Weyco FORCING employees to quit smoking

[jojo54]

O.K. I'm a smoker so I'm extremely opposed to this. But more so, I'm opposed to the fact that the Patriotic Act is allowing this to become a reality. The CEO of Okemos, Michigan based Weyco Inc. Howard Weyers, is forcing his employees to quit, not only during working hours, but at home also (see In The News: "company tells employees to quit smoking" at www.yahoo.com). If they don't quit, they get fired!!!

Sorry non-smokers, but this is invasion of privacy plain and simple! This man has no right to control his employees lives OUTSIDE the companies' perimeters or after hours. I'm sympathetic to non-smokers and THEIR rights but at the same time, NO ONE should be able to tell me what I can and can not do in the privacy of my own home!! What's next: hidden cameras in every home so that no one performs illicit or homosexual acts?....sign in sheets at every church to single out the "non" believers?.....the reversal of time/culture to the days of Ozzie and Harriet? Boy George is allowing things to get just a little bit spooky these days. Anyone think that Orwell's 1984 will become Twenty-O-Five?

Sorry if this is a repeat of an earlier post.

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

1. absolutely so, in fact, he has no right to control their lives during

working hours. He simply pays them to do a certain job and beyond that his demands are entirely unreasonable.

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

2. it's a farce, you know, the City of Flagstaff has made it illegal to smoke

even outdoors...within 50 feet of a public building! They have a nerve to worry about outdoor cigarette smoke, when Flagstaff public drinking water supply has toxic levels of mercury. To complain about cigarette smoke is merely a distraction, and not a very good one, since the dangers of cigarettes are minuscule as compared to other ever more present environmental pollutants. I say, we might as well all have our last cigarette, since Shrub used uranium bombs in Iraq, and now the planet is doomed to cancer for the next 500 years anyway.

[radwriter0555]

17. I worked for the City of West Hollywood as the first city to ban smoking

in public parks near playgrounds.

I was VERY proud of that bill. Assemblyman Paul Koretz has long been an advocate of the curbing public smoking.

The city also prohibits it within 50 feet of their doors as well.

NO one complains. EVER. Not even the old russian men in the parks playing cards. They voluntarily moved their tables away from the kids.

[GoSolar]

31. Thanks you radwriter for your efforts.

From someone who has spent a lifetime trying to dodge secondhand smoke. Not just in public places, but at my workplace, in restaurants, and even in my physician's office. (Yes, my physician smoked in my face, even when I was there for a bronchitis appointment...)

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

48. no one, ever? well, then, I guess I just broke that record! It is

foolish to attack an insignificant problem as a distration to a significant problem. Toxic mercury levels in the City of Flagstaff drinking water are a very significant problem. Open air smoking in public, or for that matter, smoking anywhere, even in closed rooms, does not represent nearly as much health risk as toxic levels of lead and mercury in the water supply. It's just nonsense to even compare the two. I am complaining, and apparently the old men in the park don't know about the water, or they would be complaining too.

[Touchdown]

55. He means smokers are nobodys, so they don't count.

[Occulus]

110. And that's fine, but

it's NOT fine to take someone's income away unless they quit, particularly if one is trying to do so as an employer, to his employees, during their off hours- including inside their own homes.

If a spouse smokes, and the employee gets exposed to smoke secondhand, are they still considered a "smoker"? Does the employer try to regulate the behavior of the spouses of employees as well?

What about roommates?

What about guests in one's home?

How far are they willing to extend this- can employees even travdel to other businesses during their off time which allow smoking? Can they go to public places which allow smoking, if any?

(see how ridiculous this could get?)

I'm not slamming you, but this issue burns me up. How dare a business try to regulate legal behavior of its employees during their off time? Were I an employee there, I'd be asking for 24/7 pay, seeing as how I'm now "owned" by my employer and all...

[ultraist]

64. Smoking should be banned in public outdoors spaces

My children shouldn't be forced to breathe someone's second hand smoke when they go to the beach or the park. Have you ever seen a child have an asthma attack?

Why should smokers be allowed to infringe on others' rights?

Justifying that smokers should have the right to infringe on other's rights just because other issues have not been adequately addressed, is illogical.

[Djinn]

69. do you keep your kids away from cars/traffic

I utterly agree with most non smoking rules - where I live you can't even smoke in BARS anymore and I'm fine with that, enclosed areas should be smoke free.

My pet peeve is when someone starts ostentaiously coughing (and you call tell a real one from a fake/forced one) when I light up at the tram stop in the middle of SIX lanes of heavy peak hour traffic - they're kidding themselves right??? The amount of carbon monoxide they're breathing in is so large that my cigarette 's addition would be unnoticeable.

There is ZERO evidence that says a person would be adversely effected by second hand smoke in an outdoor area. Perhaps if someone blew the smoke DIRECTLY into their mouth for the duration of the entire ciggarette it may cause some coughing but it WONT cause permanent damage and very few smokers do that anyway - after all you'd probably notice someone breathing into your childs mouth

[ultraist]

97. Seeing my child get asthmatic is enough evidence for me

Seeing my child have physical reactions from smoke is all I need to see, to believe breathing someone's second hand smoke, even outdoors, does have adverse effects.

We were at the beach and a group of chain smokers parked their blanket near ours. Within moments, my child began breaking out in hives and wheezing. We had to relocate. She felt like she was suffocating. She is extremely allergic and anaphylatic. We have to carry an epipen.

My tax dollars go to maintain that beach, why should smokers be allowed to pollute it and leave their nasty butts all over? Why should they be allowed to force children to smoke via their second hand smoke. Second hand smoke is more deadly than first hand.

[NoSheep]

100. Damn good point there. n/t

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

83. You know, all this stuff only affects the prole class, you don't think, do

you that senators, congressmen, doctors, lawyers, indian chiefs, Bill Gates, Shrub or Big Dick Cheney or anyone else in the "owner class" has to worry about somebody else's opinion of their health habits. We all know what Big Dick would say if we told him he couldn't have another piece of cheesecake because of his heart...he'd just say, "Go fuck yourself". It's the same with stem cell research, abortion, and drug laws. All these laws only apply to those of us who can't afford a trip to Lisbon for our stem cell therapy, (with a quick holiday while we are at it) or a trip to Spain for our abortion (with a quick holiday while we are at it) or a trip to Amsterdam, (for a long holiday). Another for instance, in my town, it is illegal to rent an x rated movie, however, if you can afford cable, it comes with 500 channels, 40 of which are x rated. I am all for everybody having freedom to direct their own lives, but, I am all for all of us having the same freedoms.

[PassingFair]

87. I hear 'pukes grumbling about the anti smoking legislation all the time...

they blame "liberals".... go figgur

[Elwood P Dowd]

3. Next up, if they don't go to church

and sing gospel songs praising Fuhrer Bush, off the payroll they go.

[jojo54]

4. Some states have made it illegal to smoke in bars

and that, I think will raise the hackles of many merchants. I mean, how much more of this bullshit can we take before people's heads start exploding?

