Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

[Admiral Valdemar]

Even without the risks of operating heavy machinery or vehicles which carry passengers, turning up for work heavily hungover is a bad thing given the company doesn't want someone not on top form making decisions which may be important. I'd expect a warning, but if that problem continues, then dismissal would be an option. Alcoholics really should be assisted by the company to reform if they are prepared to do so.

[Nathan F]

As I happened to hear on *gasp* Rush Limbaugh this morning...

This probably is a good move on the company. Smokers cause insurance rates to go up, so, the company has to pay more for group insurance, causing the costs to the company to go up. Smokers are more prone to illness than non-smokers, generally, which costs the company money. And companies aren't charities, they're there to make more cash.

[Justforfun000]

This probably is a good move on the company. Smokers cause insurance rates to go up, so, the company has to pay more for group insurance, causing the costs to the company to go up.

This is why you would arrange the alternate scenario I gave earlier. Firing them is ridiculous.

Smokers are more prone to illness than non-smokers, generally, which costs the company money.

So are people that overeat fatty foods. So are people that sleep around promiscuously and contract STD's which shorten lifespan. So are people that stay up too late and don't get enough quality sleep. Are you getting the picture? If you allow ONE lifestyle habit to be dictated by your place of work when it has NO right to infringe on your personal life at home or out of the company, then it sets an extremely dangerous precedent.

And companies aren't charities, they're there to make more cash.

This kind of mindset has always bothered me immensely. Yes it's true companies are in business to be profitable. But I hate when people, ESPECIALLY companies, use that as an excuse to do things to the expense of their people. The MORAL way to run a company is to share it's success with the people who are all helping it achieve it. Too often a company ends up being nothing but a total self-serving sociopathic corporation that cuts corners, pays people as little as possible (except the top people of course), cuts benefits bit by bit and does away with perks, etc etc. I've seen it many a time over. The better the company does the more you still hear about "downsizing", and "cutting back" because we have to make sure they make a better profit next year. Heaven forbid they actually put any of the money made into rewarding all the "little people".
When is the last time you heard of everyone's wages in a major corporation going up regularly after contining profits? I'd love to have someone prove me wrong actually.

It's the same thing with a company like this one. They are ramming through a very questionable mandate that ultimately has only one justification. More money saved. And that's SO much more important then the people working to help them.

It's something that really bothers me regarding businesses and I wish there was something to be done about it. But what? You'd need to give the people at the head of all companies the "Scrooge" scare to change anything serious I fear.

[Lord Zentei]

This kind of mindset has always bothered me immensely. Yes it's true companies are in business to be profitable. But I hate when people, ESPECIALLY companies, use that as an excuse to do things to the expense of their people. The MORAL way to run a company is to share it's success with the people who are all helping it achieve it.

Moral philosophy is quite subjective in this case. You also have a responsibility to the shareholders who have invested their life savings in the company. And is the company really meant to be the employee's mommy? If so to what extent? What about individual responsibility?

Nonetheless, the idea of firing employees that smoke is objectionable, and violates the privacy rights of the employees, IMO, if it doesn't affect their performance on the job.

In any case, firing people based on what their insurance is likely to cost is a toutchy subject and covers more things that just smoking: gene testing to determine susceptibility to cancer is another similar case. Though I don't know of any actual legal battles that have come up as yet, there is the possibility that it will.

[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?

I don't think working is a right either.

Um, yeah it is. The government can't prohibit you from working in the private sector.

This probably is a good move on the company. Smokers cause insurance rates to go up, so, the company has to pay more for group insurance, causing the costs to the company to go up. Smokers are more prone to illness than non-smokers, generally, which costs the company money. And companies aren't charities, they're there to make more cash.

Smokers offset the costs by paying higher premiums. You might as well can any employees who go to happy hour, since they're more prone to drive drunk and get in a car crash. Or how about firing employees who refuse to take an STD test? After all, sexually promiscuous employees are more likely to have sexually-transmitted diseases and therefore cost the company money. Or anyone who para-glides.

