Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

Post by **Edi** » 2005-01-26 01:31pm

Conceded for the time being. However, consider these things:

The cited SCOTUS precedent is almost 100 years old, and seems to be the only existing one of its kind. SCOTUS has reversed itself in the past when things and conditions have changed over a long period of time, and on those counts, the Adair case is a good candidate for reversal. If there are more similar cases, this argument for reversal is weaker.
The 4th amendment only covers seizure for criminal investigation purposes if you take a strict constructionist view of it. The SCOTUS has interpreted it to grant a wider right to privacy than a constructionist reading would, and iirc there are more than one case where precedent is established. This was not the case when the previous precedent (the Adair case) was established, so this argument would have to be taken into account on that merit.
The 9th doesn't grant any specific rights, it is a very farsighted catch-all clause that is meant to prevent abuses that could rise out of a strict constructionist reading of the USC, and in this instance it would most certainly be relevant as a supporting point for other arguments (and it might lend itself to being the core of another set of separate arguments).

The Adair case establishes precedent for now, but given the above, I don't expect it to stand without some really serious challenge if cases like this crop up and somebody takes the appeals road to the end. Depending on how good a lawyer they get and if they manage to avoid having it thrown out on a technicality, it might get reversed. And in my opinion, a reversal of the Adair case would be a good thing for the great majority of Americans. Pursuing somewhat tougher labor protection laws would also not be a bad idea, as the current standard is apparently very shitty.

Edi

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-01-26 01:32pm

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.

This would be quite a difference though...A personal trainer is representing himself as an example and so his inability to keep a good shape would hurt the company. Directly. Smoking as a personal habit outside a company will not impact it in any true way other than the indirect health of the person. (Well....unless you smell the smoke on them and this is objectionable

) But this again goes down the slippery slope to every other health related argument that they could then regulate if this became a precedent.

Would you argue in favour for the company in this case or do you think they should have been limited to only altering or withholding medical benefits based on their cooperation or refusal?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-26 01:38pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
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.
This would be quite a difference though...A personal trainer is representing himself as an example and so his inability to keep a good shape would hurt the company. Directly. Smoking as a personal habit outside a company will not impact it in any true way other than the indirect health of the person. (Well....unless you smell the smoke on them and this is objectionable )

So the only distinction you can find is that the trainer is representing himself as an example? Well, the company's policy is that all of their employees should represent themselves as examples, so the analogy fits.

But this again goes down the slippery slope to every other health related argument that they could then regulate if this became a precedent.

The slippery slope is a fallacy, dumb-ass.

Would you argue in favour for the company in this case or do you think they should have been limited to only altering or withholding medical benefits based on their cooperation or refusal?

Yes, I support them. It's a fucking health-care company that makes a big show of publicly promoting healthy lifestyles. It's just as absurd for them to have smokers onstaff as it is for a health club to be staffed by a bunch of flabby fat-asses.

jcow79 · Post by **jcow79** » 2005-01-26 01:45pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
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.
This would be quite a difference though...A personal trainer is representing himself as an example and so his inability to keep a good shape would hurt the company. Directly. Smoking as a personal habit outside a company will not impact it in any true way other than the indirect health of the person. (Well....unless you smell the smoke on them and this is objectionable ) But this again goes down the slippery slope to every other health related argument that they could then regulate if this became a precedent.

Would you argue in favour for the company in this case or do you think they should have been limited to only altering or withholding medical benefits based on their cooperation or refusal?

If you re-read the article you will notice the people work for a HEALTH CARE company. So this is quite analogous to the flabby fitness trainer in the sense that a health care company would likely want their employees to represent what they provide.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-01-26 02:11pm

So the only distinction you can find is that the trainer is representing himself as an example? Well, the company's policy is that all of their employees should represent themselves as examples, so the analogy fits.

Well yes it FITS, but if that policy can be so broadly interpreted, then how do you draw the line?

The slippery slope is a fallacy, dumb-ass.

lol. That's the first time I got an insult from you. It's about time.

