Company fires smokers.

[hateful_liar]

This is some bullshit:

http://www.wftv.com/news/4125477/detail.html?rss=orlc&psp=irresistible

LANSING, Mich. -- A Michigan health care company has fired four of its employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes

The company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after-hours, or at home.

The founder of Weyco Inc. said the company doesn't want to pay the higher health care costs associated with smoking.

An official of the company -- which administers health benefits -- estimated that 18 to 20 of its 200 employees were smokers when the policy was first announced in 2003. As many as 14 of them quit smoking before the policy went into effect.


On the company's Web site, it states:

Weyco Inc. is a non-smoking company that strongly supports its employees in living healthy lifestyles.
Distributed by Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



Seriously what the fuck?! Are they going to have going to fire overweigt employees too? Those who drink? They going to administer blood sugar tests next?


.

 

[bokmeow]

*waits for galfordo to come in and spam this up*

 

[lithy]

Private company they can do whatever the hell they want.

That said I'm completely against GOVERNMENT restrictions on smoking. But its their company they can fire smokers if they want, just as a restaurant owner should be able to decide whether he wants smoking in his place without the governement banning it statewide.

Do you smoke?

I don't

 

[norton9478]

Private company they can do whatever the hell they want.

That said I'm completely against GOVERNMENT restrictions on smoking. But its their company they can fire smokers if they want, just as a restaurant owner should be able to decide whether he wants smoking in his place without the governement banning it statewide.

Do you smoke?

I don't

Well I don't know about that. I would suspect that the policy needs to follow federal laws regarding drug testing policy (usualy realted to Suspicion, Pre-Employment and safety).

As for the Restuarants, you have to consider safe air standards. A smoky bar has unsafe levels of Carbon Monoxide and many other contaminants. It's a workplace. You wouldn't want your employer to pump your lungs full of shit like this. Why should a bar?

 

[Chicago Cheeseburgler Crew]

Private company they can do whatever the hell they want.

That said I'm completely against GOVERNMENT restrictions on smoking. But its their company they can fire smokers if they want, just as a restaurant owner should be able to decide whether he wants smoking in his place without the governement banning it statewide.

So they should be able to fire homosexuals (based on their sexual orientation) as well?

Not wanting smoking in your restaurant is one thing, but discrimination based on what one does in the privacy of one's home (especially considering that smoking tobacco is a 100% legal practice) is ridiculous. If I worked at a restaurant and they found out I'm a recreational dancer outside of the workplace should they be able to fire me based on the fact that I'm more likely to break my leg and leech off of insurance?

Since when are private employers allowed to illegally discriminate?

Do you smoke?

I don't

Yes.

All sorts of things.

 

[Tacitus]

Unbelievable..

This is so illegal it's not funny.

I hope they get raped for this... and I don't even smoke anymore.

 

[lithy]

As for the Restuarants, you have to consider safe air standards. A smoky bar has unsafe levels of Carbon Monoxide and many other contaminants. It's a workplace. You wouldn't want your employer to pump your lungs full of shit like this. Why should a bar?

You choose to go to that bar. For work or for dinner.

Stinky makes a good point, I suppose its a bit harsh to say its ok to fire them. I'll be thinking on this one.

 

[Chicago Cheeseburgler Crew]

Stinky makes a good point, I suppose its a bit harsh to say its ok to fire them. I'll be thinking on this one.

It really is an open and shut case though. It's illegal. Smoking tobacco in one's home is a legal recreation, much like playing video games, or shaving your legs (I do all three)... discrimination based on it is illegal.

 

[Highlander67]

I smell a major lawsuit. Private company or not, Weyco cannot make a determination to fire an employee because they smoke. Plain and simple. They can decide to eliminate the ability to smoke in or around the building, but cannot fire employees for doing it on their own time.

 

[kobylka68]

I completely agree. It's a whole different type of discrimination. It's ridiculous. Dinkins makes a really good point.

 

[Eric]

Here comes the wrongful termination suits.

Well thought out plan. To save a few bucks on the employees' health insurance, they're gonna pay out their asses for lawyers and settlements.