Or how about firing someone who refuses to sign a waver giving his employer access to his driving record? After all, people who drive fast are more likely to get in an accident, which might mean injury, which might mean costing the employer money.

Keep going far enough, and you'll fire about 90% of the workforce in the name of saving insurance money.

[Chmee]

Wow ... truly a tough case for me. On the one hand, I completely believe in at-will employment. I think an employer should be able to fire you for bad taste in clothing, poor dental hygiene, being fat, telling bad jokes ... basically just because 'they feel like it.' Show me where it says in the Constitution that you have a right for an individual not to discriminate against you. The government has to treat even equally, but if one of our individual protections under the constitution is 'freedom of association,' doesn't that include the right NOT to associate with people? Seems to me like hanging out with them for 8 hours a day and giving them a paycheck involves a lot of association.

On the other hand, I don't think it's constitutional to require a surrender of a constitutional right as a condition of employment, and the level of testing required to determine who's a smoker, even ASKING about what you do during your off-hours, seems like a problematic invasion of individual privacy by the employer. Basically, what you do off the clock isn't any of the boss's business if you show up to work on time and do good work while you're there.

So ... there's my conundrum. I guess as unfair as it sounds, I'm perfectly okay with an employer having a no-smoking policy, but not with mandatory testing to determine if you're a smoker.

[General Zod]

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.

nitpick: nicotine, caffeine and alcohol are all drugs.

somewhat back to the original topic, the article states it was a healthcare company. perhaps they're changing policies as they don't want their public image to be harmed by having people who have addictive/potentially addictive habits working for them, and thus represents a legitimate business interest?

[Uraniun235]

I don't take issue with an employer deciding they do not want to hire smokers, or fast drivers, or MMORPG nuts. Fine, whatever, if I'm a smoker I just don't apply for employment there. What I take issue with is the idea that the employer can create and enforce such restrictions after I've been with the company for awhile.

The government has to treat even equally, but if one of our individual protections under the constitution is 'freedom of association,' doesn't that include the right NOT to associate with people?

I have the right to personally choose to not associate with Jews and blacks. My employer does not.

[Chmee]

I don't take issue with an employer deciding they do not want to hire smokers, or fast drivers, or MMORPG nuts. Fine, whatever, if I'm a smoker I just don't apply for employment there. What I take issue with is the idea that the employer can create and enforce such restrictions after I've been with the company for awhile.

The government has to treat even equally, but if one of our individual protections under the constitution is 'freedom of association,' doesn't that include the right NOT to associate with people?

I have the right to personally choose to not associate with Jews and blacks. My employer does not.

How does your employer lose that right by becoming an employer? I've always found this a very weak constitutional argument.

[General Zod]

How does your employer lose that right by becoming an employer? I've always found this a very weak constitutional argument.

the problem with the above argument is that it doesn't distinguish between associating with them on a personal level and associating with them on a professional level. to put it in a better way, i could choose to not associate with someone because they/re blacks/jews/whatever off the clock, but on the clock i may have no choice in the matter.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Um, yeah it is. The government can't prohibit you from working in the private sector.

I think Jcow is saying that you aren't guaranteed employment. You're guaranteed the right to free speech, etc. You're not guaranteed the right to be employed. I think that's what he means.

[Edi]

Um, yeah it is. The government can't prohibit you from working in the private sector.

I think Jcow is saying that you aren't guaranteed employment. You're guaranteed the right to free speech, etc. You're not guaranteed the right to be employed. I think that's what he means.

You're not guaranteed to get employment unless you fulfill the professional requirements, but legal activities off the clock are not part of the professional requirements unless they go directly counter to the employer's basic interests (e.g. an association of absolutists would be very much within their rights to fire someone who worked for them but preached against absolutism off the clock, because they cannot be required to employ someone who tries to damage them).

