Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

[RedImperator]

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

Actually, dude, I'm on your side, but that's a bad argument. Things which are outside the employee's control are generally protected under the law, as is religion, which gets all sorts of special exemptions under American law. This is a case of an employer terminating employees for making a legal, voluntary, private lifestyle choice.

[Mr Bean]

Calling a black co-worker by the *N* word isn't illegal, but it will definately get you fired.
Not bathing for a year isn't illegal, and you will be fired for it.

Two things, N word is illegle in some states, its "Hate Speech"
Second Not Baithing will get you commited but its not illegal

Agian sucided fast or slow is not a right

[RedImperator]

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.

All of those examples are work related, and specifically harm the company. Smoking off the clock, off company property, does not except in the case of health insurance costs, and those can be offset by higher premiums for smokers.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

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.
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.

Well, if it's actually legal for a company to control and dictate their employee's behaviour *outside* job context, then I would welcome everyone to the brave new world of corporatism. Probably Orwell's 1984 is more real than we thought?

My boss is a right-wing, fundie Moslem. Would it be legal for him to fire me for being a secular Moslem? Or for not growing a beard? Or for missing the shalat too often?

Even though it's legal for a company to fire its employee because they smoke at home, the question is: is it actually fair? Mind you, during Taliban reign in Afghanistan, it was legal for the state to arrest someone for not conforming to the regime's self-defined "Moslem lifestyle"

[Steven Snyder]

Well, if it's actually legal for a company to control and dictate their employee's behaviour *outside* job context, then I would welcome everyone to the brave new world of corporatism. Probably Orwell's 1984 is more real than we thought?

This has been going on for a very long time now, this story is nothing new. Your boss has always had this kind of control.

Call your boss at his home, after hours, tell him that his wife smells like rotten tuna. It is afterall *outside* of the job context and took place outside the workplace...now go into work the next day and see what happens.

My boss is a right-wing, fundie Moslem. Would it be legal for him to fire me for being a secular Moslem?

No that is protected by law, by the examples I gave...religion being one.

Or for not growing a beard?

If he requires that his employees have beards, Employers are free to designate Dress-Codes you know.

Or for missing the shalat too often?

That treads back into the religion clause again.

Even though it's legal for a company to fire its employee because they smoke at home,

They weren't fired for smoking, they were fired for refusing to take the test, well that is what their lawyers will say.

the question is: is it actually fair?

There is that *F* word again, LIFE ISN'T FAIR.

Mind you, during Taliban reign in Afghanistan, it was legal for the state to arrest someone for not conforming to the regime's self-defined "Moslem lifestyle"

You know, you aren't forced to work for that guy, unlike the example given, you can quit and find a job somewhere that you like better. Getting fired isn't nearly the same as getting arrested.

Your employer has the right to run his company as he sees fit with employees he wants. He has the right to decorate the office the way he sees fit, he has the right to enforce dress-codes, he has the right to fire employees who aren't team players...as long as he doesn't discriminate based on the aforementioned tenets.

[Tommy J]

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.

Those are unfair examples. Reason being is that smoking isn't illegal and while it has proven to be unhealthy the smoker who's terminated for such can sue based on wrongful termination. A company would have to prove in a court that all activities that are potentially unhealthy and costly in terms of health care costs were being banned.

Besides, if I called a co-worker the 'N' word off-site of work, I couldn't be fired.

The hygiene example doesn't work either. In most of your examples you give behaviors conducted at the place of business which legally by an employer can be regulated.

In this case, an employer is trying to regulate a LEGAL activity participated in outside of work.

[Tommy J]

^^^^

FYI, Disney Land lost this one too. They tried to tell employees that they MUST shave their beards in order to be employed their.

A judge stated that was unfair and discriminatory.

[The Third Man]

Well, if it's actually legal for a company to control and dictate their employee's behaviour *outside* job context, then I would welcome everyone to the brave new world of corporatism.

