codeorama Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Trend: You smoke? You're fired! By Stephanie Armour, USA TODAY More companies are taking action against employees who smoke off-duty, and, in an extreme trend that some call troubling, some are now firing or banning the hiring of workers who light up even on their own time. The outright bans raise new questions about how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock. The crackdown is coming in part as a way to curb soaring health care costs, but critics say companies are violating workers' privacy rights. The zero-tolerance policies are coming as more companies adopt smoke-free workplaces. • Weyco, a medical benefits provider based in Okemos, Mich., this year banned employees from smoking on their own time. Employees must submit to random tests that detect if someone has smoked. They must also agree to searches of briefcases, purses or other belongings if company officials suspect tobacco or other banned substances have been brought on-site. Those who smoke may be suspended or fired. About 20 employees have quit smoking under the policy, and a handful were fired after they opted out of the testing. "The main goal is to elevate the health status of our employees," says Gary Climes, chief financial officer. • At Investors Property Management in Seattle, smokers are not hired. Employees who smoked before the ban was passed about two years ago are not fired; however, they can't get medical insurance through the company. • Alaska Airlines has a no-smoking policy for employees, and new hires must submit to a urine test to prove they're tobacco-free. "The debate has gone from where they can smoke to whether they can smoke," says Marshall Tanick, a Minneapolis-based employment lawyer. Such bans are not legal everywhere: More than 20 states have passed laws that bar companies from discriminating against workers for lifestyle decisions. There are other ways that companies are taking action against off-duty smoking, such as raising health care premiums for smokers. Employers say it's about creating a healthy workforce. But it's also a bottom-line issue: Tobacco causes more than 440,000 deaths annually and results in more than $75 billion in direct medical costs a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some smokers' rights groups are vowing legal action. "These matters will be decided in the courts," says Redmond, Wash.-based Norman Kjono, with Forces, a smokers' rights group. "You're creating a class of unemployable citizens. It won't stand." And legal experts fear companies will try to control other aspects of employees' off-duty lifestyle, a trend that is already happening. Some companies are firing, suspending or charging higher insurance premiums to workers who are overweight, have high cholesterol or participate in risky activities. http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2005-05-11-smoke-usat_x.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 I don't smoke, but firing people cause they smoke on their own time is pretty dumb. They're not breaking a law or anything. Our society is becoming way uptight when it comes to certain things these days, it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pez Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Malloy: ...No smoking , no alcohol, no swearing, no sex-unless your married, no red meat, no foul language... Snake: Land of the free... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 This is a huge slippery slope to go down. When we allow our employees to dictate our behavior related to legal activities, we truly give up our personal freedoms. It seems to me that the better solution would be to deny the individuals access to the companies group health policies. This would limit the companies financial liability related to healthcare costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 yeah, that's dumb. It does bother me when my co-worker takes 4 or 5, 15min cig breaks a day, on top of her lunch. There are a ton of people here who don't smoke and don't take any breaks except lunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by Bufford yeah, that's dumb. It does bother me when my co-worker takes 4 or 5, 15min cig breaks a day, on top of her lunch. There are a ton of people here who don't smoke and don't take any breaks except lunch. i waited tables in college, and it really irked me that the smokers consistently took breaks to suck one down. so after a while, i started taking "smoke breaks" with them, only i just chilled for a few while they inhaled cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Companies have a right to do that, if the cig smokers were good workers the company will reverse its policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDoyler23 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Is this an issue of productivity or future health insurance costs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 I smoked once but quit. Having said that any employer that tried to randomly test me or search my bag can take my job and shove it up his @ss. I'm not going to be treated like a criminal because some finance dept nazi decided to use this as an excuse to abuse power instead of just not insuring smokers. Soon you'll need a health check up before you are employed to save the company money on health care.....and that's when people will flip out. BTW - Remember Kerry and Bush debating health care costs? Yeah, good to see the situation improving eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Seriously. When are fat people not going to be hired because they provide a health care risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaddogCT Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 It was this kind of thing people were afraid of when companies started to conduct drug tests of employees and prospective new hires. Pretty soon people who drink on thier own time will also be fired.....that outta go over pretty well. Next thing you know only vegans will be able to hired....or those who eat Soylent Green. :logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff Seriously. When are fat people not going to be hired because they provide a health care risk? That already happens. Frequently in fact. And just like not allowing your employees to smoke, you can also not allow them to be fat. Havent we done this thread before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by Bufford yeah, that's dumb. It does bother me when my co-worker takes 4 or 5, 15min cig breaks a day, on top of her lunch. There are a ton of people here who don't smoke and don't take any breaks except lunch. That's my biggest issue with workplace smoking too.... :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by stevenaa This is a huge slippery slope to go down. When we allow our employees to dictate our behavior related to legal activities, we truly give up our personal freedoms. It seems to me that the better solution would be to deny the individuals access to the companies group health policies. This would limit the companies financial liability related to healthcare costs. BINGO! Couldn't have said it better. Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff Seriously. When are fat people not going to be hired because they provide a health care risk? You are right. And we should also include those who have a family history of heart problems and cancer. Where would it end if we tried eliminating all "at-risk" employees? Maybe we should move all these smokers out to the west coast. Give 'em land - say California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington - and let them live there ....or no, better yet...we better get them states which are not "touristy" as we don't want them polluting the air with second hand smoke. Give 'em Wisconsin, Nebraska and the Dakotas :doh: What is this world coming to???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsNut73 You are right. And we should also include those who have a family history of heart problems and cancer. Where would it end if we tried eliminating all "at-risk" employees? Maybe we should move all these smokers out to the west coast. Give 'em land - say California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington - and let them live there ....or no, better yet...we better get them states which are not "touristy" as we don't want them polluting the air with second hand smoke. Give 'em Wisconsin, Nebraska and the Dakotas :doh: What is this world coming to???? I think that a company has the right to hire whoever they want for whatever reasons they want (even if I don't necessarily agree with it). Isn't that legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by SkinsNut73 You are right. And we should also include those who have a family history of heart problems and cancer. Where would it end if we tried eliminating all "at-risk" employees? Thats what I was trying to say, Kilmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Is the question right or wrong? Or legal or illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Is the question right or wrong? Or legal or illegal? I think it's pretty dumb. Passing up on someone who's highly qualified and can make you money and grow your business all because they pose a health risk down the road? Wrong and illegal. And dumb. But i guess not illegal if you own a private company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by TD_washingtonredskins I think that a company has the right to hire whoever they want for whatever reasons they want (even if I don't necessarily agree with it). Isn't that legal? I'd imagine it's legal, but it's still stupid. It's an overreaction and it's a numbskull move to get rid of a good worker just because he or she happens to smoke. As others have said, where do you draw the line for risk factors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 To continue with your thought Space, if two people apply for a job and they are both about equally qualified, the employer could select one over the other based soley on health reasons. I don't smoke and never have. My place of employment has a no smoking policy and will fire you if you smoke during or after work. However, we do not have random drug tests to verify people are in compliance. I personally don't have a problem with the policy. I do agree with the slippery slope theory, however, once smoking is banned what do theses companies go after next? It is just one big right wing conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 The line for risk factors get's drawn wherever the business decides to draw it. If they determine that the risk is more than the qualities an individual can bring to their business, they are totally within their rights to not hire a smoker or fire an existing smoker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 The line for risk factors get's drawn wherever the business decides to draw it. If they determine that the risk is more than the qualities an individual can bring to their business, they are totally within their rights to not hire a smoker or fire an existing smoker. I guess that's all I was saying. It's a business decision that they choose to live with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Originally posted by Kilmer17 The line for risk factors get's drawn wherever the business decides to draw it. If they determine that the risk is more than the qualities an individual can bring to their business, they are totally within their rights to not hire a smoker or fire an existing smoker. I understand that, but it sounds to me like companies are making an across the board ban. Smokers are fired regardless of what they can bring to the company. While legal, that doesn't strike me as fair, or as a particularly good decision on the part of the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 I dont think that it's fair for me, as a business owner, to pay higher health insurance premiums for ALL of my employees because some of them want to smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riggins44 Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 I know how much health insurance can cost a business. Personally, I think is pushing the envelople a little too far. I have a real good tech that smokes. Not about to fire him for that reason. He doesn't smoke in customers vehicles nor inside the shop. For what he may cost on health insurance, he makes up in productivity....even with smoke breaks. None of the other techs mind that he does. They're just happy he does it outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.