts FOC to smoking employees (many companies DO offer drinking intervention efforts yet not as many do this for smoking).

[lynne]

117. Drinkers SHOULD be next -

- if this is truly about risky personal behavior that can increase your chance of accident, injury or illness.

Then comes obese people.
People with bad driving records.
People who have sex outside of a committed relationship.
Homosexuals.

This needs to be stopped NOW before it snowballs and we're all out of work.

[NashVegas]

131. They Won't Be - Heavy Drinkers, Maybe

But overall, there are too many medically proven benefits to moderate alcohol consumption. It has its own god!

[TexasSissy]

88. Is homosexual behavior next?

Just like smoking, homosexual behavior puts one at more risk for certain things than others. So is it okay to subject the employees to physical or mental tests to determine if they engage in homosexual behavior, and then either fire them if they do or if they refuse the test?

How about those who drink more than one drink of alcohol a day?

How about those who are "type A" driven people, who are known to be high risk for certain stress related conditions, much more so than others?

How about those who eat too much saturated fat? A test can determine if someone imbibes in that too much.

How about someone who eats too much and becomes dangerously overweight? Fire them?

How about someone who DOESN'T DO what s/he should? Like exercise aerobically three times a week? Studies have shown that such people are at much higher risk for a variety of ailments than those who exercise.

The list could go on and on. Once companies start firing people for "behavior" after hours, it's a free for all. I don't know about you, but although I don't condone smoking, I think this sets a dangerous precedent. It's just not right. And if some think it is, wait until they come after whatever behavior YOU do after hours (none of us is perfect; we ALL do something that injures our health).

[arwalden]

116. Oh... That's So Wrong... On So Many Levels

>> Just like smoking, homosexual behavior puts one at more risk for certain things than others. <<

Exactly what "homosexual behavior" were you referring to? Or were you talking about unsafe sex practices (which are not part-and-parcel of being gay). It's not BEING GAY that "puts one at more risk for certain things"... it's UNSAFE SEX... there's a difference.

Or... were you referring to obviously feminine guys being more at risk of being bashed, or butch women being assaulted? I suppose that violence perpetrated against gay and lesbian folks are "health" risks too. But that's WHO THEY ARE... and the FAULT of the perpetrators, not the victim.

I'm think I understand the point you were trying to make about how the employers actions crossed a line on the smoking issue, and you try to illustrate what line might be crossed next.

I'm certain you didn't intend it to come off sounding as insulting and about gays and lesbians as it did. It perpeturates stereotypes and really doesn't help others to understand about gay people.

But it did.

-- Allen

[TexasSissy]

122. I included that as an example...

since I think it WOULD be a criteria used in the real world. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that anal sex in particular is the best carrier of AIDS/HIV than vaginal intercouse, and that anal sex is practiced far more often among gay men than heterosexual couples. That is one reason that HIV broke out most strikingly in the gay community in the 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_sex#Health_risks

[arwalden]

165. Read This...

I hope this helps improve your knowledge and understanding and that you can avoid making absurd generalizations based on 20 year old myths and misconceptions the ones in your previous two messages.

1) The best method of transmission is blood born such throught contaminated needles and blood products which gives direct access to the bloodstream.

2) Worldwide the AIDS is overwhelmingly a heterosexual disease. Which indicates that it can be transmitted as easily through vaginal sex. Over 90% of AIDS cases worldwide are attributed to heterosexual sex.

3) The reason it primarily hit the gay population was because generally speaking, gay people have sex with other gay people.

4) Receptive intercourse is ALWAYS more risky whether anally or vaginally for obvious reasons.

5) The fastest growing group of new HIV cases in the US is heterosexuals, with young African-American women topping the fastest growing group of new infections.

[TexasSissy]

169. It doesn't help to stick your head in the sand.

I don't mean to offend, but to disregard facts is not a good thing, IMO. Did you read the medical article in the link in my post?
The lining of the anus is particularly thin, among other things, according to that article...HIV is spread more easily through that type of intercourse than through vaginal intercourse. That seems to be a fact, unless you can point to a medical article that says otherwise? I'm not saying that anal intercourse is evil or bad or anything. It's like saying that someone who is elderly is more prone to getting the flu. It doesn't make being elderly bad; it's just a fact that they get the flu more easily.