Caveat: This is based on my understanding of UK employment law, it may be different where you are:

An employer can do this, to an extent. Its usually acheived by a little catch-all clause in the contract of employment, under the grounds for dismissal section which goes something like "any activity which brings the company into disrepute". This was recently invoked in the UK (I posted about it a couple of months back) in the case of an employee who was guilty of highly-publicised racist behaviour at a football match.

This will not apply in the smoking case, because there is no way any court would allow that smoking off-duty brings a company into disrepute.

My boss is a right-wing, fundie Moslem. Would it be legal for him to fire me for being a secular Moslem? Or for not growing a beard? Or for missing the shalat too often?

Almost certainly not, for the same reasons that apply above - your behaviour doesn't bring the employer into disrepute, doesn't impinge on your performance at your job. Unless, of course, you happen to work in a Mosque

[Tommy J]

^^^

FYI. It just occured to me Snyder. Your examples of calling the boss outside of work an idiot etc. are not good either.

Even outside of work when I INTERACT with my employer it's fair game.

Zero interaction with work and smoking at my home isn't that.

[Steven Snyder]

Those are unfair examples.

There is that *F* word again...

Reason being is that smoking isn't illegal and while it has proven to be unhealthy the smoker who's terminated for such can sue based on wrongful termination.

Having an affair could be considered unhealthy, you might catch something, but it isn't illegal. Go hit on your bosses wife afterhours and see what happens.

A company would have to prove in a court that all activities that are potentially unhealthy and costly in terms of health care costs were being banned.

Umm, no it doesn't. The employee would have to prove that he was fired in an unjustified manner, and refusing to take a mandated test is a justfied termination.

Besides, if I called a co-worker the 'N' word off-site of work, I couldn't be fired.

Okay then, call up your boss and drop the *N* word on him, tell him he is a dirty *N* and there is nothing he can do about it. Better yet, meet up with your bosses family (without him) in the grocery store and call them all flavors of indignities...

In this case, an employer is trying to regulate a LEGAL activity participated in outside of work.

Working for one of your direct competitors can be done outside of work hours and is definately not on company property, but it can get you fired.

[Steven Snyder]

Almost certainly not, for the same reasons that apply above - your behaviour doesn't bring the employer into disrepute, doesn't impinge on your performance at your job. Unless, of course, you happen to work in a Mosque

BUT, it does raise health care costs now doesn't it?

Remember, they weren't fired for smoking, they were fired for not taking the test.

[RedImperator]

Well, if it's actually legal for a company to control and dictate their employee's behaviour *outside* job context, then I would welcome everyone to the brave new world of corporatism. Probably Orwell's 1984 is more real than we thought?

This has been going on for a very long time now, this story is nothing new. Your boss has always had this kind of control.

Call your boss at his home, after hours, tell him that his wife smells like rotten tuna. It is afterall *outside* of the job context and took place outside the workplace...now go into work the next day and see what happens.

Again, an example that applies directly to the workplace. Your relationship with your boss has a direct impact on the functioning of the company.

If he requires that his employees have beards, Employers are free to designate Dress-Codes you know.

Yet another example that applies directly to the workplace.

Even though it's legal for a company to fire its employee because they smoke at home,

They weren't fired for smoking, they were fired for refusing to take the test, well that is what their lawyers will say.[/quote[

That's an utterly transparent dodge that, if Michigan doesn't have at-will employment, won't hold up in a court of law, let alone in a discussion of if it's right to fire someone for what he does on his own time.

the question is: is it actually fair?

There is that *F* word again, LIFE ISN'T FAIR.

Saying "life isn't fair" doesn't address the argument and doesn't give you carte blanche to excuse anything an employer does which doesn't break the law. He's already conceded the employer may have a legal right to fire someone for smoking at home. The question is, is it moral or ethical?

You know, you aren't forced to work for that guy, unlike the example given, you can quit and find a job somewhere that you like better. Getting fired isn't nearly the same as getting arrested.

That same argument was used against laws that protect against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the rest. Economic dislocation is just as much a hardship as prison (even if not as large), and it's NOT reasonable to tell employees that's their only option in the face of their employer's whims.

