Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2005-01-25 03:15pm

Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

LANSING, Mich. -- Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.

Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.

The rule led one employee to quit before the policy was adopted. Four others were fired when they balked at the smoking test.

Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes estimated that 18 to 20 of the company's 200 employers were smokers when the policy was announced in 2003. Of those, as many as 14 quit smoking before the policy went into effect. The company offered them help to kick the habit.

"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Flakin · Post by **Flakin** » 2005-01-25 03:18pm

That can't be legal... (Shuffles off to see if theres any prior law on this...)

Vohu Manah · Post by **Vohu Manah** » 2005-01-25 03:24pm

Probably not, expect a discrimination lawsuit in the next few days.

Post by **Edi** » 2005-01-25 03:25pm

No, it's not legal by any stretch, it's blatant discrimination. What they could do is charge a greater health insurance premium or whatever from the smokers, because of their significantly higher risk of developing health problems from the habit.

Edi

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2005-01-25 03:37pm

It is quite legal.

You are legally protected from discrimination from these sources:
Age
Disability
Equal Pay
National Origin
Pregnancy
Race
Religion
Sex
Sexual Harassment

The company gave them warning and even offered to let them quit smoking, but they refused, making them pretty much ineligiable for immediate unemployment (under my state's law).

This isn't without precedent. Henry Ford used to visit the homes of his employees for dinner (management, no the plebians) and if he didn't like the way you ran your household you were as good as fired.

Your legal-right to smoke protects you from criminal prosecution only, just as your legal right of free-speech doesn't make you immune to getting fired for calling your boss a dumbass to his face.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-25 03:47pm

No, that's not right. In hiring practices, yes, the company is free to discriminate as much as it wants where there are no legal protections, on any basis that it wants. However, in firing practices, the company can't just fire employees for no good reason, and if they do, the employee has the option to sue the employer for wrongful termination. And unless the company gets a jury that is just profoundly anti-smoking, I doubt they will be able to prove that firing an employee for smoking on his own time is justified.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-01-25 03:49pm

It is quite legal.

Not always.
It varies from state to state.

In states with 'at will' employment laws (such as my own), it's quite legal.
In states with 'just cause' employment laws, there's a very good argument that it's illegal as the employment contract isn't a lifestyle agreement contract and increased health insurance costs aren't generally held to be a valid reason to refuse to hire someone.

Charging higher premiums for the smokers would have covered the insurance costs.
My read on this is that the owner is an asshat whose real motive was to impose his will on the private lives of his employees.

Post by **Edi** » 2005-01-25 03:51pm

Steven Snyder wrote:This isn't without precedent. Henry Ford used to visit the homes of his employees for dinner (management, no the plebians) and if he didn't like the way you ran your household you were as good as fired.

Your legal-right to smoke protects you from criminal prosecution only, just as your legal right of free-speech doesn't make you immune to getting fired for calling your boss a dumbass to his face.

Henry Ford would have a very sore arse after the courts were done with him if he were to live today and try that shit. What you do on your own time is none of an employer's business unless your actions have a direct impact on the employer's business. Getting fired for calling your boss an idiot is not comparable, because it can be taken as a discipline issue, a worker demonstrating inability to work in his job without friction (thus causing problems for the team) and undermining his superior's position. Very different from firing someone for their political opinion or just because they smoke. Now, if their smoking affects their work performance, that's a different issue, but smoking in and of itself is not good enough cause.

Edi

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2005-01-25 04:03pm

For an employer to discriminate based on something that is based entirely on choice is perfectly legal. Why should someone be forced to employ people who partake in activities they deem idiotic? That's not fair at all. We have anti-discrimination laws to protect people from being mistreated due to factors beyond their control. For other qualities, if they want the job, then they should act in whatever way is suitable for it.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2005-01-25 04:08pm

Personally, I don't really see a problem. I doubt as many would object to druggies being fired for being drug users at work or at home.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-25 04:16pm

Seggybop wrote:For an employer to discriminate based on something that is based entirely on choice is perfectly legal. Why should someone be forced to employ people who partake in activities they deem idiotic? That's not fair at all. We have anti-discrimination laws to protect people from being mistreated due to factors beyond their control. For other qualities, if they want the job, then they should act in whatever way is suitable for it.