The fact that heterosexuals, whether drug users or in third world countries, is the fastest growing group of new infections really has nothing to do with whether the virus spreads more easily through anal vs. vaginal intercourse. Apples and oranges.

I believe that if a criteria were used for this in the real world, that "they" would attach it to homosexuality and not just to the behavior. That is to say, I don't think they would ask heterosexuals if they engage in anal intercourse. They might, but IMO they'd zero in on homosexuals.

I hope this helps to aid your understanding and knowledge so that you can stop making absurd comparisons based on non-medical information and taking offense at merely factual statements that are not intended to insult anyone.

[arwalden]

170. Oh Brother!

I had a feeling that you might take this route.

>> Just like smoking, homosexual behavior puts one at more risk for certain things than others. <<

Just like smoking, huh? What exactly is factual about that? That's just ignorant.

ANYONE who engages in unsafe sex practices is at greater risk, not just homosexuals. Your suggestion that homosexuals are inherently at a greater risk of contracting HIV is false... and offensive.

>> That is one reason that HIV broke out most strikingly in the gay community in the 1980s. <<

Wow! Who knew? :shrug: Obviously the fact that gay people were having unsafe sex with other gay people had absolutely nothing to do with this. It was because they were gay, right? :eyes:

>> and taking offense at merely factual statements that are not intended to insult anyone. <<

Factual straw-men are still straw-men.

-- Allen

PS: I'd hardly consider a link to Wikipedia entry on anal-sex to be a highly reliable "medical article"... but feel free to set up additional straw-men to try and defend your original statements.

[TexasSissy]

174. None of your statements

have anything to do with whether (1) HIV is spread more easily via anal intercourse than through vaginal intercourse; or (2) gay males engage in anal intercourse much more often than heterosexuals.

You seem to have a problem confusing various types of statements and issues with one another. My point was a very narrow one, having nothing to do with whether HIV is spread in other ways, what sectors of the population get it, etc.

Whether people have protected sex is a separate issue, having nothing to do with whether HIV is spread more easily through anal vs. vaginal intercourse.

Here is another cite for your reference:

" Anal Sex Transmission of HIV

Anal sex is the most efficient means of sexual HIV transmission."

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/infograms/hiv_transmission_0302.htm
(a government health site - there are a number of such references if you Google search this and look for health or government or medical sites)

[arwalden]

175. What A Farce! I've Already Told You What Statements I Took Issue With...

... and I've even quoted your words back to you. I cannot force you to respond in a substantive way.

>> Whether people have protected sex is a separate issue, having nothing to do with whether HIV is spread more easily through anal vs. vaginal intercourse. <<

Oh... silly me! Certainly everyone can see that this is what you meant when you said: "Just like smoking, homosexual behavior puts one at more risk for certain things than others." :shrug:

Feel free to continue to set up strawmen. Aren't they pretty? :eyes:

You're wasting your time... and mine.

[TankLV]

223. Your posts ARE particularly insulting. You're not listening to what

Arwalden is saying.

They are NOT factual statements, but highly opinionated and biased statements.

Go get 'em Arwalden. You have much more patience than I do.

[Norquist Nemesis]

91. What if it's the spouse/partner that is the smoker?

Does the 'test' differentiate? The article does not state what the test is.

I'm a smoker...hubby quit last October. But if his employer gave a test, would it show positive? Does that mean that in order for hubby to keep his job he can not be around a smoker? :crazy:

[dmallind]

95. Probably should add

That I am not supporting the company here. While I personally am no fan of smoking and "running the gauntlet" of smokers outside the doors, or, as a manager, of the additional and unpredictable breaks smokers seem to have the inalienable right to, this smacks too much of 1984 for my taste.

I can certainly see the "overweight" - either legitimate or illegitimate definitions thereof - will be next, as will drinkers, motorcyclists and those with other "risky" activities.