However I must be a dumb-ass because I don't get what you mean in response with this. I know it's a fallacy...

Yes, I support them. It's a fucking health-care company that makes a big show of publicly promoting healthy lifestyles. It's just as absurd for them to have smokers onstaff as it is for a health club to be staffed by a bunch of flabby fat-asses.

AHHH. It's all becoming clear.

I apologize everyone. I somehow missed the part identifying it as a health-care company. I thought this was only related to health care benefits from a typical corporation. This will teach me to read the whole article first.

I completely concede.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-01-26 02:52pm

If you re-read the article you will notice the people work for a HEALTH CARE company. So this is quite analogous to the flabby fitness trainer in the sense that a health care company would likely want their employees to represent what they provide.

Bullshit.

This company is a paperwork processor, not a health care provider.

From the company website:

WEYCO, INC was founded in 1979, and is located in Okemos, Michigan. In 1983, we became a licensed Michigan Third Party Administrator (TPA) to administer self-funded Medical, Dental, Vision, and Short-term Disability Plans.

WEYCO, INC is a service company specializing in Employee Benefit Plans and Benefit Management.

WEYCO, INC is also an agent for Insured Plans such as Life, Long Term Disability, Medical, Dental, Vision, and Flexible Spending Accounts.

They may be making a big show of 'promoting healthy lifestyles', but employees who smoke outside of the business have no effect on public perception of the company.

The fitness trainer analogy doesn't fly here.

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

But as others have said, where do we as a society draw the line in the employee right to privacy vs. effect on the company?

My inclination is to draw it firmly on the side of the employee.
I haven't had a smoke in almost 5 years now, but fuck Weyco.
The company should not have the right to regulate the outside conduct of its employees*.
What's next, Weyco firing someone for supporting John Kerry?

*With the obvious exeption of drug and alcohol tests for public safety and tranportation operators, of course.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-01-26 06:43pm

Kamakazie Sith wrote:
Durandal wrote: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.

Fine. I still don't see why it's relevant. I brought up the simple fact that playing MMORPGs and drinking beer are not enumerated rights in the Constitution, therefore by his logic, companies should be able to fire MMORPG gamers and beer drinkers, even though their activities off-the-clock do not affect their on-the-clock performance. He retorted by saying that working isn't a right ... uh yeah, great rebuttal there.

Darth Wong wrote: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.

Such a scenario falls well under the "unless it affects their on-the-clock performance" umbrella. If a fitness trainer can't keep himself in shape, then his employer would fire him because he'd be unable to do his job.

Yes, I support them. It's a fucking health-care company that makes a big show of publicly promoting healthy lifestyles. It's just as absurd for them to have smokers onstaff as it is for a health club to be staffed by a bunch of flabby fat-asses.

So you would not be opposed to a car insurance company summarily firing any employee who gets a speeding ticket or into an accident?

Seriously, come on. These guys are paper pushers. They don't publicly promote anything. If we were talking about a salesman who was out there trying to sell health insurance and then lighting up afterward, you'd have a point. But paper-pushers who don't interact with customers? That's like saying that a gym should be allowed to fire people in the accounting department for being overweight.

jcow79 · Post by **jcow79** » 2005-01-26 07:14pm

Fine. I still don't see why it's relevant. I brought up the simple fact that playing MMORPGs and drinking beer are not enumerated rights in the Constitution, therefore by his logic, companies should be able to fire MMORPG gamers and beer drinkers, even though their activities off-the-clock do not affect their on-the-clock performance. He retorted by saying that working isn't a right ... uh yeah, great rebuttal there.

What you see as relevant really has no bearing on this either way nor do your arbitrary facts about MMORPGS and beer. As far as the law is concerned you CAN be fired for playing MMORPGSs and drinking beer. The law doesn't care what the reason is as long as it's not for the few criteria that are protected? What part about most states allowing companies to fire you for WHATEVER reason they want do you not understand?

So you would not be opposed to a car insurance company summarily firing any employee who gets a speeding ticket or into an accident?

