Skip to main content

So have they gone to far or do you think this is fair?

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

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

Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.
_______________________ "Morality cannot be legislated but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart but they can restrain the heartless." Martin Luther King.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

So have they gone to far or do you think this is fair?---MidLifeMan

I thought this was going top far when I was smoking.

I think instituting a new rule without an employer-assisted program to help is too much.

But...an employer has the right to demand performance from employees.

If addiction is a problem for exposing the employer to increase costs to operate, clearly the employer has a right to mitigate that impact.


PEACE

Jim Chester
quote:

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


If this is a problem due to health care.........my thinking is, what else will be attacked.

What about those that are obese, overweight.....high blood pressure, that could case heart disease.

Where do we draw the line?
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
I think instituting a new rule without an employer-assisted program to help is too much.

But...an employer has the right to demand performance from employees.

If addiction is a problem for exposing the employer to increase costs to operate, clearly the employer has a right to mitigate that impact.


Performance is one thing, dictating how they live inside the constraints of the law is another!

So what about: bungee-jumping or jet ski riding... going to the shooting range or owning a gun... whitewater rafting... motorcycle racing or any number of thrill-seeking activities that can cause physical harm? How about failure to get your prostate checked... have a mammagram... sexual promiscuity... get regular dental exams (rarely a staple in coverage, usually a supplement that costs more, but nonetheless vital to overall good health)... daily alcohol consumption... living with an abusive spouse... undergoing plastic surgery... the use of long-term contraceptives like Norplant or even just the pill... a family history of heart disease, diabetes, mental illness, etc. All of those things could be targeted next as just cause to terminate employment.

If cigarette smoking remains legal, as does alcohol consumption, an employer should not be able to require that you abstain from them in your OFF TIME or AWAY from the premises on YOUR TIME. Insurance always accounts for pre-existing conditions; to my knowledge companies lose more money from unhappy and unappreciated employees than it does because of employees' healthcare issues.

This is outrageous!
quote:
This is outrageous


It is and I agree with what you said.

I find it ironic in a sad way because just the other day me and my office mate went to one of our other remote office to work this week. There is a relativly new hire at this site that REEKS of alcohol. Obviously this person has a drinking problem because this isn't the first time. He's white and of course they will turn a blind eye..or noise...to it.

But there is a black women that worked in this office that had a similar issue. I never noticed an oder on her but her speech was always a little slurred...even if she probalby hadn't been drinking. From what I understand it was addressed and she had to "deal with the problem" by going to AA. But she didn't stay on it. She still works her...they have her "hidden".

But I still believe in a ban on smoking...even in the office. One issue is still second hand smoke. My wife and other friends and family have asthma. Even if a person goes outside to smoke, when the return with "smoke residue" on them it can still trigger an asthma attack. td6

Th
This is outrageous!---Tsome

It is outrageous.

Remember, we are talking about behavior here.

Bungie-jumping, and motrrcycle-riding, and such, is prohibited by some employers.

I knew the owner of a consulting firm who, in 1980, express and interest in me coming to work for his company.

He added the caveat 'You know, of course, you would have to stop smoking. I won't hire anyone who smokes.

I told him, of course, that wouldn't be a problem because I wasn't going to quite my job.

Employers have tremendous discretion as to whom they pay their money.

And it's legal.


PEACE

Jim Chester

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×