[B3Nut]

20. I can see one argument for that though...

Smoking in bars and restaurants does pose a threat to the health of the workers there, and I do beleive that workers have the right to breathe clean air in the workplace to have a safe working environment. The thing I dislike most about bar gigs is all the smoke, makes my clothes stink and the smoke gets in my guitars and keyboards. I don't like telling other people not to smoke, but one's right to swing their fist ends at the tip of someone else's nose. It is possible to have an enjoyable evening out without endangering the health of the servers and musicians serving and entertaining the public.

Todd in Beerbratistan

[jdj]

93. JoJo, what are the tobacco companies doing about this?

You really couldn't be in a better position in that this action could really hurt the tobacco companies bottom line, and that they have billions and billions of dollars to use in fighting this.

I would contact them for help if I were a smoker.

[doodadem]

5. How is this news?

I mean, ok, I'm a recruiter by profession, a headhunter. There--it's out (insert gasp here). I had a client years ago in Ohio that refused to hire smokers, and would conduct random testing of it's employees. If nicotine showed up in their systems, they were fired. Hard as hell to recruit for--lots of technical people are hard core smokers.
Privately owned company though--I'm sure that's how they can make these demands. Especially now that nicotine has been classified as an addictive drug.
Now......if you really want some good horror stories, I used to be an employee of Philip Morris........

[jojo54]

6. I understand your side of the story

but my main concern is what can be forced on us next??? I realize that P.M., R.J. Reynolds, etc, etc are slowly being forced out of business, but what's next???.....we are told when we can or can't take a dump? Don't mean to be gross here but let's get real. I don't want this insane egomaniac telling me I have to go to church on a specific day, at a specific time, that I have to wear blue on Mondays or that I can't give my 3 yr old grandson a "time out" when he's disobediant. It's no wonder that he's been given the "dictator" label.

[trixie]

33. Women will be next

This is happening in my state of Michigan. In interviews the owner says that it is to curb the cost of health care. Just laying the groundwork to have women being excluded for pregnancy or the reproductive availability of pregnancy. Maybe men and women with children. Gosh those kids are health care hogs.

[ultraist]

66. Smokers' "rights" have nothing to do with women's rights

That is a real reach. People CHOOSE to smoke, women don't choose their sex. Smokers have not been an oppressed group as women have.

I cannot believe there are actually Democrats that think smokers should be allowed to infringe on other's rights whether it be clean air or economic freedom.

[Djinn]

72. If I smoke at home

how does that effect the bloke who sits at the desk near me at work - if I don't have a ciggie on the way to work he wont smell it anymore, no more than everyone smells his stinky armpits.

how does what I do in my own home infringe on anybody elses rights?

[readmoreoften]

7. I think this will be a litmus test for the resolve of the American people

Seriosly. With all the freepers bellyaching about the 'socialist nanny-state' you'd think they'd bat an eye at this. The truth is that the right wing is only advocating a 'capitalist daddy-state' where your boss tells you what brand of hemorroid medication to buy and then uses your tax dollars to hire the CIA to check your medicine cabinet just to keep you honest.

What ever happened to all that freedom and liberty Bush has been blathering about?

[jojo54]

8. We all know that's just smoke and mirrors

Freedom and liberty went down the same road as privacy and democracy - the road to HELL.

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

56. exactly so, well said. n/t

[flygal]

9. Overweight people are next - CNN.com

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/01/26/smoking.reut/index.html

snip

Next on the firing line: overweight workers.

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

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

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



I wonder how many of those "skinny little" freepers on I'mnotsorry.com will be up in arms over this. Maybe this will help them realize they've been had. When corporations can make the rules we're all screwed. We don't get to vote in new owners or CEO's! Rules like these need to be govt. controlled.

[jojo54]

10. The article at Yahoo said that too..

It's pretty pathetic when the CEO pretends he's concerned about the welfare of his workers, when they all know it's just because his profits are being eaten into by a small fraction because of medical benefits. For the average Joe, it's costs almost an arm & leg to afford decent health care, but this guy has it made in the shade, just like all large corps. He's not fooling anybody!

[elehhhhna]

62. He's in good shape due to 'daily runs'? Sounds like a laxative abuser.

[China_cat]

11. I agree with you whole-heartedly

and I'm a non-smoker. A company owner can tell an employee what they can and can't do on company time in company facilities but control over personal time and space is out of bounds. Last time that was allowed, it was called slavery and was abolished.

[dusty64]

12. This is the slippery slope

started by drug testing workers whose jobs have nothing to do with the public safety. Where it ends nobody knows and without a wake up revolution by the sheeple there is no stopping it. The feudal system our government is working so hard to create is going ahead full steam and they are trying VERY hard to keep us serfs in our place (in and out of the workplace). We are fast becoming "assets" of the corporations to use and abuse as they please and to completely control and all the while our living standards plummet. This is the REAL agenda of the corporate american taliban, complete and utter control of us.

[noonwitch]

13. Kalamazoo County Community College just started the same policy

According to the guys at WCSX, the radio station I was listening to on my way to work.

[Dorian Gray]

14. I agree with you completely!

I mean, it's an invasion of privacy by the company, and I think that this should be battled. But, having said that, I'm unsure how the Patriot Act has anything to do with it? Could you explain that for me, please? :)

I do agree, however, that a company should not be allowed to hire or fire someone because of their personal choices. (Especially if those choices are legal.)

[tsuki]

15. This was made possible when insurance companies started

pressuring companies to do drug testing. My workers' comp insurance carrier is extremely upset with me for saying no. I promised to fire an employee for using on the job, but that is not good enough. They want a 24 hour monitoring.

Insurance monitoring will lead to government reporting, IMHO. I am an employer, not the police.

[Djinn]

73. should be more employers like you!

if I had employees I would want them sober and compos mentis whilst on the job regardless of whether their job involved safety (to clarify I wouldn't really care if they had drugs in their system but would care if they were effected by them) but what they do on their own time is none of my business.

to paraphrase Jello, doesn't anyone care anymore that their rights are being molested??

They'll line you up to listen
In front of TV
And make you feel lucky
'Cause you've something to eat
And you'll pee in a jar
Just to keep your job
Unless you're downsized
Like another useless cog

[radwriter0555]

16. At this time, his employees also have the choice to not work there too.

Cigarettes are as much as substance as heroin or booze. They impair your functions and just plain kill ya. You spend massive amounts of money on them, and each pack of cigarettes costs California taxpayers $14.00.

I can support an employer having the right the right to choose not to employ smokers. For each cigarette in an ashtray outside, examine the productivity lost as well. Factor 15 minutes for each cigarette. THEN factor in the smoking related health care costs his insurance is payig for....

I get it. It's a strong, harsh message, but I get it.

I smoked for almost 30 years.

[MadHound]

21. Banning smoking at the workplace is one thing

Restricting what your employees do off the clock is another can of worms altogether. What's next, employers allowing overweight employees to eat only a certain amount of food? Sorry friend, but allowing an employer that kind of control is BS.

As for as the fifteen minutes go, well, I'm pretty sure that full time employees are mandated to have a fifteen minute break twice a day, in addition to their lunchbreak, so by withdrawing smoking privelges at work, the employers don't gain a thing.

And please, post a source for the claim that nicotine impairs your functioning. Yes, smoking, in the long run will impair your breathing and the functioning of your heart, but your statement sounds like you are saying that nicotine will impair your motor functions or cognitive abilities, which just isn't so.