It is difficult I confess to argue with the economic logic, and nor do I want to force private employers to lose all their discretion in hiring. That way lies the lunacy of hiring based on luck and quotas. However I agree the demarcation could clearly be made between activities which are legal and do not impact performance on the job.

I ama drinker. By American standards (if not that of my native UK - I am an adult immigrant) a very heavy one. However I never have and never would miss work or be in a state unable to perform to my abilities. I do not drink during work hours and I do not have "hangovers" sufficiently potent to impact my ability to think. Statistically speaking my chances of developing certain conditions are higher than those of a teetotaler (although chances of other conditions are lower as alcohol does have some beneficial effects). Should I be denied health coverage? How can I say not if smokers are? Overweight is one thing - since that is much fuzzier as to causation rather than correlation - but alcohol like tobacco has definite unavoidable effects that do impact everyone who uses it, and is so very comparable.

[jburton]

97. Next: testing women for birth control usage

Women of child bearing age could be tested to determine if they are on the pill.

After all, pregnancy, pre-natal care, and child birth cost BIG $$$. Not to mention maternity leave and having a kid added to the health care plan.

All of which are "preventable", according to the bottom line.

[Sivafae]

98. I believe that this is a discriminatory practice

But that it should be left up to the states to decide how they want to run their state.
My thinking:
If your outside activities do not affect your job performance, then it is a discriminatory practice. For all we know, non smokers could be "daredevils" and clumsy. What about people who skate for a pastime. They would be injured all the time.

And to offer non smokers medical insurance and not smokers is also discriminatory. Because if it does not affect job performance, then all persons that perform equally on the job should be rewarded equally.

And if it really was down to the bottom line of what is good for the company, it just doesn't make sense. You want the best person for the job. It will make you money. This is just a scare tactic to make people fear for their jobs and their lively-hood. There seems to be a lot that going around.

[napi21]

99. Mi. isn't a right to work state, is it? How is this Co. gatting around

a wrongful dismissal claim? I'd also be interested to hear how old these workers were. Possible age discrimination.

I guess this is going to have to go to court to be settled, because I doubt the new company policy is legally enforcable.

[TankLV]

224. It's "RIGHT TO FIRE AT WILL". "Right to work" is a cruel misnomer:

It has EVERYTHING to do with an employer's right to fire at will for ANYTHING.

No worker protections. Period.

[SmokingJacket]

106. It's your own time, period.

If employers want to limit health insurance costs, that's one thing, but intruding into people's private lives in order to save money is wrong.

This is no different from deciding to install cameras in employees' refrigerators and monitoring what they eat. Too much sugar will lead to higher dental bills, doncha know! We don't want to pay the costs!

[geniph]

112. Sigh. Until we have universal health care...

...you're gonna see more and more of this kind of shit. Companies trying to reduce their rates by changing their risk pools. The smokers are only one target of this. The obese, the elderly, those with "high risk" behaviors, those with chronic medical issues, will be thrown out to save a few bucks.

The ONLY thing we can do to halt this slippery slide into medical fascism is to make the risk pool universal - cover everyone, at the same rate, for the same conditions.

WHEN WILL THIS INSANITY END? WHY ARE WE NOT ALL UP IN ARMS DEMANDING UNIVERSAL COVERAGE NOW?!!!

[rinsd]

113. I would tend to agree...

But since we are considering risk behavior impact, would the government then be able to outlaw said risky behaviors because of the disparate impact these groups have on the overall cost of health care?

After browsing their website, it seems that one of the management services this health care company provides is education on having "healthy employees". Making a bit of a leap, I think they decided they should start following their own advice.

[olddad56]

120. are they firing all drug addicted employees...

or are they just firing smokers? If so, I would think that the junkies, the cranksters and the caffeine addicts should be forced to leave also. Otherwise I think it would be discriminatory.

[Bake]

121. If my firm fires me for smoking (won't happen) they'll lose a good lawyer

I go to court; I win. Simple as that. I haven't lost in ten years.

Smoking keeps me sane. I'm worth more to them than that.

Bake

[MrSlayer]

123. Fucking Nazis. n/t

[cosmicdot]

124. "In Age of Security, Firm Mines Wealth of Personal Data"

it's all coming together - total information awareness - actionable intelligence - developing rapidly in parallel to our daily concerns ...