 

[Highlander67]

Here comes the wrongful termination suits.

Well thought out plan. To save a few bucks on the employees' health insurance, they're gonna pay out their asses for lawyers and settlements.

and the company will lose big time. They didn't think this one through.

 

[subcons]

Did they sign anything saying they wouldn't smoke? If not, that's bullshit.

They started this thing at my work in the past year or so. Weather you smoke or not and get health insurance through the company, you have an option to sign a form saying you won't smoke anymore (assuming you already do). Result: you get a discount on what the company takes out of your paycheck monthly for insurance. Great for people that don't smoke, which I don't. So I get a discount by default. I watched a few people try and quit because of this. None of them could.

 

[norton9478]

You choose to go to that bar. For work or for dinner.

I'm not saying that it's unfair to the customer... It's unfair to the Employees. Nobody should have to work in that enviorment unprotected.

You don't say to pipe fitters that it's thier fault that they have emphysima because they choose to work for a company that didn't provide enough abestos protection.

 

[norton9478]

watched a few people try and quit because of this. None of them could.

Quiting is easy, I have quit at least 30 times.

 

[norton9478]

So they should be able to fire homosexuals (based on their sexual orientation) as well?

Since when are private employers allowed to illegally discriminate?

In the US, Homosexuality is not protected at the federal level. If you live in the right state, you can be fired simply because you are gay.

If you want to keep your job and have federaly protected man-sex, move to Canada.

 

[Chicago Cheeseburgler Crew]

In the US, Homosexuality is not protected at the federal level. If you live in the right state, you can be fired simply because you are gay.

If you want to keep your job and have federaly protected man-sex, move to Canada.

Yes, faggotry is a bad example. In some states isn't sodomy illegal (or it was until recently)... so in some places I guess it would be akin to failing a drug test. Every time I come into work I'm greeted by the "Emplyment Discrimination is illegal in New Hampshire!" followed by a list of factors against which it's illegal to discriminate... and gayness is among them.

 

[SML]

 

[Magnaflux]

This is legal discrimination.

One can legally discriminate based on occupation, smoking, sexual preferences ect... as these are not legally protected.

I've known a building contractor who erected houses in a new development around the OKC area. A potential client wanted to purchase a home in the development and the builder refused due to him ( the client) being a lawyer. The lawyer attempted a lawsuit against the builder but the case was thrown out of court.

 

[norton9478]

This is legal discrimination.

One can legally discriminate based on occupation, smoking, sexual preferences ect... as these are not legally protected.

Ok lets say it's legal to fire someone for being a smoker?

Now under what circumstances can you force that person to take a "Drug Test"?

 

[Magnaflux]

Ok lets say it's legal to fire someone for being a smoker?

Now under what circumstances can you force that person to take a "Drug Test"?

Conditions for that (drug testing) vary from state to state. Here in Oklahoma, it's perfectly legal to have drug testing random or not for just about any substance. I don't know the law in Michigan, but it may be illegal to have that sort of testing.

Companies can never force anyone to take a drug test. They may offer a choice to take it or be fired, but they can never force the issue.

 

[aria]

Hmm... Are smokers a "protected class"? Probably not.

Private employers have far more latititude in who they hire/fire.

Meh, I think this is silly, though -but I can understand the concern over paying too much insurance.

the heath care system in the country is messed up (unless you're rich)

 

[hateful_liar]

Hmm... Are smokers a "protected class"? Probably not.

Private employers have far more latititude in who they hire/fire.

Meh, I think this is silly, though -but I can understand the concern over paying too much insurance.

the heath care system in the country is messed up (unless you're rich)

Yes, but there are many things you can leaglly do, that have adverse effects on your body. Will employers tell us what we can eat next? Drink? How often we work out? Just how much are they allowed to control their employees outside of the workplace? Where does it end?

Also, fo the record I am not a smoker myself. I just think it sets a bad precedent.

 

[gamejunkie]

This is complete bs and I don't smoke.

How do they test for tobacco in your system? Would it pick up if you dipped skoal?

 

[RAINBOW PONY]

Fucking aye! Fuck smokers, and that company has fucking balls for doing that shit.