And as for as health insurance costs go, well, those could always be passed on to the smoker. But banning something simply in the interests of more profits is a very slippery slope to go down. Again, the example of the obese person comes to mind, as does the heavy drinker, those who engage in dangerous sports and hobbies, etc, etc. Should we ban those activities also? After all, it would save businesses a bunch on their insurance coverage.

Quite frankly, I'm looking at this as simply another reason that universal health care is desperately needed in this country. Then you couldn't have an employer trying to tell you what you can and cannot do on your own time. If my employer tried this with me, a lawsuit would quickly follow.

[radwriter0555]

28. Well, for example, would you willingly hire a person who is a binge

drinker, known alcoholic or heroin or cocaine addict?

All of those addicts can function perfectly well in society, yet, why are those addictions not acceptable, and cigarettes are?

What really is the difference?

The activities that you speak of are to a point, lifestyle choices. If one chooses to be obese -- and it is often a choice frought with excuses -- then what other poor decisions are they making? Often the cloak of fat is chosen as a self-protective device and is indicative of emotional issues. One of the smartest women I know, whom I adore, is literally eating herself to the grave. She chooses to eat a gallon of ice cream for lunch; she weighs close to 500 lbs, and yet, because of her intellect, everyone is afraid to talk to her about it.

If I'm an employer I have the responsibility to hire people who are stable, secure and responsible so that my company runs smoothly and profitably. While I see addiction as a disease, not a crime, I must make the right choices for my company. One of those options would be to offer my addicted employees the health care needed to rid themselves of the addictions and to possibly pass personal judgements on them if they don't take care of themselves.

I also recall one major bone of contention that was brought up at a work place, about smokers;

It seems that smokers are granted more break time than non-smokers while they go to have their cigarettes outside. While other employees are chastized for standing around the water cooler on their break time, per se, smokers get extra time to run down and smoke, several times per day. That was a real beef in a work place, that the smokers got to have more break time than non-smokers. Most likely it's about the visuals of it. Smokers are out of the line of sight, while those not outside, are in the bosses' eye.

[Elidor]

29. "All of those addicts can function perfectly well in society"

Yeah, uh-huh, sure…

Usually when people start playing the 'moral equivalence' game, they at least stick to some semblance of the truth. But don't let me stop your little fantasy…

[MadHound]

32. So your implication, if I'm reading you right,

Is that smokers are not "stable, secure and responsible", is that correct? My my, tell that to the literally millions of people who are happy and successful, and are smokers. I could go into a long list of famous people who had amazing careers, and smoked. But in your view, they are not worthy of employment. And apparently, the same view in your opinion applies to those who are also overweight also. Gee, nice showing of tolerance there. My question for you is how do these matters effect one's work performance? And performance at work should be the only relavent question allowed here. But apparently you are in favor of meddling with peoples' lives simply because you disagree with their lifestyle choice.

Face it friend, the vast majority of people in this country are addicted to something, be it nicotine, food, sex, TV, the list is endless. It is an inherently human trait. Yet if you are going to fire one person for an addiction(which doesn't affect their work performance), then to be a fair and consistent employer, you are going to have to fire every employee with such an addiction. And thus you will soon be out of employees and your business will fail. And cherry picking which personal addictions to get rid of is morally wrong, completely unethical, and opening yourself up for a lawsuit. Therefore, the only real option that is left to you is to ban addictions that effect workplace performance, and keep your nose out of your employees personal lives.

So my question to you is what non-work effecting addiction do you have, and would you really like to be hassled about persuing it when you're off the clock? You don't have to answer me, I really don't care to know. But it is a question that you need to answer for yourself though before you decided to take action against that overweight woman that you "adore".

[radwriter0555]

34. I don't take actions against anyone. But I would use my best judgement

in assessing who should work for me, in my company, whom I am paying and for whose health care program I'm paying for.

My fat friend didn't get a job because she is obese. But no one forced her to eat that gallon of ice cream. She chose to respond to her addiction in that manner, so in that manner, she is the master of her own fate. I don't take any action against my friend, other than to listen to her heartbreak when she doesn't understand why she didn't get the prestigious, well paying job, over the candidate who did get it. When judged by an employment panel, appearance is everything, in any society. When you have 400 extra pounds of fat hanging over the sides of a chair, in spite of your keen intellect, wonderful wit, huge heart and compassion, and amazing accomplishments, a panel is going to opt for the person who won't fall over of a heart attack tomorrow.

While smoking, drinking, drug use, over-eating, etc are addictions, and therefore diseases, you can make the choice to treat the addiction or choose to be a slave to it. Tell me how responsible it is to place a gun to your head every day, which is what you're doing each time you inhale a lit cigarette or eat a gallon of ice cream or drink a bottle of scotch on a weekend. Is that really being responsible? Is that using good judgement? If someone doesn't make good judgements in their personal life, will they make good judgements when they're working for you?

I'm not perfect, I smoked 1 1/2 packs of cigarettes a day on and off for almost 30 years. And for 14 years before that, my parents smoked 4 packs a day for me. I chose to beat my addiction using the patch, nicotine gum and sheer force of will. It took me almost 2 years and it was the hardest thing I have done so far, but I chose to do it. I still want to smoke every single day, but I make the choice not to. The force of human will must simply be stronger than the addiction itself.

If you make the choice to be an addict, then you are subject to the rules that society places on that addiction. Smoking is an acceptable addiction, while heroin isn't. One is a legal addiction, the other isn't.

Then the argument turns to whether the cigarette addiction affects your performance in the workplace. Well, sure it does. It affects your appearance, your health, how you smell and your working hours. If you smoke around other people, it effects them as well.

I don't have any other addictions, for the record other than penchant for nice shoes. And since when do I need to be tolerant of anyone? Is there a rule book I missed out on?

[MadHound]

35. Whoops, there it is! The line that gives you away.

" And since when do I need to be tolerant of anyone? Is there a rule book I missed out on?"

Tolerance is a virtue friend, apparently one that you don't wish to indulge in. Yet being judgemental, and jumping to conclusions is a vice that you care to indulge. Tsk, Tsk, not good for workplace moral, decreases profits, causes stress and mental anguish. Hmm, perhaps we should get rid of you too, since it is something that you can control, yet choose not to. After all, it is for the good of the company, who is legally obliged to increase profits for the shareholders.

I don't know what line of work you're in friend, but I know with absolute certainty that with an attitude like yours, you would be excluded from many social service positions, and probably quite a number of retail ones as well. These are after all positions that require tolerance and forbearance, qualities that you are sadly lacking in. Yet, here you are, gainfully employed, living a full life despite these self chosen drawbacks. Nice to know that there are still positions out there that will accept a person who is lacking, through their own choice, in such social skills. Now why don't you be nice and let other people, with their own self inflicted problems, find their own niche in the employment world.

[radwriter0555]

38. Please stop calling me your friend. Clearly you're judging me in

the same manner you're accusing me of...

But seriously, where is this rule book that says I have to be tolerant of every person I meet? What is that? You mean I should be kind to klansman or racists? To serial killers and child abusers? That's the sort of statement I hear from bushrepublicans.