Your employer has the right to run his company as he sees fit with employees he wants. He has the right to decorate the office the way he sees fit, he has the right to enforce dress-codes, he has the right to fire employees who aren't team players...as long as he doesn't discriminate based on the aforementioned tenets.

Not one of those examples is analogous to smoking at home, off the clock. Nor is morality defined solely by rights. The question in this thread--other than the legal one, which unless we have an expert on Michigan employment law, will probably not be answered satisfactorally--is whether it is RIGHT for an employer to dictate legal lifestyle choices that have no effect on the company to his employees, a question you have repeatedly failed to address.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Well, if it's actually legal for a company to control and dictate their employee's behaviour *outside* job context, then I would welcome everyone to the brave new world of corporatism. Probably Orwell's 1984 is more real than we thought?

This has been going on for a very long time now, this story is nothing new. Your boss has always had this kind of control.

Call your boss at his home, after hours, tell him that his wife smells like rotten tuna. It is afterall *outside* of the job context and took place outside the workplace...now go into work the next day and see what happens.

It would be called "personal offense" and if I do such thing to others, they would have every right to sue me. Boss or no boss.

My boss is a right-wing, fundie Moslem. Would it be legal for him to fire me for being a secular Moslem?

No that is protected by law, by the examples I gave...religion being one.

Because it's protected by law, but what if I live and work in some (probably hyphotetical) idiotic country wouldn't protect me from such things?

Or for not growing a beard?

If he requires that his employees have beards, Employers are free to designate Dress-Codes you know.

So are you saying a company can dictate EVERY aspect of their employee's attribute, to the most ridiculous extent, even when it's got nothing to do with the job itself?

Or for missing the shalat too often?

That treads back into the religion clause again.

See my reply on my fundie Moslem boss.

Even though it's legal for a company to fire its employee because they smoke at home,

They weren't fired for smoking, they were fired for refusing to take the test, well that is what their lawyers will say.

Ah, that would be different case, then.

the question is: is it actually fair?

There is that *F* word again, LIFE ISN'T FAIR.

No shit, Sherlock. Of course life isn't fair. But when the law actually allows companies to interfere with their employee's private life, which has nothing to do with their job, then it's one hell of unfairness.

Mind you, during Taliban reign in Afghanistan, it was legal for the state to arrest someone for not conforming to the regime's self-defined "Moslem lifestyle"

You know, you aren't forced to work for that guy, unlike the example given, you can quit and find a job somewhere that you like better. Getting fired isn't nearly the same as getting arrested.

My question is whether a law is morally (and rationally) right or not.

Your employer has the right to run his company as he sees fit with employees he wants. He has the right to decorate the office the way he sees fit,

Yes, because he's decorating the office.

he has the right to enforce dress-codes,

To what extent? Suppose I own an IT Consulting Firm, then I enforce my employees to wear toga everytime, including outside office hours, and fire anyone who doesn't conform, and the law says it's legal for me to do such ridicolous thing, wouldn't you say there's something really wrong with the law itself?

Yes, some service industries enforce uniform to their employee, such as banking industries or fast food restaurants, but whatever they wear outside office hours is NONE of the company's business.

he has the right to fire employees who aren't team players...as long as he doesn't discriminate based on the aforementioned tenets.

Of course, because it's related to job performance.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

PS: shouldn't this thread belong to SLAM?

[Steven Snyder]

[quote="RedImperator"
Again, an example that applies directly to the workplace. Your relationship with your boss has a direct impact on the functioning of the company.[/quote]

An employees willingness to take a test to determine the level of their compliance with company policy, also has a direct impact on the functioning of the company...now doesn't it.

That's an utterly transparent dodge that, if Michigan doesn't have at-will employment, won't hold up in a court of law, let alone in a discussion of if it's right to fire someone for what he does on his own time.

It is the right of the employer, sorry

The question is, is it moral or ethical?