... the ability to see that one recently purchased some tobacco product may be in our not to distant future ... the systems being devised are being done with virtually no regulation or oversight ...


"It began in 1997 as a company that sold credit data to the insurance
industry. But over the next seven years, as it acquired dozens of
other companies, Alpharetta, Ga.-based ChoicePoint Inc. became an all-
purpose commercial source of personal information about Americans,
with billions of details about their homes, cars, relatives, criminal
records and other aspects of their lives."

~snip~

"We'd like everybody to play by the same rules and standards that society believes are correct."

~snip~

"In doing so, they wield increasing power over the multitude of
decisions that affect daily life - influencing who gets hired, who is
granted credit or who can get on an airplane."

~snip~

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012505_personal_data.shtml

it won't be just an Ownership Society ... it'll be a 'Scarlet Letter' society, too ... those 'marked' unemployable won't even have to fuss with any ol' social security privitized accounts ... what will Society do with these people?

... discrimination may be necessary for empire security ...

[American Renaissance]

125. we don't fire existing smokers, but we won't hire new ones.

We have had a policy since 1997 that we will not hire smokers, although those who already smoke are safe, although offered and strongly encouraged to make use of free anti-smoking tools like the patch and nicotine gum.

[davis_islander]

127. So, if they are not a smoker when you hire them...

but take up the habit sometime AFTER they have been hired, what then?

[American Renaissance]

173. right...

Since we don't hire many twelve yearolds, that really isn't a problem.

Most adults are smart enough not to start smoking.

[Seeking Serenity]

128. Most tobacco is grown in Red states.

Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky.

Maybe we should encourage more actions like this, so more people would quit, and, thus, drive down those Red states' profits.

[NashVegas]

133. It's Stuff Like This That Makes Me Want *Keep* Smoking

I picked up my first cigarette at age 9 (didn't inhale then), because I liked the idea that the image of a little girl in a Catholic school uniform with a cigarette in her hand would throw people into conniptions.

Even then, when the anti-smoking lobby was in its infancy, its sanctimoniousness was perceptible.

As for Weyco, I hope they'll also take things like above-average sports activities (injuries), diet (fats & sugar consumption), driving habits, mental state (depression) and good old DNA indicators into consideration.

But then they wouldn't have any employees left.

[Rockerdem]

135. Lets make up our minds

Our party just went through about a 10 year period of making it difficult on smokers. We taxed the hell out of the substance, chased it out of bars and restaurants, made people stand outside in the snow, and sicced the trial lawyers and atty's generals on them. I thought all of that was good, personally.

I dont understand the last minute resistance to the next natural step in the process. Please help me understand.

[davis_islander]

141. And after this step, what is the next step in the process?

Prohibition? Criminalization? Please help me understand.

These people were fired from their jobs for doing something legal in their own homes. How can that be right in any body's world? If the issue was insurance costs, then determine the up-charge for a smoker and make the employee pay the differential, or they can opt-out of insurance coverage altogether. But to FIRE them, not for cause, but for smoking a cigarette on their own time in their own home? I don't see how this could be a party plank I would support. Fire all smokers? No, I don't think this is the next natural step.

[rayofreason]

233. I agree

Already there is a differential. For life insurance, you have to disclose if you are a smoker, and pay higher rates if you are. That is the best way to deal with it.

What's next - fire fast food eaters and hire only vegans? It would lower medical costs due to ulcers!

[NashVegas]

149. More Behavior Modification

You thought all that was good?

All that is, IMO, is an excersize in seeing how far you can push a part of the population to change its behavior or risk being publicly ostracized.

Do these laws make us feel good? Do they make us feel empowered to know we've done something grand for society? Well guess what Bub (that's the universal 'Bub'), the acid rain is still coming down, corporations are still making profits from the wages of war, and somewhere in America tonight, somebody's doing somebody wrong.