And sure, someone who has an addiction can absolutely choose to employ themselves. And if I choose to, I can employ them. I may well choose to employ an addict, but I can also choose not to.

I worked for a couple of years for a writer who was a heroin addict; we all knew he was an addict and he is a brilliant writer. He could write wonderfully under the influence. He worked on a major teevee show that benefited from his addiction's delusions in fact. I would hire him today, addict or not, if I was looking for a writer of his calliber.

But if I had a construction company I would most likely not hire a fat female who couldn't move out of the way of a skip-loader.

As the owner of a company I would be obligated to look out for the best interests of my company and the other employees, possibly at the cost of the passive interests of a single individual who's made poor choices. This a judgement call, and as a human with other people's interests to consider, judgements have to be made for the good of the majority, and not necessarily for the good of an individual. That's what life is about. Making assessments, judgements and choices. Survival of the species and all.

[MadHound]

42. Well friend, most codes of morality, the vast majority of religions

State that one should practice tolerance. If tolerance isn't practiced, then society tends to unravel. In fact tolerance is a virtue that is disappearing from our own society, and look what is happening there.

And comparing tolerance of bodily differences to tolerance of heinious criminals is disingenous and you know it, so stop playing these games of hyperbole that you're so fond of OK, and deal with the reality of the matter. You're not fooling anyone except yourself.

Social Darwinism, which is what you seem to be advocating here, was disproven long ago as the way in which to run our society. The trouble is that many people are still adherents of this misguided practice, as your statements seem to suggest that you are "survival of the species and all". Guess what friend, survival of the species depends on tolerance, otherwise we would have killed each other off long ago.

And you don't like me judging you eh? Well by your own ethos, my responce should just be "tough shit", Social Darwinism, survival of the species, and all that. But hey, I'll give you a break, in hopes that you will that you've got some food for thought, a chance to redeem your morality. After all, that is what a person who is tolerant would do. Luckily, that's what I am. Talk to you later, bye.

[trixie]

36. Are you judging????

So in the 2 years it took you to quit smoking it would have been fine for you to lose your job for that reason only?

Obesity has a lot more dimensions than eating ice cream. How about that our kids are being inundated with commercials for fast food and that the school systems are using fast food and soft drinks to offset their deficits? Should we blame the over weight person or the officials of the schools that laid the basis for it? What about diabetics. Being heavy can be a symptom of diabetes.

There are so many reasons why. I am sorry to say but you sound quiet fascist in your "my way" or "no way" attitude. People are human.

[radwriter0555]

39. Sure I'm judging. We all do. I'm just being honest about it

is all, and taking the position of the man who has his own company and sees that smoking is a serious problem and who has chosen this particular method in dealing with the problem.

Often actions have to be taken that benefit all, not just one.

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

84. right, what s/he said! n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

40. oh please....

you wrote...
Well, for example, would you willingly hire a person who is a binge"
drinker, known alcoholic or heroin or cocaine addict?

All of those addicts can function perfectly well in society, yet, why are those addictions not acceptable, and cigarettes are?

What really is the difference?"

The difference is they are not even comparable!

Please list these heroin and crack addicts that you know who are functioning perfectly well.... I know some social scientists who would be very interested in studying them.

[radwriter0555]

68. Some very prominent writers and actors and directors and

producers wouldn't be very pleased to be revealed as addicts.

But aren't we all stunned when they quietly sneak off to rehab? Who knew?

The point is that I believe employers are entitled to consider a person's addictions -- all of them -- when employing them.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

71. mostly agree except....

If they want to avoid hiring people who smoke, then I think that is their prerogative. However, you should at least try to help your current employees quit smoking, before considering firing them.

[radwriter0555]

90. ABSOLUTELY! I totally agree

with that...

[Djinn]

75. total furphy

the other drugs you mention are inebriates they change BEHAVIOR - ciggies don't (except perhaps we maybe get a bit shirty when we havn't had one for a while).

Cigarettes have NEVER caused psychosis - those other drugs can and do.

Cigarettes are LEGAL so the addict isn't breaking a law

Cigarettes are legal so the addict isn't going to embezzle my property to pay for them

Cigarettes are legal so my employee isn't suddenly get arrested.

As for the break time it's pretty easy - most jobs I've had you get two breaks regardless of whether you smoke or not - the only jobs in which I've been able to actually can nick out for a smoko (already working 14 hours just to get the work done) are the veggie type jobs I've had and the bosses there watch you like a hawk.

[NightTrain]

18. As a non-smoker, I agree with you.

This policy sets a bad, bad precedent. :scared:

[seabeyond]

19. f* yawl i say with a smile and love

just f* yawl. hey and to those that say cussin is ignorant communication, ergo message should be dismissed.........f* yawl.

i am so tired, yet so good. taking care of two little boys in this retarded world us adults are giving to the children. my niece moved in 12 year old girl, a week ago.........new school. new town, umpteenth time, and i get to do her in love and grace. a husband a father two brothers,.......nieces and nephews

and i am kikcing ass in love

so as thee judges all of who i am in smoking. simply f* yawl
whoever yawl may be. also i have been wanting to express, those that feel so superior refusing me your company because i smoke. i dont want to be with you. lol lol. i dont want to hang with a person that would be so ugly to me. dont like me. i dont care. no way would i allow that person around me. i dont need your judgement. and i dont buy into it. and it isnt how i live my life. and it isnt what i do to people i love

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

49. lololol, bravo! touche! n/t

[choicevoice]

22. How will they enforce this?

Will they send a representative from the company home with you? What about alcohol? Will they ban drinking of any alcoholic beverage as well? OH!

[elehhhhna]

23. blood or pee tests.

[choicevoice]

25. Blood test hmmmmmmmmmm!!!

I would love for some female employee to go in and toss a used tampax on the presidents desk.

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

50. ewww! stinky! that'l teach 'em about pollution! n/t

[SOS]

52. Which makes the whole absurd policy moot

Five minutes before the urine test, the subject can start chewing nicotine gum.
Then he can smoke, outside the office, as he pleases.

[Ilsa]

24. What about other risky behaviors?

What about pregnancy? (You can have thyroid changes after pregnancy, and labor and delivery are not without risks.)

What about remaining childless? Sometimes you are more prone to certain diseases if you don't have a baby by a certain age.

Are they going to start running genetic tests to see what might go wrong in the future? If a woman has the BRCA gene, are they going to requeire she have a prophylactic mastectomy? What a family histories of testicular cancer? Prostate cancer?

What about simply getting older and needing more frequent healthcare or meds?

Will people on meds for depression be fired?

This company is trying to shift all of their risk, period. It's unreasonable. I'm not a smoker and I don't like smoking at all. But it is a legal activity. Some people are truly hooked.

This is wrong.

[doodadem]

27. Not saying I agree with it

I'm just saying, I don't see why this is making news now, when there are other companies that have been doing it for years.
And plenty of companies do random drug tests now. It's a simple thing to add nicotine into that list. I think they also get a break on their insurance for weeding those people out.
So there you go--one more reason to have universal healthcare, where such things don't matter. The situation to be really taking a hard look at is Bush's push for computerizing all health records, and implanting microchips with your medical history. The potential for civil liberty and privacy violations there are tremendous.