Seriously, come on. These guys are paper pushers. They don't publicly promote anything. If we were talking about a salesman who was out there trying to sell health insurance and then lighting up afterward, you'd have a point. But paper-pushers who don't interact with customers? That's like saying that a gym should be allowed to fire people in the accounting department for being overweight.

I don't know the typical policies for insurance companies but I know for a fact any professional drivers or delivery people are at risk for losing their job for traffic tickets even if they are on their own time. If an insurance company wanted to make that policy they have that right.

jcow79 · Post by **jcow79** » 2005-01-26 07:29pm

A key assumption that seems to be being made here is that this company is trying to take away your rights. The only thing you can potentially lose here is your job. They cannot prevent you from smoking. They cannot even prevent you from doing drugs. What they can do is fire you. You do not have an unalienable right to work for this company. If you don't like what their policy is you have every right to quit. It really sucks that you are going to be losing your source of income but that's why we have unemployment benefits. So in no way is this company 'legislating' your freedom. They aren't even violating your privacy because they can't MAKE you take the test.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-01-26 07:37pm

This has been one of the most difficult decisions I've had to make on a subject. I've been vacillating back and forth. I thought I finally agreed knowing they were a health care company (unless Glocksman is right),but then I started having doubts when I went back and read the article carefully.

It still bothers me that this can reach into private matters. I still don't see where it might end. The examples I gave earlier would be just as valid an argument for them to try to mandate against their people.

But at the same time I'm looking at these points:

A) They didn't ACTUALLY fire them for smoking....they refused to take a test. So it's a technicality, but it's an important one.

B) They want to promote their company as endorsing healthy lifestyles and expect the people working for them to consider it part of their duty to lead by example.

(This one is tough because they have the right to change the vision of the company, and you obviously don't get all new people to do this. So you are GOING to be affected by change. But then I wonder how much this is trampling on the right to personal freedom outside of work.)

C) They DID announce the policy last year and gave people the offer to help quit.

This is a bitch of a quandry to me. I'm not talking legally necessarily, just in terms of how much right should a company have to dictate your personal vices. I think the emphasis should not have been on the health care cost because the higher premiums would be sufficient for that argument. I think they'd be better off to state they want it done for the image of the health care company as a whole and people who don't want to live a healthy lifestyle that shuns smoking, are not the employees they want as representatives. That would be more honest anyhow.

I know that personally if a company gave me that kind of ultimatum, I would think right off the bat "Fuck you". But I don't have to stay there, do I?

It'll be interesting to see how the legal arguments bears out if they challenge.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-01-26 07:59pm

jcow79 wrote:What you see as relevant really has no bearing on this either way nor do your arbitrary facts about MMORPGS and beer. As far as the law is concerned you CAN be fired for playing MMORPGSs and drinking beer. The law doesn't care what the reason is as long as it's not for the few criteria that are protected? What part about most states allowing companies to fire you for WHATEVER reason they want do you not understand?

I haven't been arguing anything from a legal sense. I've been saying that this practice is absurd and the justifications people have been offering for it are equally so. They may have the right to fire anyone who smokes, but I also have the right to say that decision is idiotic, which it is.

I don't know the typical policies for insurance companies but I know for a fact any professional drivers or delivery people are at risk for losing their job for traffic tickets even if they are on their own time. If an insurance company wanted to make that policy they have that right.

See the part of my post about "affecting on-the-job performance."

A key assumption that seems to be being made here is that this company is trying to take away your rights.

Wrong. The argument is that the company is firing people for stupid reasons and treating its employees like shit. Nice strawman though.

jcow79 · Post by **jcow79** » 2005-01-26 08:44pm

Durandal wrote: I haven't been arguing anything from a legal sense. I've been saying that this practice is absurd and the justifications people have been offering for it are equally so. They may have the right to fire anyone who smokes, but I also have the right to say that decision is idiotic, which it is.