We act so shocked that people accept and put up with the abuses of the Bush regime and a whole host of shit, and don't come out of their houses and get in the streets. And we have these laws, some of which the Libertarians and some Repubs rightly call, "nanny" laws, designed to keep us in line for the sheer heck of it. For the sake of a buck. And we never make the connection because we're too busy getting wrapped up in the horrible, horrible price the smokers (or your own pet-peeve group) are making us all pay.

[rocktivity]

140. If cigarettes are that dangerous, take them off the market

Give them the same status as pot, and this policy would make a little sense.

:headbang:
rocknation

[davis_islander]

144. Exactly!!!!

I agree 100%. Make smoking illegal, along with alcohol, unsafe sex, and fast food. Then, regularly test your employees for nicotine, many of the ills of alcohol use, HIV, and cholesterol. Alternately, make pot legal and tax it. The prohibition of pot, while other equally or much more harmful substances are legal, is insane.

[Randers]

150. that is not a bad idea.... eom

[4dsc]

142. Email the company

Contact the company at

http://www.weyco.com/web/company/contact/customer_service.jsp

not to mention, its a MYTH to say smokers will cost the company more in health care cost down the road.. Just a myth!!

[Bemis]

143. Another example for single payer health insurance

It's crazy that there are so many companies that don't want to pay for any health coverage of their employees. But I don't know of any company that has endorsed a single payer system.

Hell, even health insurance companies that don't want to cover sick people.

[Champ]

147. Cigarette tests?

They probably wanted to be fired. Who would want to work for a bunch of assholes like that anyway?

[Psephos]

148. Nanny state preview n/t

[aikido15]

157. Well, that's it...

...fascism has arrived.

[FuzzyDicePHL]

163. Positive side?

Personal freedoms issues aside (for the sake of arguement), at least moves like this may eventually hit some cigarette companies and tobacco farmers in the wallet.

Don't RJR et al make significant contributions to rethuglikkkan candidates (like Jesse Helms -ptui-) and conservative groups? I grew up in North Carolina, and my father owned and ran tobacco warehouses, so working in a warehouse was very often my summer job (before I knew better than to support such nastiness); I witnessed racist, bigoted, homophobic farmers that make Helms (-ptui-) look gay-friendly.

Also, maybe decisions like this on the part of companies may enable otherwise helpless-to-quit folks to finally stop killing themselves.

What? Do I have something against smoking? Well, only that it causes a long, slow death.

[FiveGoodMen]

171. Just being born causes a (usually) long, slow death

[HuckleB]

178. Thanks for the cliche.

:eyes:

[FiveGoodMen]

179. Anytime...glad I could help!

Seriously, when people have to choose between smoking and their jobs, that's a little too much control being wielded over their lives.

When someone points out that the results of smoking can be very bad -- with the apparent implication that it's okay to eliminate individual freedoms as long as we're preventing something as bad as a long slow death -- I'm happy to point out that there are lots of ways to get to a long slow death. Both my parents died of cancer and they were non-smokers, sensible eaters, very light drinkers, blah, blah, blah.

Or as Bill Hicks put it, "Non-smokers die ... ... ... every day."

There's really no reason to support a policy like the one this thread is about.

[HuckleB]

177. Karsten Mfg., makers of Ping Golf Clubs, has done this for 20 years.

In Arizona...

[Moderator]

180. kick

..

[clownskull]

181. Keep smoking or keep my job?

http://tinyurl.com/6vdnc

From CBS Market Watch

Snip--
An employer in the business of administering other companies' benefits decided to eliminate smokers from its work force by randomly testing them for nicotine in their blood or urine. The zero-tolerance tobacco policy applies to smokers in general, not just those who light up on company time.

Weyco Inc., an employee-benefits administrator in Okemos, Mich., had been building up to the ultimatum for several years before four employees who opted not to take the smoking test left the company in January, founder and chief executive Howard Weyers said.

In early 2003, Weyco quit hiring tobacco users and by fall had forbidden the staff from smoking on the premises. Starting in 2004, the firm added a tobacco "assessment" of $50 a month per worker who smoked and didn't go to a cessation class. Weyco had given its employees a 15-month advance notice that those who still smoked on or off the company's watch by January 2005 would be terminated, Weyers said.--Snip

[Corgigal]

182. I say I'm tried of looking at

old white guys, balding around 60 or more in CEO's positions. I think visually they are disturbing and are bad for morale. Fire those ugly suckers first.