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

51. some of us aren't even hooked but figure we might as well

smoke, since it is among our lowest risk activities. Living in any major city in America drinking their water supply, with toxic levels of lead and mercury is higher risk than smoking. Living near any of the 148 superfund sites in America is more toxic than smoking. Breathing air anywhere in the world, now that Shrub has used dirty uranium in Iraq, is a higher risk than smoking. Living in New York or Washington, continual targets for Shrub's buddies to attack to keep us in line, is higher risk than smoking. Living anywhere on the planet now that the glaciers are melting is a very high risk of unpredictable killer hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes and tsunami. If you are a woman and you eat any fish at all in your lifetime you have high chances of bearing autistic children because of the mercury levels now present in seafood. Eating McDonald's food is higher risk than smoking, and obesity or intellectual stress, of the kind caused by election frauds and dismissed democracies, is more hazardous to your health than smoking. Simply put, you will sometimes see old people who have smoked all their lives but you will virtually never see an old person who has been obese all their lives. The "war against smoking" is just more circus circus, of the kind offered by Caligula, and our own little Caligula, The Shrub, to distract the masses from the really important issues. It's nonsense, or more directly, a lie.

PS on edit, I am starting to think of smoking as one of the most healthful behaviors possible.

[davsand]

26. I am an ex-smoker and I call bullshit on this one.

I don't smoke anymore--had my last smoke when they called Ohio for the asswipe--but I have got to call bullshit on anybody telling me that they are FIRING smokers for their own good...

Look, the insurance claims (and costs, ultimately) do run higher over time for smokers. I don't think anyone can deny that--we KNOW smoking is bad for your health. I can understand the idea of some SOB being too cheap to foot the bill for smokers who spent years killing themselves by degrees, but I simply can't accept that firing anybody is gonna help them any.

If the company is too cheap to pay for the added insurance costs associated with smoking, then why not just tell employees who smoke they can't have company health insurance unless they pay more for it? Hell, tell them NO insurance at all if they keep smoking, but you can't just FIRE somebody for what they can legally do off your property.

I hate the entire drug testing thing with a passion--and refused drug testing to get a job at one place--but I also realize they are testing for substances that are illegal. (I'm not gonna go into the entire "legalize it" speech, much as I'd like to) Dammit, cigarettes, however, are still legal to own and consume and it is nobody's business except my Doc's if I want to smoke a carton at night in my home!

My logic is I don't want to work for any asshole that will intrude in my private life like that. If he'll piss on my rights that way, he'll do it in the workplace too.

Everybody needs to call bullshit on this guy. He could give a shit about his employees and he's lying if he says he is.



Laura

[TXlib]

44. There may be legal issues pertaining to that

I know that employee health insurance laws can be wonky.

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

54. insurance costs higher for the obese than smokers! fire the obese? n/t

[Djinn]

78. and anyone with a family history

of any chronic disease!!

[depakid]

30. I would love to hear some libertarians weigh in on this

talk about cognitive dissonance....

[jocal]

37. OK

I am philosophically a Libertarian, though I rarely vote that way (seems like a waste...).

My feeling is that the employer is well within his rights to employ whoever he wants. Period.

I am a smoker. If my employer said that they would fire me if I didn't quit, it would be my decision to either quit or find another job. Either would be painful, but in the end, I realize that "my job" is really "my employer's job" that my employer is allowing me to fill.

[ultraist]

60. Free market private business decisions is what this is about

It's not about morals or privacy. Business owners, such as myself, should not be forced to take a financial hit due to their employee's addictions. I don't give a flying fuck what my employees do in their free time, nor do I care to know but I do care what the risks are to my bottom line.

The fact is, smoking costs our society HUGE amounts of money. Unpaid medical bills do get subsized through our tax dollars. Smoking is an extremely selfish habit IMO. It's unhealthy for the smoker, those around them, and costs our society big bucks.

Business owners should not be forced to hire employees who get ill more frequently due to their smoking habits. All of the research shows that smoking damages the immune system and the body in general. Smokers are much more prone to getting upper respiratory illnesses, heart problems, cancer, etc.

It's already very expensive to have employees. Providing jobs requires paying all sorts of extra taxes, business license fees, professional license fees, insurance, workman's comp, payroll taxes, fees to set up LLCs or other legal entities, training, unemployment insurance, etc Then of course, there is the risk of a vindictive employee making a false claim and suing or claiming unemployment even though they were terminated for poor performance.

The decision of who to hire is a business decision. Private businesses are not charities, they have a right to consider their bottom line FIRST, as long as they do not violate existing regulations.

I already pay taxes for social programs that include free drug rehab, free mental health services, corporate welfare to hospitals for unpaid bills, and a wealth of other programs. Why should business owners be forced to pay twice for neglected health care issues?

[depakid]

70. Correct me if I'm wrong wrong, but what you're saying is

that employers should be allowed to dictate their employees personal habits away from work. If that's the case, then employers should be allowed to unmarried people with an active singles life, because they are at a higher risk of getting an STD. Or people who eat fast food, because those employess are much more likely to develop coronary heart disease, diabetes or food borne illnesses? Or people who drink?

[jocal]

74. I believe you are misinterpreting

ultraist said NOTHING about employers being "allowed to dictate what their employees personal habits away from work."

I believe that the poster's position (as is mine) is that employers are well within their rights to not employ people who engage in any behavior that the employer disagrees with, especially those that can negatively affect the business.

The job belongs to the employer who should be free to grant that job to whoever he deems most suitable (regardless of criteria). Additionally, the job exists to benefit the business, not the employee.

ultraist: If I am offbase here, please correct and forgive me for jumping in.... jocal

[depakid]

79. Sounds like dictating personal habits away from work to me

and I don't see how the logic applied doesn't lead to the other results I described. Premarital sex, perhaps- or a woman's decision to postpone pregnancy- which significantly increases her risk of breast cancer.

I think this illustrates the inherent contradiction in libertarianism.

On the one hand, it advocates individual freedom from government interference in one's choices about personal lifestyles, yet it is perfectly willing to hand power over those choices over to businesses and corporations which in many cases hold such monopoly or oligrachical power as to act as surrogates for the government.

[jocal]

81. Individual freedom

for the the employee AND the employer.

As far as the contradiction goes, you left one important point out. There is also the individual's freedom to not work where they disagree with an employer's policies.

Example:
When I was in college, I worked for a guy who, I found out later, was a pretty big donor to Republicans. I decided I didn't want to help him make money to send to those goons so I quit and found a job elsewhere.

[ultraist]

85. well said jocal! thanks

I do not think I should be forced to hire someone that is unhealthy to the point there is a high risk of it affecting their productivity, thus my bottom line. I would not hire an obese person to do labor nor would I hire a crack addict to do accounting.

Why do employees feel that they have the right to make business decisions for the owner? They don't carry the responsibility and the risk. Hiring is a business decision.

I don't tell others how to spend or invest their money.

[jocal]

89. Thank you, ultraist!

I do not remember who said this but it basically sums up my philosophy:

"The right of a man to swing his fist ends where the next man's nose begins."

In other words, people should be free to do whatever they want as long as their actions do not infringe on the property rights or freedom of others.

