STORM2K

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/26/smokin ... index.html

Also overweight workers may be next too for that company to boot.Discrimination in a big way I see here.

Next on the firing line: overweight workers.

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

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

I can see that smoking may impact their health insurance rates, but to either quit smoking or leave? Law suits are coming.

That's a violation of the discrimination act ... period.

SF

Stormsfury wrote:That's a violation of the discrimination act ... period.

SF

To fire a person for smoking out side of work, Law Suit big time $$$$

No question that bigtime lawsuits are comming here.

cycloneye wrote:Bigtime lawsuits comming here.

Without doubt. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

It is definitely discrimination and they will not get away with the ultimatum that they have given their employees. On the other hand, I think that employers would definitely benefit by giving monetary incentives to drop weight or quit smoking. It may be just the incentive that some people need.

Isn't it also a labor issue? An employer can't really tell an employee what they can or can't do at home, right? Heck, we had a situation at UK once where they wanted some non-nursing staff to be on-call on weekends. They said we had to be near a phone from Friday night until Monday morning where we could be reached (this was back before everyone and their monkey had a cell phone). We refused, citing on-call pay policies for other departments -- either pay us on-call differential or give us a pager. We got pagers.

Clearly, it's not quite the same. They're not going to pay someone for NOT smoking. However, I agree with the statement he made about health care costs as well as society's aversion to smoking. I'd rather see people quit. And I'm so picky, I've never dated a smoker yet and don't see myself doing it in the future. It's a major turn-off. But if I were an employer, I simply don't think it would be my right to tell someone not to do something in their own home.

I saw the report on CNN this morning. I heard them talking about $$ bonuses for employees who quit smoking, lose weight, etc. But I was unclear if it is the same employer or not. The bonus incentive, IMHO is a good idea to encourage healthier life styels of employees. Firing them is not so good.

CNN is going to invite Weyers to be on their "In the Money" segment. That ought to be interesting, especially if they invite some of the former employees to appear.

When it comes to discrimination, some businesses have crossed the line.

My Dad got fired from National Linen, because they said he's to old. Now he has a better job.

As for my Dad's former workplace, the boss there should've known better because it's been hell trying to find a person with as much excellent skills as my Dad.

i disagree. if i, as an employer, am paying for your health insurance, then i have the right to decide whether to hire a smoker or overweight person.

GalvestonDuck wrote:Isn't it also a labor issue? An employer can't really tell an employee what they can or can't do at home, right? Heck, we had a situation at UK once where they wanted some non-nursing staff to be on-call on weekends. They said we had to be near a phone from Friday night until Monday morning where we could be reached (this was back before everyone and their monkey had a cell phone). We refused, citing on-call pay policies for other departments -- either pay us on-call differential or give us a pager. We got pagers.

Clearly, it's not quite the same. They're not going to pay someone for NOT smoking. However, I agree with the statement he made about health care costs as well as society's aversion to smoking. I'd rather see people quit. And I'm so picky, I've never dated a smoker yet and don't see myself doing it in the future. It's a major turn-off. But if I were an employer, I simply don't think it would be my right to tell someone not to do something in their own home.

but if you are subsidizing their health insurance, if you are having to have extra expense for more frequent absences form certain employees, then i feel you do have the right. no one is forcing anyone to smoke. i think its perfectly valid for a person to have to choose between smoking or a job.

it is ludicrous to compare smoking to age discrimination. age is not a choice, smoking is. sex is not a choice, smoking is, race is not a choice, smoking is.
again, i think an employer has every right to give an employee a choice.

rainstorm wrote:i disagree. if i, as an employer, am paying for your health insurance, then i have the right to decide whether to hire a smoker or overweight person.

OR that person can pay a higher deductible.

NOONE has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do.

Stephanie wrote:

rainstorm wrote:i disagree. if i, as an employer, am paying for your health insurance, then i have the right to decide whether to hire a smoker or overweight person.

OR that person can pay a higher deductible.

NOONE has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do.

THEY DONT? they do every day. an employers job doesnt belong to you, it belongs to the employer. every day people tell you what you can and cant do, especially the govt. here is an idea, you start a business and pay out insurance premiums for your employees and you find out what those costs are.

here is a brilliant article from neal boortz. be aware, he minces no words, and i agree with him. and another fact, employers every day refuse to hire people who have DECIDED to have bad driving records.

Tuesday -- January 25, 2005

FIRE SOMEONE FOR SMOKING?

This morning on CNN, Jack Cafferty was a bit exercised over reports that more and more companies are not only refusing to hire smokers, they're firing them. They're getting fired not for smoking on the job .. but for just being smokers. Bad? No ... Good!

In Michigan, Weyco, Inc. has a new policy. They won't hire smokers. They're also requiring all current employees undergo testing to see if they are currently smokers. Presumably this will be a step toward firing all smokers. Employment lawyers say this reeks of discrimination. Well, duh! Of course it's discrimination! It's discrimination against people with unhealthy lifestyles who are going to send your health insurance costs even higher. It's discrimination against people who have been shown to have poor work habits and higher absences from the job. Oh .. and it's discrimination against the stupid and ignorant ... and people who stink. Now don't you think that these are all perfectly good reasons to discriminate?