Oh, I'm sorry. You were offering your opinion? Do you always contest peoples arguments with opinion? Cuz I surely can't contest your opinion with facts. By it's very definition it's YOUR opinion. I call BS anyway. This comment would suggest otherwise.

Durandal wrote:Fine. I still don't see why it's relevant. I brought up the simple fact that playing MMORPGs and drinking beer are not enumerated rights in the Constitution, therefore by his logic, companies should be able to fire MMORPG gamers and beer drinkers, even though their activities off-the-clock do not affect their on-the-clock performance. He retorted by saying that working isn't a right ... uh yeah, great rebuttal there.

Facts about enumerated rights in the Constitution are considered "legal sense"

Durandal wrote:See the part of my post about "affecting on-the-job performance."

Care to explain how a traffic ticket affects on the job performance? All of a sudden it doesn't impair your ability to drive It doesn't make you show up late to work. What it does do is raise insurance premiums. Oh my..there's that phrase again: Insurance premiums. It's a reoccurring theme for some reason.

Durandal wrote:Wrong. The argument is that the company is firing people for stupid reasons and treating its employees like shit. Nice strawman though.

I'll forgive you for this one. Perhaps you didn't notice I put that comment in another reply and DIDN'T quote you on anything. I decided I'd address this one to the forum in general because it's been a reoccurring argument by various posters. I was trying to avoid further redundant arguments.

[/quote]

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2005-01-26 09:44pm

Hypothetically speaking, in a state with at-will employment, could a company fire someone for not voting a certain way? For instance, could it require all employees to file for absentee ballots, fill out the ballots in front of HR (under a big "President Smith in '08!" poster, of course), then allow HR to mail the ballot? And terminate any empoyee who refuses the above.

All of this would seem legal (assuming that the empoyee qualified for an absentee ballot by, say, being out of town on election day, which the company could also require) if the only things that are protected are sex, religion, etc.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-01-26 10:15pm

jcow79 wrote:
Durandal wrote: I haven't been arguing anything from a legal sense. I've been saying that this practice is absurd and the justifications people have been offering for it are equally so. They may have the right to fire anyone who smokes, but I also have the right to say that decision is idiotic, which it is.
Oh, I'm sorry. You were offering your opinion? Do you always contest peoples arguments with opinion? Cuz I surely can't contest your opinion with facts. By it's very definition it's YOUR opinion.

No, I was arguing from a non-legal perspective. My conclusion is that this is a moronic practice, and I base that conclusion on the flimsy justifications that have been offered for the company's actions. Hint: "Because it's legal" is not a justification.

I call BS anyway. This comment would suggest otherwise.

Durandal wrote:Fine. I still don't see why it's relevant. I brought up the simple fact that playing MMORPGs and drinking beer are not enumerated rights in the Constitution, therefore by his logic, companies should be able to fire MMORPG gamers and beer drinkers, even though their activities off-the-clock do not affect their on-the-clock performance. He retorted by saying that working isn't a right ... uh yeah, great rebuttal there.
Facts about enumerated rights in the Constitution are considered "legal sense"

That's taking the other side's argument and applying it to another scenario. You argued that since smoking is not an enumerated right in the Constitution, it's okay to fire someone on the basis of whether or not he smokes. I took your logic and applied it to a similar, more blatantly absurd scenario. You brought up the Constitution, not me.

Care to explain how a traffic ticket affects on the job performance? All of a sudden it doesn't impair your ability to drive It doesn't make you show up late to work. What it does do is raise insurance premiums. Oh my..there's that phrase again: Insurance premiums. It's a reoccurring theme for some reason.

The traffic ticket case is an analogy to the smoking scenario. And smokers pay higher premiums, just like drivers with tickets.

I'll forgive you for this one. Perhaps you didn't notice I put that comment in another reply and DIDN'T quote you on anything. I decided I'd address this one to the forum in general because it's been a reoccurring argument by various posters. I was trying to avoid further redundant arguments.