[jody]

184. Why are you afraid of bald guy in their 60s? Have you seen a shrink? n/t

[Corgigal]

186. can you read?

in CEO positions?

[7th_Sephiroth]

183. note that this policy only applies to the labor

management and up are exempt

[Djinn]

185. gee there's a surprise

but it's probably because the management works soooo much harder than everyone else so they need their stress relievers (sarcasm off)

personally I'd tell my boss to fuck off if they pulled this, but then I'm in a position where I could easily get another job

[7th_Sephiroth]

187. a friend worked for coke

got fired for eating at taco bell (a pepsi supplier) so he taped his boss cheating on his wife

[LiberalFighter]

196. I like that!!!!!!!!!

Of course, I wouldn't want to be connected as the one that taped the boss because that might result in problems finding or keeping a job.

[7th_Sephiroth]

201. that comes the sad part

he had a .357 magnum and he kinda used it

[LiberalFighter]

207. Need clarification...

the boss used it? or your friend?

[7th_Sephiroth]

208. my friend

[Djinn]

200. christ really??

you know everyday I find a new reason to be thankful I wasn't born in the US - you need a GOOD reason for firing someone here (although Howard will soon be creating two classes of workers by exempting small business' from unfair dismissal laws) that definetly wouldn't cut it.

My sister used to work for Hungry Jacks (Burger King in your world I beleive) and she used to tell customers that they should eat at McDonalds coz the food at Hungry's was foul and that going by the smell they must slaughter the cows out back - you may have been able to fire someone for THAT but not just for having a personal eating preference.

Presumably this is a medical insurance/sick days thing so I guess they'll be sacking all their overweight staff now, and all those who little or no excercise (regardless of weight) and those who drive recklessly, have unprotected sex, oh and better get rid of all the women, they're so expensive what with going off to have babies all the time.

I love how employers think they can own you 24/7 - when they statr PAYING people for those hours then they can dictate what their staff do within them

[7th_Sephiroth]

202. cant sack overweight people

current consensus is that its genetic and would be like fireing someone for being black

[Djinn]

205. as yes the "genetic" rule

well my mum and dad smoked so maybe THAT's genetic too. I always thought being overweight was the result of taking in more energy than you expend but I must be kinda old fashioned! :)

[genieroze]

212. excellent. eom

[TankLV]

225. Similar occurance tried to happen to us.

We were working on a project for Coke - which I love incidentally - and they went apopletic because they found out some of us ordered pizza from Pizza Hut - a Pepsi company. They raised all sorts of stink about it - this after they insisted everyone in our company ONLY use coke products.

Needless to say, I and many others made it a point to buy and walk around with pepsi, etc. to shove it back in their faces. I was management, so I had a LOT of fun with them on this. After one disturbing statement at a meeting, I loudly asked the jerkoff if he wanted to check our underware and smell our asses to make sure we were using th proper soap, etc. I DARED him to do it! I pointedly told him we were the best at our jobs and did the best work for him EVER on the project that we were doing. I told him in no uncertain terms that they should stuff their "concern" if they ever wanted us to continue working for them.

Needless to say, that was the LAST of any conversations of that nature with our company.

We had many years of work with them, and I made sure they NEVER forgot their stupidity.

I hate assholes.

[LiberalFighter]

191. I'm not sure that is true...

In early 2003, Weyco quit hiring tobacco users and by fall had forbidden the staff from smoking on the premises.



Staff could be management people... if mgmt are not included then the hourly workers might have a case against the employer.

[Dirk39]

188. I think every kind of pleasure that doesn't directly...

lead to profit-maximization should be considered a threat to freedom, democracy, the free market and our führer, G.W. Bush.

And those pleasures that could harm the working force of the slaves and minimize the profit of the slave-holders should be outlawed and punished.

I hate you for your smoking...

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[tk2kewl]

189. I say put your cig out in the bosses eye and quit (eom)

[NC_Nurse]

190. Are you sure it doesn't apply

to management? If that's true that SUCKS.