Who cares? All the morals and ethics in the world aren't going to get your job back when you have been fired, only the law will.

That same argument was used against laws that protect against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the rest. Economic dislocation is just as much a hardship as prison (even if not as large), and it's NOT reasonable to tell employees that's their only option in the face of their employer's whims.

Economic Dislocation, don't give me that bullshit. You were fired, you don't need a big fancy word to make it sound better.

Sorry, but employers have rights too. And in many states they have the right to fire anyone that displeases them, as long as they aren't violating the discrimination laws.

Not one of those examples is analogous to smoking at home, off the clock. Nor is morality defined solely by rights. The question in this thread--other than the legal one, which unless we have an expert on Michigan employment law, will probably not be answered satisfactorally--is whether it is RIGHT for an employer to dictate legal lifestyle choices that have no effect on the company to his employees, a question you have repeatedly failed to address.

Because your employer is paying those health care bills, he has every right to get rid of a few who are jacking up those costs for everyone else.

I don't disagree that it sucks, but that is the world we live in.

[jcow79]

I'm afraid if Michigan is a right-to-work state or "at will" as I've seen it called a few times by others, than there probably isn't a lot that the people who were fired can do. Pretty much in those states if you can't prove your employer fired you based on protected status (Ie. religion, age, sex, etc...) Or if you didn't have a contract that defined the limits of your employment then you don't have a leg to stand on. Most employers in those states actually have you sign something that states they can fire you for any time for any reason accept those protected by law. If Michigan is not one of these states which I think only a relative few aren't at-will states then they will likely have a case.
These laws are meant to protect businesses and are good lures to get business into your state.

[Steven Snyder]

It would be called "personal offense" and if I do such thing to others, they would have every right to sue me. Boss or no boss.

But would you expect him to fire you? Don't get off the subject.

Because it's protected by law, but what if I live and work in some (probably hyphotetical) idiotic country wouldn't protect me from such things?

Irrelevant, we are discussing the situation in Michigan.

So are you saying a company can dictate EVERY aspect of their employee's attribute, to the most ridiculous extent, even when it's got nothing to do with the job itself?

Of course not, he can't dictate anything to you. You can quit and tell him to fuck off. He is a boss not a slavemaster, the difference is that a slave can't quit.

Ah, that would be different case, then.

I bet there was a lawyer involved in that somewhere.

No shit, Sherlock. Of course life isn't fair. But when the law actually allows companies to interfere with their employee's private life, which has nothing to do with their job, then it's one hell of unfairness.

Life isn't fair

My question is whether a law is morally (and rationally) right or not.

Would the law be moral if it stated that employers were helpless to create a working environment that they say fit? Yeah it sucks, but it is their company afterall, moving away from this would be socialism.

Yes, because he's decorating the office.

No, not the office, his office.

To what extent? Suppose I own an IT Consulting Firm, then I enforce my employees to wear toga everytime, including outside office hours, and fire anyone who doesn't conform, and the law says it's legal for me to do such ridicolous thing, wouldn't you say there's something really wrong with the law itself?

Your the boss, you want everyone to wear Toga's then so put it in the manual. It is YOUR company, they are YOUR employees, you do with them as you please in accordance with the law. Do you really want the govenment telling you how to run the business you that YOU own, dictating to you what health care you will offer, how expensive it will be, what they can wear, etc etc etc...pretty soon it isn't YOUR company anymore.

Of course, because it's related to job performance.

And if an employer feels that non-smoking employees are better performers, then what?

[Justforfun000]

Because your employer is paying those health care bills, he has every right to get rid of a few who are jacking up those costs for everyone else.

I don't disagree that it sucks, but that is the world we live in.

Now hold on a minute here. This is absolutely ridiculous. They have NO right to arbirtrarily change the rules while you are playing the game.