If you fulfill the professional requirements for a job, get hired and there are no additional requirements such as certain jobs have (police officers are held to a higher standard, pilots and heavy equipment operators have restrictions etc), then it is fucking irrelevant what you do on your own time unless it affects job performance (which is why alcoholics tend to get fired, their off-the-clock behavior affects their job performance because they show up for work drunk or hungover and are not in good form).

It's also rather ironic to see those who advocate the government staying completely out of people's lives and would like to see it as minimized as possible rabidly defending the right of corporations to do the very things they would loathe if it was the government doing it. What's the fucking difference, other than the corporations would be even less restricted under your vision?

Edi

[Chmee]

Um, yeah it is. The government can't prohibit you from working in the private sector.

I think Jcow is saying that you aren't guaranteed employment. You're guaranteed the right to free speech, etc. You're not guaranteed the right to be employed. I think that's what he means.

You're not guaranteed to get employment unless you fulfill the professional requirements, but legal activities off the clock are not part of the professional requirements unless they go directly counter to the employer's basic interests (e.g. an association of absolutists would be very much within their rights to fire someone who worked for them but preached against absolutism off the clock, because they cannot be required to employ someone who tries to damage them).

If you fulfill the professional requirements for a job, get hired and there are no additional requirements such as certain jobs have (police officers are held to a higher standard, pilots and heavy equipment operators have restrictions etc), then it is fucking irrelevant what you do on your own time unless it affects job performance (which is why alcoholics tend to get fired, their off-the-clock behavior affects their job performance because they show up for work drunk or hungover and are not in good form).

It's also rather ironic to see those who advocate the government staying completely out of people's lives and would like to see it as minimized as possible rabidly defending the right of corporations to do the very things they would loathe if it was the government doing it. What's the fucking difference, other than the corporations would be even less restricted under your vision?

Edi

Constitutionally, there's an enormous difference ... the Constitution is all about the limits of government power and the guarantees of citizens against government intrusion .... it speaks very little to limitations of non-governmental power.

[The Third Man]

This probably is a good move on the company. Smokers cause insurance rates to go up, so, the company has to pay more for group insurance, causing the costs to the company to go up. Smokers are more prone to illness than non-smokers, generally, which costs the company money. And companies aren't charities, they're there to make more cash.

No, it's foolhardy. Any existing employee, no matter how mundane their job, represents an investment in training for the company, and an amount of on-the-job experience. There is an opportunity cost in wholesale dismissal of a large segment of the workforce while replacements are trained and recruited, not to mention a morale hit even amonst the remaining non-smoking workers.

Far better to go the route of upping insurance contributions for smokers, or even the company investing in encouraging it's existing, trained and experienced employees to give up.

[jcow79]

We can argue all we want about how wrong it is to fire someone for their behavior off the clock. Quite frankly I think most everyone agrees that it's a pretty fucked up thing to do. However it doesn't change the fact that most states allow employers to fire you for nothing more than they don't like you, barring you aren't a minority (ethnic, female, religious affiliation, handicapped)...And then I think you have to prove that they fired you for that reason. The only thing that keeps these companies in check is that if they are total douche bags, no one will work for them and it's hard to do business with no employees.

[Edi]

Constitutionally, there's an enormous difference ... the Constitution is all about the limits of government power and the guarantees of citizens against government intrusion .... it speaks very little to limitations of non-governmental power.

Where exactly? Why don't you try and read the 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.

This is the part of your constitution on which the right to privacy is based, and I defy you to find one fucking reference in it that limits its application only to the government. You have no argument.

Then there is this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I also defy you to find a part here that says the limitation only applies to the government.

These two together just completely fuck the arguments about businesses having the right to dictate employees' free time, up the arse and without lube too.

Edi

[Andrew J.]

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

Life is arbitrary. People are either fair or unfair.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I think Jcow is saying that you aren't guaranteed employment. You're guaranteed the right to free speech, etc. You're not guaranteed the right to be employed. I think that's what he means.

You're not guaranteed to get employment unless you fulfill the professional requirements, but legal activities off the clock are not part of the professional requirements unless they go directly counter to the employer's basic interests (e.g. an association of absolutists would be very much within their rights to fire someone who worked for them but preached against absolutism off the clock, because they cannot be required to employ someone who tries to damage them).