OTOH, quitting smoking is a great thing to do if you want to live a long healthy life.....just sayin' :shrug:

[rqstnnlitnmnt]

192. ..Just sayin' :shrug:

Just sayin' :shrug:

...that you should NEVER be forced to quit smoking for a job.

I hate cigarettes a whole whole lot - I've seen people die a long, slow death from them - but god damn if ANYONE should be forced to quit smoking to keep a job!!!!

[clownskull]

193. To quit is great

but to be forced to is ridiculos

[LiberalFighter]

194. Lifestyle-behavior issues...

In Michigan, workers don't have legal recourse if they're fired for lifestyle-behavior issues; 29 states have laws protecting workers in those circumstances, she said.

"This isn't an issue about smoking," Moss said. "This is an issue about private employers being able to punish employees for their legal, non-work-related activities."



Most likely the result of legislation passed with a Republican Governor... Anyone know for sure??

What will be next? Will they test workers at home to see if they have been drinking? Will they restrict the type of vehicles they can drive? Will they prohibit drinking coffee? Will they require them to attend church?

[lonestarnot]

195. Bet there could be a discrimination case lurking in the midst of this

turmoil...Drug addiction is a disability.

[Pushed To The Left]

197. This is another good reason..

for a federal BAN on at-will employment! I abhor smoking, but what you put in your body off the clock is your business! I hope word of this gets out to the "smoker's rights" groups. They have a very legitimate beef in this case.

[nuxvomica]

209. You're right. This is only one kind of "at-will" abuse

There will be more but they start with smoking to test the waters because smokers are an easy target nowadays. Think of how many people will just agree with this policy because, after all, smoking is such a bad habit. It's the thin end of the wedge.

[Synnical]

198. Keep having sex or lose your job?

'Cause you know you're at risk of getting HIV

[rayofreason]

234. but...

If you stop having sex you lose your mind! The mental health costs will explode!

[candy]

199. Can you imagine this? Tobacco is still legal isn't it ? We're

talking about adults smoking away from the workplace and in their own homes.

I find this frightening----Big Brother is here.

[flaminbats]

203. sure tobacco is legal..

so is kicking hard working employees in the ass!

[Lauri16]

204. I'm a smoker.....

And I pay higher insurance premiums because of it. I also pay higher life insurance premiums....fine, I can deal with that. But to tell someone that they're going to lose their job if they smoke? In the words of Frank Barone......HOLY CRAP!

[Skittles]

206. soon they will make people stop drinking, eathing junk food, etc

it's not a good trend

[Verve]

210. I hate to play the devil's advocate here but smoking is BAD! Not just for

the smokers themselves but for all the people that have to put up with the smoker. There are numerous health risks for people inhaling second hand smoke, including many scientific studies claiming children of second hand smokers are more likely to be at risk for allergies, asthma, etc, etc. Children and co-workers don't ask for this! Innocent people shouldn't have to be exposed to second hand smoke.

BTW, Smoking isn't like overeating, or sex like someone else stated, these behaviors are not harming others. Smoking harms others! Don't get me wrong, if a behavior is harmful but it's not hurting others, I say go ahead and do it till your heart's content. Yet, unless someone invents some kind of gas mask that allows smokers to smoke in their own mask contained area without it giving off poisonous gases to others, I'm all for banning smoking.

[clownskull]

211. Harmful Yes...

Yes smoking is harmful, have you ever considered that some smokers like myself go outside and smoke so it doesn't affect everybody around me. Besides you said “sex isn't a harmful behavior” Isn’t that why were suppose to were condoms because it can be harmful...Hmmm STD's ring a bell?

[genieroze]

213. They aren't talking about banning smoking in the workplace which almost

every workplace in MeriKKKa has a ban with the exception on cigarette companies, restaurants and bars in certain states. They are talking about smoking off company time in your own home.

[flaminbats]

216. exactly..

don't touch..I'm private property, let Walmart decide who can smoke!

http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/walmart/

[Verve]

221. If the company requires it of ALL employees and they can prove that

not smoking is essential for their business, (and being in a health related industry, I'm sure they can) then I'm sure any judge will find this perfectly legal.