Forcing an employer to retain someone who engages in activity (even if it is away from work) that can hurt the business infringes on the employer's right to protect his property.

You are right on in saying that you "don't tell others how to spend or invest their money." In a free society, others should return the favor by not telling you how to spend or invest yours!

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

82. wow, I thought I was a democrat with a libertarian trapped inside me...

but now I know the truth. You call that liberty? My idea of liberty is, "you pay me to do this certain thing, now I have done it, so pay me and mind your own business and stay out of my face."=liberty.

[jocal]

88. I think we agree but

remember that liberty belongs to the employee AND the employer. The employee is free to do whatever he wants on his own time and the employer is free to decide if those activities are negatively affecting his business.

The employee is free to work wherever he can get a job.
The employee is free to quit that job for whatever reason.
The employer is free to hire who he wants.
The employer is free to fire who he wants.

Businesses do not exist to provide jobs. They primarily exist to make money for the business owners and investors. Jobs within a business exist to serve that primary objective. If a business owner identifies ways to improve the bottom lime (i.e. primary objective), he is free to do whatever is legally permissible to do so.

[Occulus]

111. go examine the original reasons for corporate charters

As I recall, it used to be all about the public good- and if a corporation acted against the public good, it would simply get its charter revoked.

Businesses are not people, no matter that they are run by people. The business itself, as a legal entity, is undeserving of "rights". It deserves only priveleges.

[jocal]

114. Out of scope

I believe that your recollection of charters granted for the public good is correct. In the sense of corporations and their charters however, it is typically used in regard to their product or service. For example, a manufacturing plant that belches soot and tar into the atmosphere is certainly not operating in the "public good" for its employees or the community. A company that sells dangerous toys for children is not working in the "public good".

Licensed businesses (small businesses or corporations) are still privileged to decide who to employ and may negotiate with the employee the terms of employment as long as they are not in violation of any regulations and do not infringe on the employee's rights.

In this case, the business isn't saying the people can't smoke which is an adult's right to do so. They're simply saying that smokers can not work for them. No one has the express "right" to work for WEYCO, INC.

[Occulus]

109. Does one corporation have the legal right to regulate the consumption

of another corporation's product- particularly when that other corp's product is being consumed on private property owned by other than the conplaining corporation?

If you work at McDonald's, you better not eat at Subway- or for that matter, bring your own lunch. You must eat McD's, go hungry, or quit. How is long-term fast-food consumption "better" than smoking?

Better yet- McD's prohibits employees from consuming the company's own food because long-term consumption of fast food can lead to health problems.

Ridiculous? You bet, yet these sorts of legal Escherisms are what result when we allow corporations to control private lives. I've been afraid of this starting for a long time now, because people have gone from seeing corporations as artifical, soulless legal entities to seeing them as beings ion and of themselves, and thus deserving of rights.

Corporations, being nonhuman, nonliving legal constructs, do not in any way deserve "rights" of any kind; they only deserve priveleges. They are not human, not alive, and not worthy of the consideration given actual persons.

That said, the FTC may want to look un on this; it's a case of a company prohibiting the commerce of another company, and it sets a very bad precedent vs. the right of the people to do business. Not only that, it sets a bad precedent overall.

Ford used to do things like this, and it wasn't exactly benign.

[jocal]

113. One at a time

This isn't about limiting consumption, but I'll bite anyway.

If the product consumed on the employee's personal time and property affects the business, the company may have a case to do so. That's why drug/alcohol testing is legal (which, by the way, I disagree with). If you doubt this, test it by repeatedly going to work with alcohol on your breath (legally "under the limit") after consuming it on personal time and and off company property. Many companies have rules against adults legally consuming alcohol, for example, at lunch and coming back to work. Offenses to such rules, even if the employee isn't drunk, can result in firing.

In this instance, tobacco usage (even off company time and property) can affect the business in the form of higher insurance premiums and more sick days for smokers.

WEYCO employees are still free to smoke, just not as WEYCO employees. Furthermore, they are not entitled to employment at WEYCO (or anywhere else for that matter).

I agree that your examples are ridiculous. Anyone who needs to be reminded that corporations are as you described simply needs to work for or interact with one.

In discussing employer rights in previous posts, that was in the context of small businesses and their owners and management, not corporations themselves.

The FTC can investigate all it wants as there is no prohibition of commerce here. The people still have the right to smoke. They simply lost their privilege of being employed at this company if they chose to keep smoking.

I don't know what you're referring to with regard to Ford.

Look, I agree with you and most of the others on this board in the sense that this sucks for the folks that lost their jobs. I also recognize that people work at the pleasure and the benefit of their employer.

[Logansquare]

41. I'm a nonsmoker, and I think this is wrong

As long as tobacco is legal, then people should be permitted to smoke in their own homes or in public spaces where it is allowed.

[TXlib]

43. On one hand, I agree

but on the other, I find it offensive as a non-smoker that the health insurance premia paid by my chain-smoking coworkers are the same as mine.

Perhaps this company's policy is infringing on their freedom, but smokers are infringing on my economic freedom.

(Please don't extend my comments to no-blame health conditions. I don't begrudge susidization of health problems for which the sufferer had no blame, but it pisses me off that I have to pay for other people's poor choices.)

[MadHound]

45. So are you as equally pissed about those who

Do drugs, drink heavily, are overweight, indulge in high risk sex, indulge in high risk activities, don't go to the dentist, bite their nails, etc etc? If not, then you are being rather hypocritical to single out just smokers to be pissed at.

Do you have a bad driving record, live in a disaster prone area, are single, poor, not a college graduate? These are but a few of the many poor choices that I also have to pay out in insurance premiums in order to subsidize other peoples' lives.

Geez people, don't you get it? This is a divide and conquer game that is being played by the insurance industry, and you're falling for it. Rather than bitch about how other people live and what they choose to do, turn your anger to the real culprits in this little mummers' play, the medical and insurance industries who are apparently being quite successful in their divide and conquer strategy. Rather than go after your fellow human beings who are struggling to get by, go after the corporatistas who are running the show, and making money off of our misery. The time for universal health care is now, and if we had it, we wouldn't have to worry about these little BS ploys now would we?

[TXlib]

47. Remember, I prefaced my comments with "On one hand, I agree"

And this thread was just about the smokers.

Ideally, your health insurance premia should be adjusted for any and all parameters under your control, and for a few that aren't.

Unless such universal health care penalised people for aggravating risk factors under their own control, I wouldn't support it.

I have nothing but sympathy for somebody who suffers horrible misfortune when they are blameless.

HOWEVER: if somebody is a very heavy drinker/smoker/drug user, etc, and expects me to pay for their new lung or liver, then no thanks. I'm talking about gross self-abuse, mind you, not moderated risks. Everybody engages in some moderately risky behavior. I'm only concerned about those who are way above the baseline.