Who else was arguing with you? No one. Edi had already conceded by that point.

jcow79 · Post by **jcow79** » 2005-01-27 12:10am

Durandal wrote:No, I was arguing from a non-legal perspective. My conclusion is that this is a moronic practice, and I base that conclusion on the flimsy justifications that have been offered for the company's actions. Hint: "Because it's legal" is not a justification.

Justification to whom? Whether it was legal or not was the subject of all the posts. It's really all the justification this company needs. So yes, legality is justification.

If you want to chime in with your two cents, fine. But don't contest someone's argument and then retreat behind "Well it's only my opinion" Not that those were your words verbatim. But it was the gist.
There's no point in us arguing morality on this because we both agree. It's fucked up.

Durandal wrote:That's taking the other side's argument and applying it to another scenario. You argued that since smoking is not an enumerated right in the Constitution, it's okay to fire someone on the basis of whether or not he smokes. I took your logic and applied it to a similar, more blatantly absurd scenario. You brought up the Constitution, not me.

Wrong! That has not been my argument. I have been consistently arguing the rights of employers to fire anyone for any reason. I did argue that smoking is not a 'protected class' by definition. Completely different arguments. Perhaps you mistook someone else's post for mine.

Durandal wrote:The traffic ticket case is an analogy to the smoking scenario. And smokers pay higher premiums, just like drivers with tickets.

Right. Where are you going with this one? Something else we agree on?

Durandal wrote:Who else was arguing with you? No one. Edi had already conceded by that point.

Who cares? You and Edi weren't the only ones in on this argument. Justforfun admitted to still being on the fence about this one. Other people read but don't comment. I was simply reiterating some of the confuzzled points of this debate.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-27 03:03am

Durandal wrote:No, I was arguing from a non-legal perspective. My conclusion is that this is a moronic practice, and I base that conclusion on the flimsy justifications that have been offered for the company's actions. Hint: "Because it's legal" is not a justification.

Hint: "It's legal" was originally raised simply as a rebuttal to the people who said it wasn't legal, not as an ethical justification.

You want an ethical justification? Here's one: if I'm an employer, I don't want morons with no self-control or judgement working for me. Smokers are morons with no self-control or judgement. Ergo, I don't want them working for me. Simple enough? Employers hire and fire based on personality factors ALL THE FUCKING TIME, so don't give me this crybaby bullshit. They can fire you just because they "don't like your attitude", so why the fuck can't a health-care company fire a guy who has a fucking idiotic attitude about a major public health issue?

In case you forgot, a job is not a fucking right. Jobs aren't welfare. They're not handed out by the government, nobody automatically deserves to get one or keep one, and the only time outsiders think they have a right to comment on an employer's decision to fire somebody is when that person whines about discrimination or harassment of some sort.

Employers are people who are allowed to make subjective judgements about who they will pay their money to, and the law only steps in when they've done so in a manner that violates someone's rights. In this case, that didn't happen. THAT is why it was necessary to point out that the law does not give special protected status to smokers.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-01-27 04:01am

Well...I was going to argue against Mike after first reading his latest post. But after reading it a good 5 times and really thinking about it, I have to agree with him. Ultimately if a company wants something to be an ideal, and they want to cultivate people to fit that ideal, why should they not have the right to do so?

I will still strongly support the necessity of a law protecting employees in the sense of protection from immediate firing because of policy changes, but if there is a reasonable amount of time given to either capitulate or move on, then it's fair.

If employment was something controlled under a great umbrella of govenrment supervision, then it would be a human rights issue. But just because a company wants to do something that includes as it's principles, a workforce that refrains from demonstrably harmful vices such as tobacco smoking, it shouldn't be illegal to do this. There has to be some freedom available for organizations that want to be examples for their principles.

Personally it goes against my grain, but that's because emotionally I dislike the idea of a company telling me what I should and shouldn't do. But the real point here is why should the company be compelled to hire or KEEP hired people they don't want to have as respresentatives?

There isn't a law in place forbidding companies from starting up an organization with OPPOSITE principles as competition.

I guess that's the other side of freedom we have to live with.