Now, if they're only requiring it for laborers and not white collar employees or vice versa, then that is discrimination and that is not legal. The rule needs to apply to all employees of their company for it to be legit.

To work in a health related industry and to smoke is a slap in the face to the health business employing a smoker. Health and smoking just don't mix. If their health isn't important to these people maybe they should make a career change. I'm sure they can find a job at Phillip Morris where your health isn't such a big deal.

[barb162]

226. obesity, excess drinking, etc are bad too. Almost

everyone can be fired for some unhealthy habit outside of the workplace.

[Verve]

228. You can only be fired for an "unhealthy habit" if your company can

show that that habit is hurting their company's image, or business.(And of course all of the employees have to live up to the same standards).

Think about it for a minute. Would you pay money to work out with an obese personal trainer? Would you be treated for lung cancer by a doctor who chain smoked? Would you get a conservative hair cut from a hairdresser who has a mohawk? Maybe you would but you'd sure think twice before doing so.

The fact is our behaviors affect who we are, and who we are portrayed as by others. So it's not a leap to say our behaviors affect our companies and family reputations as well.

[bpeale]

217. "I hate to play the devil's advocate here but smoking is BAD! Not just for

Hey, what you have to remember is that until cigarettes are outlawed by law, they are a perfectly legal activity regardless of what your personal feelings about it are. If you don't want to "put up with" a smoker, then feel free to go elsewhere. What people do on their own time is their own business. One could say that overeating is a crime too and that activity harms others in that they die early leaving their families, they get a host of diseases. Alcoholics hurt others too ... they kill behind the wheel, never mind what they do to themselves.

There is no conclusive proof that I know of that second hand smoke CAUSES anything ... just like it is not proven that smoking causes cancer. I have known many people who died of cancer that never smoked nor lived with smokers. They died all the same. The CAUSE stuff is just more propaganda put out by the anti-smoking factions.

Get over it! It's still a legal activity. Personally, I am in favor of banning intolerant, ignorant bigots but they are within their legal right to be that way so there is nothing I can do.

Just my $0.02 worth. YMMV.

[Verve]

219. "There is no conclusive proof that I know of that second hand smoke

CAUSES anything."

You gotta be kidding me! You don't happen to work in the tobacco industry do you?

Hey, that's your right to deny the dangers of smoking. In fact smoke all you want, just don't do it around others. And, don't expect your friends and family members to be thrilled about a habit that can eventually prematurely end your relationship with them when you end up chronically ill or dead.

Also, just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. Asbestos, lead paint and DDT all used to be legal. Did they suddenly get dangerous after being banned or did thousands of people have to die in order for them to become banned?


BTW, Welcome to DU bpeale! No hard feelings!
:hi: As you can tell, I just hate smoking.

[bpeale]

232. no proof ... yada yada yada ...

no, as a matter of fact, i don't work for the tobacco industry. i work for a university library. i did quit smoking myself 5 years ago.

but, be that as it may, i will defend to the death someone's right to engage in a perfectly legal activity. and here's a bigger clue. WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE. like it says in the good book (and i'm paraphrasing here), there is not one thing you can do to extend your time here on earth or end it before its time. your days are numbered when you're born.

certainly i don't think smoking CAUSES cancer. it may aggravate the condition, but it doesn't CAUSE it. and second hand smoke is no different. and for what its worth, all smokers i know of go outside to smoke, so where do you want them to go next to engage in their legal activity? far as i know there are no private space ships leaving for some other planet.

as you can tell, this is a subject that really tweaks my melon. i don't see you all out there trying to ban alcohol and i'd venture to say it kills more than smoking does every single year.

thanks for the welcome! think i'll stay awhile.
barbara

[fooie]

227. What's next?

Will this company start testing for cholesterol and fire employees who eat butter?

[KissMeKate]

229. Boycott cigarrettes!

The tobacco companies (or in the case of philip morris, include Kraft and the rest of the "Altria" group) universally support the GOP.

When you buy from them, you are making a contribution to George Bush.

[Verve]

231. Agree! n/t