If there was nothing in the contracts you signed saying you agree to hold to a "healthy lifestyle" and refrain from smoking, then this is horseshit. The MOST I think they could do is find some legal precedent allowing them to alter the benefits of health insurance based on someone's smoking. They could put out a change in policy with a choice to continue under tha same plan if smoking is not part of their lifestyle or another option to either increase health premiums or possibly (if they had the legal right), refuse to cover them any longer.

For them to have the legal right to FIRE someone for off-work activities that are not illegal is unconscionable.

What would be the difference of making a "Mandatory" test for people to test for HIV or any other STD of a serious nature like Syphilis? If they refused, they could fire them for not demonstrating that they were in good health and refraining from dangerous sexual activity?

What about cholesterol tests and therefore being able to demand they no longer eat at McDonalds? Think of the slippery slope here. This is outrageous and I'm quite certain no court would uphold this as being legal.

If there is a law in some states supporting this nonsense then the States are more fucked then I thought, and that's saying something.

[Jalinth]

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.

But most of these have a direct work impact and some are "for cause" worthy. Insubordination is a "for cause" reason to terminate your employment - creating a hostile environment is a "for cause" reason. This means - no severance needed. Losing a contract could be a valid reason - especially if it isn't the first time.

Having an affair with your boss' wife - you are stupid, so should be fired. From a legal standpoint, call it insubordination.
Not bathing in a year - might equate to smoking in terms of the smell. If it is a problem, it should be first addressed and only then fired. This is simply basic management. Same thing for smokers - if they reek to the point of being noxious, tell them first - then fire. They can then choose to a) have work only clothes that are kept smoke-free b) stop smoking c) quit.

I have no problem with employers forbidding smoking on their premise - they own/lease the land, so it is their rules. I have problems with employers sticking their noses into my personal life where it has no impact on their business. If the governments should keep out of our bedrooms, so should employers.

Also, where do you draw the line in these situations. It is a slippery slope issue that is true. Once you move away from the "does the conduct impact the company" test, where does it stop? For very senior executives, they are essentially representing the company 24/7 and anything "negative' they do will impact the company. Also, these guy are damn well protected so even if they are fired for cause, they seem to get these large golden parachutes.

But more junior people are not generally synonymous with the company - so shouldn't be held to the same standards. Do you think anyone will think worse of Walmart if a cashier goes streaking through a university? Change this to the CEO of walmart, and the answer changes.

[The Third Man]

Almost certainly not, for the same reasons that apply above - your behaviour doesn't bring the employer into disrepute, doesn't impinge on your performance at your job. Unless, of course, you happen to work in a Mosque

BUT, it does raise health care costs now doesn't it?

Remember, they weren't fired for smoking, they were fired for not taking the test.

Reading the article again, so it does! But then the second paragraph seems to contradict the first, and refers explicitly to the act of smoking being the bone of contention, not the test. I wouldn't like to predict what m'learned friends will make of this.

[Durandal]

So I take it that everyone supporting this employer's decision would similarly support an employer who fired any employees who drink alcohol at home, off the clock. Or any employee who plays Everquest. After all, playing MMORPGs isn't a right and neither is having a beer. And people get fired arbitrarily all the time and life isn't fair, right?

[Rye]

If the people of the area were intolerant assholes (perhaps like those protestants that brought in prohibition all those years ago) that made up the majority of the company's buying force and the drinking/everquest etc out of hours gave them bad PR, then I'm sure many would make that argument that it's "ok" for the company to do so.

[jcow79]

So I take it that everyone supporting this employer's decision would similarly support an employer who fired any employees who drink alcohol at home, off the clock. Or any employee who plays Everquest. After all, playing MMORPGs isn't a right and neither is having a beer. And people get fired arbitrarily all the time and life isn't fair, right?

I don't think working is a right either.

[Alyeska]

Horray for the welfare state!

[aerius]

I have heard of cases where employees were fired for drinking at home on their own time, but as far as I can remember it was because they showed up for work hungover or drunk. Other than pilots & heavy equipment operators who have a "no drinking within 24 hours of work" clause in their contracts, I have not heard of anyone getting fired for drinking on their own time as long as they showed up for work sober & alert.