Post by **Edi** » 2005-01-27 04:40am

Darth Wong wrote:You want an ethical justification? Here's one: if I'm an employer, I don't want morons with no self-control or judgement working for me. Smokers are morons with no self-control or judgement. Ergo, I don't want them working for me. Simple enough?

Isn't that partially a hasty generalization? The fact that smokers do not have good judgment on what's good for them, and lack the self-control to stop their bad habit does not necessarily mean their habit affects their job performance. Not in every case anyway. If a person who smokes refrains from doing it during work time, or does it on his otherwise allotted breaks (i.e. no taking extra smoking breaks) and his job performance is in no way affected, does your ethical justification still stand across the board?

Note that I don't disagree with you about smoking as an activity, I detest it, but that doesn't mean I'd go meddling in people's personal lives unless it affected their job performance or unless they made a workplace problem out of their habits and personal lives.

Edi

Post by **Edi** » 2005-01-27 04:49am

jcow79 wrote:Who cares? You and Edi weren't the only ones in on this argument. Justforfun admitted to still being on the fence about this one. Other people read but don't comment. I was simply reiterating some of the confuzzled points of this debate.

I'd note that I was arguing about the legality aspects as my main point (which I had no option but to concede), the ethical issue was a sideline. I'm still of the opinion that firing people simply because you disagree with their off-the-clock activities is morally wrong as long as those activities do not affect job performance. But the moment it starts affecting the job, off with their heads.

Edi

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-27 10:49am

Edi wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You want an ethical justification? Here's one: if I'm an employer, I don't want morons with no self-control or judgement working for me. Smokers are morons with no self-control or judgement. Ergo, I don't want them working for me. Simple enough?
Isn't that partially a hasty generalization? The fact that smokers do not have good judgment on what's good for them, and lack the self-control to stop their bad habit does not necessarily mean their habit affects their job performance.

If I'm an employer, I don't have to PROVE that an employee's bad attitude affects his job performance in order to fire him. Let's take the example of someone who is a white supremacist and who's working for a public-relations company. A new manager comes in and says "we don't want white supremacists working for us; we're a fucking public relations company". Would you squawk that he should be assumed competent until proven incompetent? Would we have to PROVE that his personal attitudes coloured his behaviour on the job at some point? Would we have to PROVE that he was abusive toward non-white subordinates? Why the fuck should we have to do that? Why isn't "I don't want any fucking white supremacists working for me, and they're not a protected class" good enough?

Not in every case anyway. If a person who smokes refrains from doing it during work time, or does it on his otherwise allotted breaks (i.e. no taking extra smoking breaks) and his job performance is in no way affected, does your ethical justification still stand across the board?

Why not? Assume I'm the owner. I don't like his fucking attitude. We're a health-care company, I expect all of our workers to support healthy lifestyles and understand the seriousness of the health risks associated with smoking, and this clown obviously doesn't.

Note that I don't disagree with you about smoking as an activity, I detest it, but that doesn't mean I'd go meddling in people's personal lives unless it affected their job performance or unless they made a workplace problem out of their habits and personal lives.

It's not about his personal life; it's his attitude. He obviously doesn't think smoking is as serious as we think it is, since he's still doing it. And don't give me bullshit about it being 100% a self-control problem. Nobody has such shitty self-control that he couldn't stop if he honestly understood and believed the health risks; smokers do it because they convince themselves through self-delusion, ignorance, or stupidity that the risk is not that big a deal. Wrong fucking attitude; he obviously doesn't get it, so why should he work for me?

PS. To return to the "fitness trainer" analogy, Durandal argued that it affects his on-job performance. It actually doesn't; the act of telling somebody what to do does not require high fitness levels on your part except in certain very specific jobs like "aerobics instructor", where you actually go through the same moves. What it does affect is customer perception, so good-looking fitness instructors are a PR move, just like non-smoking employees of a health-care company.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2005-01-27 10:55am

Darth Wong wrote:You want an ethical justification? Here's one: if I'm an employer, I don't want morons with no self-control or judgement working for me. Smokers are morons with no self-control or judgement. Ergo, I don't want them working for me. Simple enough? Employers hire and fire based on personality factors ALL THE FUCKING TIME, so don't give me this crybaby bullshit. They can fire you just because they "don't like your attitude", so why the fuck can't a health-care company fire a guy who has a fucking idiotic attitude about a major public health issue?