If you fulfill the professional requirements for a job, get hired and there are no additional requirements such as certain jobs have (police officers are held to a higher standard, pilots and heavy equipment operators have restrictions etc), then it is fucking irrelevant what you do on your own time unless it affects job performance (which is why alcoholics tend to get fired, their off-the-clock behavior affects their job performance because they show up for work drunk or hungover and are not in good form).

It's also rather ironic to see those who advocate the government staying completely out of people's lives and would like to see it as minimized as possible rabidly defending the right of corporations to do the very things they would loathe if it was the government doing it. What's the fucking difference, other than the corporations would be even less restricted under your vision?

Edi[/quote]

Who's vision?

Not everyone here is defending this. Jcow, for example, is explaining it.

Basically, yes it is fucked up but it is legal in "at will" states.

[Edi]

Who's vision?

Not everyone here is defending this. Jcow, for example, is explaining it.

Basically, yes it is fucked up but it is legal in "at will" states.

Your quote tags were fucked up beyond belief...

Anyway, yes, he is explaining it. If you bothered to read further you should have noticed my arguments for why even in "at will" states there are limits to what employers can and cannot do. The part where I quoted the 4th and 9th amendments, to be specific.

Edi

[Kamakazie Sith]

Your quote tags were fucked up beyond belief...

Thank you, Captain Obvious. They still are.

Anyway, yes, he is explaining it. If you bothered to read further you should have noticed my arguments for why even in "at will" states there are limits to what employers can and cannot do. The part where I quoted the 4th and 9th amendments, to be specific.

Edi

Wrong, there are no limits.

http://jobsearchtech.about.com/od/labor ... 092402.htm

As are many employees only after the fact, you might be surprised to learn in advance that U.S. employers may legally fire you for just about any reason, no reason or even an unfair reason.

Not to mention that this is a private company and they can choose who they want as long as it doesn't violate certain guidelines like sex, religion, race, etc. Smoking, and personal habits are not covered.

This all being said, I hope these people fight it and win. I think they have a reasonable chance, despite it being "legal"

[Kamakazie Sith]

You're not guaranteed to get employment unless you fulfill the professional requirements, but legal activities off the clock are not part of the professional requirements unless they go directly counter to the employer's basic interests (e.g. an association of absolutists would be very much within their rights to fire someone who worked for them but preached against absolutism off the clock, because they cannot be required to employ someone who tries to damage them).

And wish smokers it causes higher insurances rates and forces everyone else to make up the difference. Maybe they have explored the possibility of raising the rate for the smokers but what if the difference is 5k, are you going to spread it among the group?

If you fulfill the professional requirements for a job, get hired and there are no additional requirements such as certain jobs have (police officers are held to a higher standard, pilots and heavy equipment operators have restrictions etc), then it is fucking irrelevant what you do on your own time unless it affects job performance (which is why alcoholics tend to get fired, their off-the-clock behavior affects their job performance because they show up for work drunk or hungover and are not in good form).

A private company can hold their employees to whatever standard they see fit. Obvious, this company has decided to do such a thing. The off-the-clock behavior of smokers has been deemed to have a negative effect on this company.

I'm interested to see what direction this will take if they decide to take it to court. Which I hope they will.

[Steven Snyder]

Just to clarify my position on this...

I do think it is legal for the company to do this.

However I think it is a pretty shitty thing to do. They should have offered the employees that take the test to prove they aren't smoking the same insurance rates and raised the rates on everyone who does smoke to offset the cost difference.

Firing them was a bit extreme, but it is their company. Personally, I wouldn't work for them knowing how they treat their employees.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Where exactly? Why don't you try and read the 4th amendment?

The 4th amendment defines search and seizure laws. It has nothing to do with a company requirements for employment.

This is the part of your constitution on which the right to privacy is based, and I defy you to find one fucking reference in it that limits its application only to the government. You have no argument.

