Smoke? Quit or get fired...
 

Weyco fires 4 employees for refusing smoking test

LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Four employees of Okemos-based health benefits administrator Weyco Inc. have been fired for refusing to take a test that would determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

The company instituted a policy on Jan. 1 that makes it a firing offense to smoke -- even if done after business hours or at home, the Lansing State Journal reported Monday.

Weyco founder Howard Weyers said previously that he instituted the tough anti-smoking rule to shield his company from high health care costs.

"I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.

The anti-smoking rule led one employee to quit work before the policy went into place. Since Jan. 1, four more people were shown the door when they balked at the anti-smoking test.

"They were terminated at that point," said Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes.

Even so, Weyco said, the policy has been successful. Climes estimated that about 18 to 20 of the company's 200 employers were smokers when the policy was announced in 2003.

Of those, as many as 14 quit smoking before the policy went into place. Weyco offered them smoking cessation help, Climes said.

"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.

-----------
Do you agree with this policy? If you worked for this company, would you quit rather than taking the test? A person's "right to smoke" is not guarenteed under the Constitution, do you think this policy will be overturned within the company?

In my opinion, the policy should be adjusted. If the concern is health-care issues, fine. Make a policy available in which the company has limited liability for smoking-related situations. If the real issue is that he doesn't want his company, a health benefits-related company, to be associated with people who smoke, then fine. Make that clear, don't hide behind health-care as the "reason" for the policy, and offer some sort of counciling / remediation prior to termination. Does he want to be part of the solution, or part of the problem?

I'd also be curious to know if he fires people for involvement in "risky" sexual behavior, large numbers of accumulated speeding tickets, high-risk sports, etc. Otherwise, his position, in my opinion, is hypocritical.

Smoking and Obesity are the two top preventable health issues that drive up health care costs in America. If they claim that the issue is health care, they should fire anyone considered obese as well.

Before anyone gets on a rant about the rights of smokers, I have a news flash. There are no laws on the books that protect a person's right to smoke.

The owner of this company is acting the same way that I would if (or when) I own my own company. I would not employ a smoker. Addiction to nicotine, consumed through cigarettes, impacts negatively on health care costs, worker productivity, etc. It is a bit of a stretch saying the employees can't smoke on their own time at home, but I am glad that this company has embraced this policy. I do agree with Derwood, that if the company is truly concerned about health care costs, they should also work towards reducing obesity with their employees.

Unfortunately, this is not as enforcable or as quick as smoking. Either you smoke or you quit smoking. You can be a smoker one day and not be a smoker the next. You can be obese one day and stop eating and start exercise the next day... and you will still be obese. The results are not immediate. Also, there aren't any tests available to tell an employer whether one of their worker has eaten a whole ham last night instead of a salad.

I smell a law suit in the making...

If health care premiums are the concern the employer should limit the amount of coverage offered to confirmed smokers...

To fire someone for smoking on their own time is ridiculous... What's next, drinking? Eating too many Hostess Ho Hos?

I'm uncomfortable with this policy. I alo work in health care, and the writing is on the wall that our whole campus will be smoke free in the next 18 months. Since it's a large campus, smokers will essentially have to walk to their cars and lock themselves in to smoke. I don't mind that so much, but dictating what people do on their own time is offensive. Maybe they should draw blood after lunch each day to see who ate a Twinkie!

Seriously though, this is an ongoing and worsening intrusion into the rights of the individual. Will they start checking your car's data chip to see if you speed on the way to work? Should they fire you for that, since it raises the risk of a huge medical bill? The rights of your employer to dominate your life have to have some limits.

I don't agree with this at all. It would be one thing if they were saying that you couldn't smoke on company property or during company time which includes business trips. To tell someone that they can't engage in a <b>LEGAL</b> activity is completely wrong. I agree with what Charlatan said. They could just limit the amount of coverage that smokers are entitled to get as is normal with most companies and insurance firms.

I have a feeling this will end up in court; and all that money they hoped to save on health care costs, will end up being spent in court. I hope it does go to court, and I hope the employees win. Not because of "smoker's rights" but I hope they win for the right to perform legal activities on your own personal time.

I've said it in another thread.. the company that my best friend works at has had this a policy for over 20 years, WAY before the non-smoking kick the habit world of today.