First of all, don't give me that discrimination nonsense. We all discriminate every day, and nobody thinks anything of it. The simple chore of making a decision between Mexican or Chinese food for lunch is an act of discrimination. To say that someone has "discriminating tastes" is a compliment, not a slam. Smoking isn't a race or a gender, nor is it a religious belief. It's a pathetic, sickening, stupid, self-destructive behavior. It's an act of self-hatred. Discriminate away.

Just consider health insurance. Unfortunately we have come to the point in this country where it is expected that employers will take care of most of the health care for their employees. This unfortunate situation is the primary reason health care costs are seemingly out of control in this country .. but that's another subject for another sermon from the Church of the Painful Truth. If you, as the employer, are going to be responsible for the cost of your employee's health care then you should be allowed to select employees, and get rid of employees based on any aspects of their lifestyle that would be unhealthy and, therefore, would cost you money.

Do you think it is okay to fire someone on the sole basis that they are a smoker? Not for taking excessive breaks, etc., but only because they smoke.
Yes
No

Nobody would suggest that someone who hires people to drive company vehicles should not be able to discriminate against people with bad driving records. An accident could cost you money, so why not keep the accident-prone dangerous drivers off your payroll? Similarly, a smoker is going to drive up the cost of your health insurance, so why not keep that smoker off your payroll? And higher insurance premiums isn't the only cost you'll have to pay for having smokers on your payroll. Generally speaking, smokers simply aren't as productive in the workplace as are non-smokers. They take more frequent breaks (to do drugs,) and they're absent from work more often due to illness.

And ... to cap it all off ... smokers just aren't all that bright. In repeated trials smokers have scored lower on intelligence tests than non-smokers. Smoking, then, is an excellent way for you to get an immediate indication of who has common sense, and who doesn't . OK .. I know that there are exceptions, but across the board the rule holds. An employer who has a policy of simply not hiring smokers, and getting rid of employees who do smoke, is going to have a smarter, more capable workforce than will an employer who hires these pathetic drug addicts.

So there. If you're a smoker, don't direct your anger at me. I'm not your problem. YOU are your problem. You need to figure out why you hate yourself and why you're so bent on self-destruction. I don't know the answer to that question. You do. Start figuring it out.
http://www.boortz.com

CaptinCrunch wrote:

Stormsfury wrote:That's a violation of the discrimination act ... period.

SF

To fire a person for smoking out side of work, Law Suit big time $$$$

not when that person causes you the employer, to lose money. smoking is a choice, not sex, age, or race. an employer has every right to make an employee choose between a job or continuing to slowly kill themselves.
i support non-smoking bans in public places because it effects me, and i support the right of employers to not hire smokers, because it causes them to lose money. no one is forcing anyone to smoke

Helen - you are someone that is always complaining about how you shouldn't be paying for someone else's disability payments (aka SS), and various other individual right infringements. Are you telling me that it is okay then to be selective as to who should be told what to do or not to do? Did you READ my last comment??? I think that if would be fair to charge those that do smoke a surcharge on their health premiums.

I smoke DURING MY BREAKS. That would include my lunch time which is 99% of the time at my desk. Non-smokers all also abusers as well of the telephone, bathroom/gossip breaks, etc. which happen to cost the employer money. I AM one of the most productive people in my area and I am RARELY SICK. Boortz is another blow-hard like Limbaugh - I said it, therefore it is.

rainstorm wrote:

CaptinCrunch wrote:

Stormsfury wrote:That's a violation of the discrimination act ... period.

SF

To fire a person for smoking out side of work, Law Suit big time $$$$

not when that person causes you the employer, to lose money. smoking is a choice, not sex, age, or race. an employer has every right to make an employee choose between a job or continuing to slowly kill themselves.
i support non-smoking bans in public places because it effects me, and i support the right of employers to not hire smokers, because it causes them to lose money. no one is forcing anyone to smoke

What's next? Alcohol kills and causes lost work days. Diabetics raise the health insurance of a company, shall we kick them out? Oh lets see your mother and grandmother had cancer, too bad your too big a risk, out you go. And on and on.

Cookiely wrote:

rainstorm wrote:

CaptinCrunch wrote:

Stormsfury wrote:That's a violation of the discrimination act ... period.

SF

To fire a person for smoking out side of work, Law Suit big time $$$$

not when that person causes you the employer, to lose money. smoking is a choice, not sex, age, or race. an employer has every right to make an employee choose between a job or continuing to slowly kill themselves.
i support non-smoking bans in public places because it effects me, and i support the right of employers to not hire smokers, because it causes them to lose money. no one is forcing anyone to smoke

What's next? Alcohol kills and causes lost work days. Diabetics raise the health insurance of a company, shall we kick them out? Oh lets see your mother and grandmother had cancer, too bad your too big a risk, out you go. And on and on.

EXACTLY!!!

I talked to someone well versed in Employment Law. Lawsuit city.

The only problem I have with this is the timing. I think its a fanatastic thing for the workplace to have a No smoking policy for new hires. You smoke, you can't work here..I see that as an employers right. If I smoked, I might not like it, but its their company, not mine, and they can make any rule they want. If you know the rules going in, and still accept a job, then you have no excuses.

As far as existing employess being shown the door if they smoke (off the workplace property)...that's rediculous! They smoke on the workplace property, fire their butts if they don't follow the company rules. I have no problem with that.