They are not. If they find smoking idiotic, they can refuse to hire the employee on that basis. However, if they suddenly decide arbitarily after the employee has been working for them for quite some time that smoking is bad, they'd better damn well show a good reason for throwing the poor guy out on his ass.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2005-01-25 04:17pm

I concur with Walper. Though I may be making an 'emotional argument' (as Wong calls the immediate inclination to throw out liability claims from a thief), I think this is both appropriate and kind of funny. If someone is going to sit there and knowingly poison themselves, that's gotta be some kind of mental disorder

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-01-25 04:19pm

Robert Walper wrote:Personally, I don't really see a problem. I doubt as many would object to druggies being fired for being drug users at work or at home.

Drugs are illegal. Having employees that partake in illegal activities is an obvious liability to the company.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2005-01-25 04:22pm

Joe wrote:
Seggybop wrote:For an employer to discriminate based on something that is based entirely on choice is perfectly legal. Why should someone be forced to employ people who partake in activities they deem idiotic? That's not fair at all. We have anti-discrimination laws to protect people from being mistreated due to factors beyond their control. For other qualities, if they want the job, then they should act in whatever way is suitable for it.
They are not. If they find smoking idiotic, they can refuse to hire the employee on that basis. However, if they suddenly decide arbitarily after the employee has been working for them for quite some time that smoking is bad, they'd better damn well show a good reason for throwing the poor guy out on his ass.

Why? People get fired arbitrarily all the time. If you as an employer decide that you don't like somebody anymore, you can get rid of them. You shouldn't be obligated to continue paying somebody because you can't come up with a good enough reason to dump them. It's not some government organization, it's a company that you're running.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-01-25 04:30pm

Seggybop wrote:
Joe wrote:
Seggybop wrote:For an employer to discriminate based on something that is based entirely on choice is perfectly legal. Why should someone be forced to employ people who partake in activities they deem idiotic? That's not fair at all. We have anti-discrimination laws to protect people from being mistreated due to factors beyond their control. For other qualities, if they want the job, then they should act in whatever way is suitable for it.
They are not. If they find smoking idiotic, they can refuse to hire the employee on that basis. However, if they suddenly decide arbitarily after the employee has been working for them for quite some time that smoking is bad, they'd better damn well show a good reason for throwing the poor guy out on his ass.
Why? People get fired arbitrarily all the time. If you as an employer decide that you don't like somebody anymore, you can get rid of them. You shouldn't be obligated to continue paying somebody because you can't come up with a good enough reason to dump them. It's not some government organization, it's a company that you're running.

I've just become the new CEO of Company X. I don't particularly like Jews or black people. So I fire all the Jews and black people.

I hope this hypothetical scenario (rar!) shows you the quite obvious flaw in your arguement.

The Third Man · Post by **The Third Man** » 2005-01-25 04:30pm

Seggybop wrote:For an employer to discriminate based on something that is based entirely on choice is perfectly legal.

Not if it breaches the contract of employment, which must exist by law. I very much doubt that this being-a-smoker thing would stand up in court as a breach of any reasonable, legal contract.

Why should someone be forced to employ people who partake in activities they deem idiotic? That's not fair at all.

It is fair, because otherwise an employer could arbitrarily define things as being "idiotic" and use this as a tool for creative dismissal.

For example - suppose I'm a racist employer, but legislation prevents me dismissing the one Asian who works for me. Then one day I find out that the Asian guy owns a cat, and none of my other workers do. I simply define cat-ownership as idiotic, and I'm rid of my Asian.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman · Post by **Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman** » 2005-01-25 04:30pm

Robert Walper wrote:Personally, I don't really see a problem. I doubt as many would object to druggies being fired for being drug users at work or at home.

False analogy. Drug abuse is illegal, while smoking ain't. Of course, should a company caught their employee using drugs, no matter where they caught it, the first thing to do is contacting the legal authorities to report such crime.

Tommy J · Post by **Tommy J** » 2005-01-25 04:33pm

McC wrote:I concur with Walper. If someone is going to sit there and knowingly poison themselves, that's gotta be some kind of mental disorder

People poison themselves in all sorts of ways. The abuse of Alchol which can lead to liver disease could be argued to have an equally if not great expense to a company.

Over eating has been proven to lead to heart disease.