It's something agreed upon BEFORE entering into employment.

You don't have to take the job, you can find employment elsewhere.

This situation is a bit different in that it's during employment that it's been changed. I'm sure it will wind up within some sort of legal wranglings I'm not so convinced that it would make it all the way to a trial.

I dont think it is acceptable to fire old employees. Forcing new employees to take the test is one thing, but if they didnt have a problem with it when they hired you, then it's extremely unfair for they to change it out of nowhere. I'm in the process of quiting right now myself, i have a pocket full of nicorette, but it's really fucked up the way some people treat smokers - dont forget that just because we make a decision you dont like, it does not make us any less another person.

<br>
wow... worker productivity? that's quite the odd stance. i recently quit smoking myself, but regardless, i dont see how it ever made me inferior to the rest of the employees in my office. <p>
i think that people have the right to choose what to do with their own body. apply different benefits to employees who smoke - thats all. make them pay that little extra more than it would cost them anyway on their own insurance. create a rule where people cannot smoke at work (and this does NOT include lunch hours, as you're not 'working'). but taking away the privilege of people smoking at home? are they drug testing too? upset that someone takes one too many aspirins in a day? taking a survey of how many people have ulcers in the office? history in the family of diabetes or heart failure? <p>
and ESPECIALLY - what you do on your own time is your business.

I couldn't have said it better.

Who the hell is Gary Climes to say what his employees can do on thier own time, That's complete bullshit.

As others have said there are no laws on the books that protect a person's right to many unsafe activities like sexual conduct and choices that can lead to Aids and drinking alchohol, etc... However if you think like I do that companies (not the government) should have the right to hire or fire anyone they want for whatever lifestyle choices they may disagree with, don't be surprised when they come after you some day. Better maintain a good diet and exercise or the high cholesterol test will be the end of your job.

In the not too distant future we may be able to test folk's DNA and determine who is more suseptable to a whole host of diseases and health problems. We can eliminate all those who have weak systems from the work force, especially if their parents knew ahead of time and made the lifestyle choice to go ahead and pass on their bad genes.

The reason they are not going after fat people yet is because I read that about 60-70% of the population are overweight. When that percentage gets down to 20% or so like smokers they will probably go after them as well. One can only hope that there will be smart business people who will hire these misfits and beat the competition in the marketplace.

Yes, worker productivity. When you were smoking, how many smoke breaks did you take a day? And how long was each of these breaks? Be honest, and maybe you can start to see what I am getting at. In my building, every time I walk around the corner to the copier, I see the same 3-5 people standing outside smoking. So say they smoke 12 cigarettes in the average work day. And say that the time for each cigarette is 5 minutes. That adds up to an hour each day that is spent smoking, not working.

Now you can make all the arguements you want about non-smokers taking company time to do other non-smoking related activities. Or you can try to convince someone that the smoker is more productive when he gets back to his work because of the drug he has just ingested, but let's get real. Smokers, smoke. They take more breaks to smoke. They socialize when they smoke. They do not work when they smoke. Hence, smokers have lower productivity than non-smokers. I am not making generalizations, I am speaking from personal experience.

braisler

The original post specifically said this was targeted to folks who smoke on their own time and at home. I assume smoking at the workplace was already against their rules.

worker productivity....

simple, they take smoke breaks all the time. I noticed when I quit smoking that I didn't go outside like 4 - 5 times a day at 10-15 mintutes each time...

<p>
hey buddy, me too. i know plenty of people, plenty of organizations that don't allow "smoke breaks" other than lunch or scheduled breaks. i understand how you can think the average smoker is oh so much less productive than yourself, but from <i>my</i> personal experience, when <b>i</b> was a smoker, it was <br>a. only done on scheduled breaks, or<br>b. since i rarely even have time for a lunch break, it was two - three times a day. fifteen minutes total... minus a lunch.<p>
and you're right, i could make all the arguments of how nonsmokers are unproductive at work. but why waste the time? generalizing that smokers are less productive period doesn't sit well with me. sorry.

I'm starting a smokers rights campaign. I'll steal aesop's idea, who wants to sign a petition to have smoking added to the summer olympic games?

<p>
haha - im there. ill have to start up again though...

At my employer, smoking is not allowed on the the company owned premises. That begins when you turn into the parking lot. I'm fine with their policy, it's their property.