[MadHound]

53. And what would you define as moderately risky behaviour?

The majority of smokers live their allotted three score and ten. Yet those who overeat cut a good ten years or more off their lives due to their obesity. In fact obesity is soon to be the number one killer of Americans, killing over 400,000 per year. Yet where is the cry to fire them? Risky sexual behaviour kills tens of thousands of people per year, proceded by years of expensive medical treatments. Yet where is the cry to fire the hedonists? Alcohol consumption likewise kills tens of thousands a year, yet no outcry about firing the drinkers, much less the drunk drivers. No, that is apparently OK, but when it comes to smokers, they're fair game eh.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Look, in an insurance pool, money is not only shared, but risk is also, for everyone. Our shared risk is what allows the insurance industry to cover everyone. And yes, sometimes that shared risk can be a pain in the ass. You live in Houston, which means that I'm paying for your living in a high risk(hurricane) area through higher premiums. Should I have you relocated forcibly relocated into a lower risk area? After all, it was merely a matter of personal choice, and it is running up my insurance bills now.

But quite frankly, this is all so much happy horseshit because the real reason that insurance rates are climbing is not due to the habits of drinkers, smokers, eaters, or those living in a hurricane zone. The reality of the matter is that rates are rising because the vast majority of profits made by the insurance companies is through investments. And quite frankly they, along with most other investors, have lost their ass in the past four years. Thus, the insurance industry is raising rates across the board, from health insurance to home insurance to malpractice insurance. That is why this whole bru-ha-ha over tort reform is such a piece of blatent BS. It is more of the same blame game being played out with the lawyers as is being played out with smokers. Rather than firing smokers, and enacting tort reform, let's go after the real culprits, the virtually unregulated insurance industry that is sucking all of our money.

And I'll make you a deal. I'll share your risk of living in Houston if you'll share the risk of my ten a day cigarette habit. Deal?

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

59. Excellent point, thanks for saying so, and it's a deal. n/t

[TXlib]

91. I agree, the devil's in the details

And I'm not singling out smokers. And I'm not suggesting any PARTICULAR scheme, I'm only stating there can be a fairer way of sharing risk in a way that does not ENCOURAGE people to engage in riskier behavior than they need to.

Certain risks are more "guilty" than others.

You can't reasonably expect the entire gulf region of Texas to relocate. However, our homeowners rates DO factor in the increased risk from hurricane.

Some risky behaviors will go uncaptured into the risk equation, because there is no way of verifying them.

[MadHound]

96. Why can't I move the Gulf coast of TX?

After all, there's plenty of other places that they live, c'mon, get with the program friend, this is all about reducing insurance rates now!

Think I'm being ludicrous? Think my proposition is absurd? You're right, it is, it is about as absurd of firing somebody who smokes in the privacy of their own home. Don't like my notion? Feel that you're being picked upon? You're correct you are, to about the extent that smokers are being picked upon with this idiot idea of firing them for smoking in their own homes.

Tell you what friend, let's just let people live their own lives outside of the workplace, and instead go after the real culprits here, the virtually unregulated insurance industry.

[TXlib]

99. How, then would you fix the insurance industry?

I'm all ears.

[MadHound]

104. Well, the first big change would be to institute UHC

Then everybody would be insured. Secondly, regulate the insurance industries ability to invest, especially high risk investments. The insurance industry invested heavily in the dot com bubble, and consequently lost their ass. Even when the tech boom was in full fledge, when the insurance industry was making money hand over fist off of their investments, they didn't pass any of that money onto their customers in the form of lower premiums. However when they lost their ass in '00-'02, they were quick to pass those losses on to you and me. There is something fundementally wrong in that economic model, at least wrong for consumers. It works out fine for the insurance industry, as they continue to make profit. Third, I would like to see the enforecement of a certain level of cash that they have to save in order to make up for their investment losses. That way, when they do lose money, they are required by law to eat those losses(as you and I do) rather than passing that loss on to their customers in the form of higher premiums.

That's for starters, give me some time to think and I'll probably come up with more.

[TXlib]

107. Instituting UHC

That's a really big step.

Would you replace all private insurance, or make it available only for those who aren't covered by private insurance?

I'll be honest... I really don't know much about how UHC works in other countries, or what the proposals here have been. I've heard the superficial arguments, the sound bytes, from both sides, but I've never delved deeper.

My philosophy, however, is to be very cautious that any new proposal won't merely substitute a new set of problems for the old ones, or be even more problematic.

[yankeedem]

58. Way above the baseline as judged by who?

You see, this is the problem, you let a reasonable person judge, you also have to let unreasonable bosses judge too.

Just because I am employed doesn't give my employer the right to "judge" my off hours decisions. Doesn't give you that right either.

What do you mean about this?
"Unless such universal health care penalised people for aggravating risk factors under their own control, I wouldn't support it."

The Republicans have told us for years that citizens have no responsibility for others in society, whether they have issues where they had no control, or "lifestyle choice" issues like smoking, etc.

The reality is much different. We are responsible as a moral society to support everyone, regardless of whether their "decisions" make your job harder. We are judged as a society by how we treat our weakest members.

You know, European societies don't cut off drug addicts or smokers from the health rolls. Funny thing too, their health care stats as a complete society are better than ours, at much less cost.

[TXlib]

94. answer

I don't want a form of universal insurance that ENCOURAGES people to seek out more needless risk than they would if they had no insurance.

Needless risks would include smoking, rampant sexual promiscuity, heavy drinking, dangerous thrill seeking (ie -- skydiving).

Calculated (reasonable) risks would include living in a part of the country prone to some kind of natural disaster, commuting to work on a dangerous highway when no reasonable alternative exists, etc.

Some of these risks are things you could objectively measure; some you can't.

I also recognise that the distinction between the two types of risk as I descibed can be very subjective -- I would err on the side of considering them reasonable risks unless compelling objective evidence indicated otherwise.

[ultraist]

61. Your private insurance rates are higher due to smokers' selfish behavior

I don't mind paying taxes that go for health care for people who cannot afford insurance, but why should I pay for someone's health care who works and can afford insurance because they CHOOSE to smoke? AND PAY TWICE?

It's not that hard to stop smoking and I have no interest in supporting smokers. Smokers should get some freakin' nicorette and wean themselves off of the nicotine.

My kids should NOT have to huff someone's smoke, outdoors or indoors, it's gross. Keep it in your own homes, please. I have an asthmatic daughter who chokes when she has to breath filthy cigarette smoke.

People need to think about the consequences of their actions on others. Smokers' rights my ass.

[elehhhhna]

65. So the 10 free Viagra per month that guys get from Medicaid is ok w/you?

[ultraist]

86. Medicaid is a public social program not a private business

And has nothing to do with the fact that private businesses should be allowed to hire whom they see fit as long as they do not discriminate based on sex, race, religion or sexual orientation.

That's an illogical extension of this argument. ;)

[MadHound]

95. Your private insurance rates are also higher because people

Drink, overeat, engage in risky sex, persue risky sports, drive drunk, live in high risk areas, and a whole plethora of other risky behaviours, one of which you also probably engage in. It is called living friend, and when one is alive, one is almost certain to engage in risky behaviour at some point or another during their lives. Are you willing to enforce that everybody cease and desist from engaging in risky behaviours? Are you willing to cease and desist from your own risky behaviours? If not, then quite frankly you have no room to speak. Remove the log from thine own eye before talking about the beam in mine.

[elehhhhna]

63. Ferile women. Especially if over 35 years old. NEVER hire THEM!

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

118. absolutely so! well said. n/t

[napi21]

46. Interesting point of view! I think it's very likely!

Of course, employers should also have the right to refuse to cover other expensive activity.