Eating certain types of starchy foods in excess can lead to high blood pressure.

The Airline Industry tried this tactic several years ago (for vanity's sake) and lost when they tried to fire employees who were getting older and gaining weight.

Restaurant Companies like 'Hooters' (which is a restaurant that typically has women with big tits and skimpy outfits) lost when they refused to hire competant male employees and women with smaller breasts.

Until we make smoking illegal -- I think they're in trouble legally.

Tommy J · Post by **Tommy J** » 2005-01-25 04:34pm

^^^^

They can however make it against company policy to smoke on their property and fire someone justifably for breaking that rule.

Seggybop · Post by **Seggybop** » 2005-01-25 04:35pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:I've just become the new CEO of Company X. I don't particularly like Jews or black people. So I fire all the Jews and black people.

I hope this hypothetical scenario (rar!) shows you the quite obvious flaw in your arguement.

Did you miss the part about it applying only to qualities that are the person's own choice? You don't choose to be a certain race. You do choose to smoke.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-01-25 04:36pm

Seggybop wrote:
DPDarkPrimus wrote:I've just become the new CEO of Company X. I don't particularly like Jews or black people. So I fire all the Jews and black people.

I hope this hypothetical scenario (rar!) shows you the quite obvious flaw in your arguement.
Did you miss the part about it applying only to qualities that are the person's own choice? You don't choose to be a certain race. You do choose to smoke.

So I only fire the Jews. You choose to be a certain religion.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-01-25 04:37pm

Seggybop wrote:
Joe wrote:
Seggybop wrote:For an employer to discriminate based on something that is based entirely on choice is perfectly legal. Why should someone be forced to employ people who partake in activities they deem idiotic? That's not fair at all. We have anti-discrimination laws to protect people from being mistreated due to factors beyond their control. For other qualities, if they want the job, then they should act in whatever way is suitable for it.
They are not. If they find smoking idiotic, they can refuse to hire the employee on that basis. However, if they suddenly decide arbitarily after the employee has been working for them for quite some time that smoking is bad, they'd better damn well show a good reason for throwing the poor guy out on his ass.
Why? People get fired arbitrarily all the time. If you as an employer decide that you don't like somebody anymore, you can get rid of them. You shouldn't be obligated to continue paying somebody because you can't come up with a good enough reason to dump them. It's not some government organization, it's a company that you're running.

Bzzt. Two words: Wrongful termination. At-will employment is basically a joke nowadays.

And even if the employer is LEGALLY in the right, is it MORALLY right to fire somebody for a legal lifestyle choice? Set aside for a moment how you feel about smoking--this is an employer telling his employees that they either conduct their private lives, off the clock, how HE sees fit, or else they lose their jobs. This doesn't bother you?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-01-25 04:40pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:
I've just become the new CEO of Company X. I don't particularly like Jews or black people. So I fire all the Jews and black people.

I hope this hypothetical scenario (rar!) shows you the quite obvious flaw in your arguement.

Except when is being Black or a Jew a choice? And don't tell quote me Michael Jackson, he's still Black even if he does bath in bleach, and Judism is birth as much as faith

This company does not WANT to pay for the higher heath care related to insuring smokers, fine and dandy, They will probably stop hiring smokers or already have, this is simply getting rid of existing smokers within the company(Before whatever CEO, owner or what-not took power and created this policy)

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-01-25 04:41pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote: So I only fire the Jews. You choose to be a certain religion.

Bzzzt Sorry, You can fire anyone for any reason except what is already protected under the Law, Inculding Religion

The Right to Commit Sucided Slowly over several decades is not a protected right anywhere on this planet

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2005-01-25 04:42pm

Tommy J wrote:Until we make smoking illegal -- I think they're in trouble legally.

Telling your boss he is an idiot isn't illegal, but it will get you fired.
Loudly farting isn't illegal, but losing a contract because you did it at the meeting may welll get you fired.
Calling a black co-worker by the *N* word isn't illegal, but it will definately get you fired.
Having an affair with the bosses wife isn't illegal, but if he finds our your ass is on the street.
Not bathing for a year isn't illegal, and you will be fired for it.

Just because it isn't illegal, doesn't mean you can't be fired for it.

Yeah it isn't fair, but life isn't fair and anyone who says different is selling you something.