That's an argument for simply not hiring smokers in the first place. If you're in an interview and find out the guy smokes, go ahead, trash his application because he's a "moron with no self-control" and you don't want to take a chance on him and his habit.

But when you've already hired a smoker, and he's been doing his job, living up to your expectations, firing him on the spot when you find out he lights up at home is just silly. You've already got data on his productivity, and you were apparently satisfied with it up until the point where you found out that he engages in the heinous crime of having a cigarette on his own time.

In case you forgot, a job is not a fucking right. Jobs aren't welfare. They're not handed out by the government, nobody automatically deserves to get one or keep one, and the only time outsiders think they have a right to comment on an employer's decision to fire somebody is when that person whines about discrimination or harassment of some sort.

When did I whine about discrimination? I just said this was stupid. The manager is axing otherwise well-performing employees because he doesn't like cigarettes. Now he's got to run out, find replacements and train them, which costs time and money, all just so he can say, "Well at least we don't have any of those damned, filthy contemptible smokers working for us." Give me a break.

CelesKnight wrote:Hypothetically speaking, in a state with at-will employment, could a company fire someone for not voting a certain way? For instance, could it require all employees to file for absentee ballots, fill out the ballots in front of HR (under a big "President Smith in '08!" poster, of course), then allow HR to mail the ballot? And terminate any empoyee who refuses the above.

I highly doubt it. You do have a Constitutional right to an anonymous ballot specifically to prevent that kind of treatment.

Post by **Edi** » 2005-01-27 10:56am

Conceded.

I didn't think of the white supremacist analogy, probably because the comparison would not be valid here (because incitement against an ethnic group is a crime). That's why your argument seemed to me to have a slight flaw in it, and I asked for clarification. No need to take my head off.

Edi

Post by **Edi** » 2005-01-27 11:01am

Of course, there is the part about activities that directly harm the company involved in the white supremacist case, which is an immediate objective reason for firing him.

Edi

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-27 11:04am

Durandal wrote:That's an argument for simply not hiring smokers in the first place. If you're in an interview and find out the guy smokes, go ahead, trash his application because he's a "moron with no self-control" and you don't want to take a chance on him and his habit.

But when you've already hired a smoker, and he's been doing his job, living up to your expectations, firing him on the spot when you find out he lights up at home is just silly. You've already got data on his productivity, and you were apparently satisfied with it up until the point where you found out that he engages in the heinous crime of having a cigarette on his own time.

And then I changed my mind about what I consider to be part of the job requirement. Your entire argument seems to be based on the notion that employers should never be allowed to change their expectations. I'd love to try and sell that bullshit to the people in design jobs who are suddenly told that they have to get done in 6 weeks what they used to do in 12 or they will be relabeled "incompetent" even though 12 weeks was just fine before.

When did I whine about discrimination? I just said this was stupid. The manager is axing otherwise well-performing employees because he doesn't like cigarettes. Now he's got to run out, find replacements and train them, which costs time and money, all just so he can say, "Well at least we don't have any of those damned, filthy contemptible smokers working for us." Give me a break.

His right to do so, and most likely for public-relations purposes. So what? They're not a protected class, and despite your line of ignorant bullshit, changes in job requirements happen ALL THE FUCKING TIME. "It was good enough a year ago" means precisely jack shit.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-01-27 11:05am

Edi wrote:Of course, there is the part about activities that directly harm the company involved in the white supremacist case, which is an immediate objective reason for firing him.

Edi

Not necessarily; that's the point. The company should not have to PROVE that it was harmed by the employee's bad attitude. The fact that he had an attitude totally contrary to the policies of the company should be enough.