It only references search and seizure of people suspected of crime. It does not reference employers.

Then there is this:

9th Amendment

These two together just completely fuck the arguments about businesses having the right to dictate employees' free time, up the arse and without lube too.

Edi

The 9th amendment doesn't specifically identify any specific rights. Hopefully, you're right. I'd like to see these people win, and this might something they can use to their advantage.

[jcow79]

Who's vision?

Not everyone here is defending this. Jcow, for example, is explaining it.

Basically, yes it is fucked up but it is legal in "at will" states.

Your quote tags were fucked up beyond belief...

Anyway, yes, he is explaining it. If you bothered to read further you should have noticed my arguments for why even in "at will" states there are limits to what employers can and cannot do. The part where I quoted the 4th and 9th amendments, to be specific.

Edi

There is already precedent for this. SCOTUS says your argument about the constitution doesn't apply. So unless these people can miraculously get smokers listed as a protected class then they're collecting unemployment and looking for other jobs.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

208 U.S. 161
Adair v. United States
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
No. 293 Argued: October 29, 30, 1907 --- Decided: January 27, 1908

It is not within the power of Congress to make it a criminal offense against the United States for a carrier engaged in interstate commerce, or an agent or officer thereof, to discharge an employee simply because of his membership in a labor organization, and the provision to that effect in § 10 of the act of June 1, 1898, 30 Stat. 424, concerning interstate carriers is an invasion of personal liberty, as well as of the right of property, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and is therefore unenforceable as repugnant to the declaration of that amendment that no person shall be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law.

While the rights of liberty and property guaranteed by the Constitution against deprivation without due process of law, are subject to such reasonable restrictions as the common good or general welfare may require, it is not within the functions of government -- at least in the absence of contract -- to compel any person in the course of his business, and against his will, either to employ, or be employed by, another. An employer has the same right to prescribe terms on which he will employ one to labor as an employee has to prescribe those on which he will sell his labor, and any legislation which disturbs this equality is an arbitrary and unjustifiable interference with liberty of contract.

Quare, and not decided, whether it is within the power of Congress to make it a criminal offense against the United States for either an employer engaged in interstate commerce or his employee to disregard, without sufficient notice or excuse, the terms of a valid labor contract.

The power to regulate interstate commerce is the power to prescribe rules by which such commerce must be governed, but the rules prescribed must have a real and substantial relation to, or connection with, the commerce regulated, and as that relation does not exist between the membership of an employee in a labor organization and the interstate commerce with which he is connected, the provision above referred to in § 10 of the act of June 1, 1898 cannot be sustained as a regulation of interstate commerce, and, as such, within the competency of Congress.

The power to regulate interstate commerce, while great and paramount, cannot be exerted in violation of any fundamental right secured by other provisions of the National Constitution. [p162]

The provision above referred to, in 10 of the act of June 1, 1898, is severable, and it unconstitutionality may not affect other provision of the act or provisions of that section thereof.

The facts, which involve the constitutionality of § 10 of the act of Congress concerning carriers engaged in interstate commerce (known as the Erdman Act), passed June 1, 1898, c. 370, 30 Stat. 424, are stated in the opinion. [p166]

The only limits that will apply in this case is if the state this happened in has additional labor laws that prohibit it. In which case I doubt it would have happened in the first place.

[Darth Wong]

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.

It's only a false analogy if the logic is based on the legality of the substance, which it obviously is not. Don't abuse your fucking logic fallacy definitions; I'm sick of people who do that.

There are other reasons to not want drug-users as employees besides the illegality of drug possession; there are plenty of things that are illegal but which employers couldn't care less about; I've never heard of any employer wanting to fire someone because he had a speeding ticket, for example. But recreational drug use can result in impaired judgement, and a health-care company is a special case; a smoker in a health care position is like a fat-ass weight-loss consultant.

By the logic of "it's personal, therefore none of the company's business!" a fitness club should not be able to fire a personal trainer who eats a shitload of junk food on his own time and gains 200 pounds.