Like your eating habits.

Alcohol is likewise forbidden without a prescription. No more beer, wine, whatever.

Or sex. (STDs, AIDS, and childbirth for women. I wonder how well it would go over if the women at Weyco had to sign an agreement not to get pregnant, or one that mandated Depo-Provera or some such while employed. Oh, and since AIDS is a "gay" disease, guess what happens to practicing homosexuals?)

How about personal habits? Like motorcycles? Sell 'em, baby. Skydiving? Skiing? Firing offenses. Too many speeding tickets? Get a free pink slip with your third ticket.

I prefer both my government and my employer to stay out of my personal life. If you think about the kinds of precedents this kind of thing sets, you should too.

Found this at the following link. Sure makes sense to me! Let this employer get away with this, and they'll all jump on. Think about what this person wrote, and decide if this is really what you want.

http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1106682016.comments.shtml

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

57. Just so you all know

I can resist telling you, I am 52 years old, I can run a 10 min mile, I know because I do 3 or 5 of them every day, I haven't had so much as a runny nose in the last 15 years, and I am smoking as I read this, ....and blowing it...right at my computer! Nothing personal!

[Djinn]

80. hehe - my favourite story

was that French woman who died a few years ago at some ridiculous age like 112 - a few years before she died a journalist asked her secret for long life she said "don't drink or smoke, I gave up THREE years ago"

[KamaAina]

67. Next on the Weyco hit list: Obesity

you knew it was coming, just not this week maybe...

http://www.nbc10.com/health/4134754/detail.html?rss=phi&psp=health

A Michigan health care company that fired four employees for smoking is also targeting fat.

Howard Weyers, the founder of Weyco Inc., said he wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else, Reuters reported.

Weyers brought in weight experts to speak with employees, according to Reuters. The company also offers employees a $35 monthly incentive for joining a health club and $65 for meeting fitness goals.

Hmmm... no mention of anorexia, which is MUCH more dangerous than obesity... NAAFA (Nat'l Assn. for the Advancement of Fat Acceptance), take note!

[jdj]

92. I honestly wish they would.

I could stand to lose a few pounds,so I'd appreciate the motivation.

I don't understand why they just don't let people opt out of the insurance plan.

[sbj405]

76. There are so many things that would lead to increased health care costs

like say kids, being active (sports related injuries), obesity, etc. Is this company going to run every aspect of their employee's lives?

Sounds like an awful place to work.

[TXlib]

101. Factoring risk into insurance premia isn't running your life.

Life insurance already factors whether or not you're a smoker into your rates. That's doesn't seem to deter most people, and the surcharge is incremental.

If a statistically valid relationship between an objectively quantifiable and detectable behavior can be linked (positively or negatively) to your insurance rates, then it should be, subject to governmental oversight to ensure they aren't behaving unconscionably or in collusion.

As far as active kids having more sports related injuries, I'm reasonably sure the slight cost of occasional ER visits is more than made up for in savings from sedentary-lifestyle-related ailments.

The simple fact is, even if you could rigidly account for EVERY possible risk factor, and adjust insurance premia accordingly, there is still a very large measure of random risk (in fact, unless you are an astronaut or soldier, the random component is typically the largest risk bucket) which we all benefit from sharing.

Several people have said it's hypocritical to focus on smokers, and ignore risk factors like where you live. Actually, I agree. I'd be perfectly happy having any and all insurance adjested for where I live.

I know my homeowner's insurance and auto insurance most definitely depends on where i live. Why not my life and health insurance?

And I view this as an issue separate from discussions of nationalised health insurance, or fixing private insurance. This is something that ALSO needs to happen, IMHO.

[sbj405]

117. Why not just deny those employees that smoke coverage?

That would seem to cover the concerns of the employer, correct? Heck, most people would probably end up quitting smoking when they realized their out of pocket costs for securing coverage on their own.

[Rex]

77. The 4th Amendment is no more

Just another nail in the coffin.

[ultraist]

98. Some employers

want to hire only people in optimum health so that they are less likely to call in sick and are more productive.

I certainly wouldn't hire someone who was unhealthy and couldn't perform well.

It's unfortunate that some people are unhealthy and that disability payments are so low, but I cannot afford to do charity work for every Tom, Dick and Harry that comes along. I already do volunteer work, make donations and pay taxes.

Just because someone provides jobs, does not mean they are more obliged to provide charity than employees.

If the employees are so concerned, why don't they subsidize the smokers?

[TXlib]

103. Too many people have a overdeveloped sense of entitlement

Or a misguided sense of what is fair.

I am reminded of certain behavioral finance experiments relating to the politics of envy and greed.

[TXlib]

102. 4th amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How does this apply to the 4th amendment? Forgive me in advance if I'm being particularly dense.

Also, the Constitution, strictly speaking, applies to the power the government has over you.

On the other hand, corporations do wield an enormous amont of power over the lives of individuals; far more so than they did when the Constitution was framed. It can certainly be argued that corporations wield an authority equivalent to that of governmental authority, in some cases.

I also agree with Carville's comment in Had Enough?, where he said that the Constitution was written when the government was the single biggest threat to individual liberties, but that today, corporations threaten it just as much. Therefore, big (and strong) government is needed to protect the individual from corporations.

I see both sides of the argument on this, and i tend to agree with those who feel that corporations threaten liberty as much as government. I'm just not sure what they best remedy would be that won't cause more problems than it solves.

[Rex]

115. Corporate fascism

You still believe there is a difference between the BFEE and big business? Oh man. Well maybe I'm the dense one. Hell I dunno - it just looks BAD and now worse.

[gtp1976]

105. Question

If these workers got together and formed a union, then went on strike to protest this policy, which side would you be arguing? The Union? Or the corporate boss who is more interested in cutting his own operating costs?

[fob]

106. I think this is a crazy move too but to characterize it as "FORCING

employees to quit smoking" is not quite right. The company isn't forcing anyone to quit smoking, they are however going to terminate you if you are a smoker. A distinction maybe without a difference but a distinction nonetheless, as witnessed by some employees who simply quit WORKING at Weyco rather than quit smoking.

I say good for them for standing up against being told what to do. If I were a smoker working there I would have shown up to work and just taken my regular smoke break FORCING them to enforce their zany rule, why let them off the hook, but to each his own. I also can support those that took the company challenge, accepted help to quit smoking and continue to work there. Although I suspect some may resent it after a while, especially if it escalates to some other facet like drinking or whatever.

In the end the company may suffer for losing good employees that they invested in via training etc, or it may prosper by the publicity it has received and is sought out by non-smokers that may or may not be better employees overall than those they "lost". I do think that the end result is not justification for the means and society as a whole loses in this one.

M2C

[fryguy]

108. Patriotic Act connection?

What is the connection between this (which I'm by no means defending) and the Patriotic Act? I don't see how the Patriot Act is responsible for "allowing this to become a reality."

There is certainly grounds to use both things as indications of the general assault on privacy and civil liberties, but there is nothing in the article to suggest that one caused the other.

[sweetbutterfly]

116. Was wondering

the same thing myself.

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

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