I'm as anti smoking as it gets. In my opinion, smoker's rights end when smoke enters my lungs. That said, I have a real problem with this company's policy. Telling employees that they can't participate in a legal activity, on their own time, in their own home , sets a bad precedent. What's next? Do I need to give up the motorcycle endorsement on my driver's license because riding a motorcycle is dangerous? Monitor coffee and alcohol intake? I think this policy goes too far.

That's the company's fault then..If they would place a company policy which states you get 3 breaks in say..an 8 hours shift, Then you only smoke 3 ciggs on company time and your taking the same time for break as non smokers.

The company i work for, You get two 15 minute breaks and one 20 minute lunch in an 8 hour shift..12 hour shift the same but you also get a half hour on your 10th hour of your shift.

The way you stated your opinion makes managment or shift superviser's like thier not doing there jobs in making sure that the employees are only taking the given amount of time for break.

If a company lets thier workers go for a smoke whenever they feel like it, Then blame the management not the worker.

I'll bet this company gets a better rate on insurance by doing this. If so, it will happen everywhere.

I don't agree with the policy, however, it is a privately held company, why shouldn't they be able to set whatever policies they want? It's not like they decided yesterday that the no-smoking rule would go into effect, people knew about it for a year, they were given help to stop smoking if they needed it. I worked for a company once that had a policy where women were not allowed to wear trousers, and the skirt or dress had to be a specific length.

This makes me sick. If they had any balls whatsoever they'd go after overweight people too. Instead they pick on smokers. If it was so easy to quit, people would be doing it. It's an asinine policy and I hope they get their asses sued for it.

Also, I don't think it's legal to offer reduced benefits for someone. The company I work for just changed policies and they said that if they offer a plan then they are required by law to offer the same plans to everyone at the same price. This may vary by state though.

There are reasonable boundaries that employers can set without it being discrimination. Would they be allowed to only hire 5'8" blond haired lesbian vegans only?

I don't think it's so much a day to day or hour to hour productivity but rather sick days off over the length of employment. By the time you are 60 years old, a smoker tends to take more sick days off than a non-smoker. That is lower productivity.

Overall, I think this is a great idea and would hope more companies do it. Lower health care costs are good for everybody.

I don't know if you're in a management position, but I can guarantee that if you were to suddenly deprive your hypothetical employees of their cigarettes, productivity would go down and psychotic rampages would go up. In the short-term, you would lose more time to nicotine withdrawal than to smoking breaks.

And so, the answer for this company is to not deal with addicts as employees in the first place. I think that they did a pretty good job of giving employees who wanted to quit, the help they needed to do so. I do agree with some of the posters in this thread stating that this is a bad precedent for a company dictating what an employee can or can't do in their off-time. I wouldn't want a company I work for to forbid me from mountain biking or sky-diving because they are concerned about accident related claims. I don't think cigarette smoking falls in the same category. I support the idea this company is trying to put forth.

Discrimination is illegal on the basis of race, color, ethnic origin, and sexual persuasion, companies are allowed to not hire employees based on height (flight attendents on airlines) Smoking is a choice someone makes to do... if they choose to participate in that activity, then well, they also choose to not be hired by a company who says - -no smokers.

There is a world of difference between controlling employee behavior while you are on the company premise & timeclock and dictating what you can do in your own home on your own time.

I think it should be changed, quit or have your premeium increase. There are ways to give the company limited liability should something like lung or throat cancer come from smoking. It wouldnt be bad for them to say no smoking on property, or in your car while its on property. I dont smoke but I think most smokers could and will respect that. Barging in to peoples private lives is a big invasion of privacy and offends me. If theyre going to attack smokers with the "quit or get fired" they should attack fat people the same way. Im overweight, but I empathize with the smokers... its a choice. They could initiate a stop smoking program to help those who wish to quit but havent had success, and this way they could avoid the rate hike. For those who chose to smoke at home it is fair for the company to say we will increase your rates and include some kind of clause releasing them from any liability if it is determined the disease or affliction came as a direct result of smoking. It is one thing to be strict on enforcement of behaviors in the workplace but at home I always hope to be able to do what I please within legal limits.

Why not. If it is shown that your lifestyle choices cause higher injury rates and/or absentiesm I see no difference at all.

I've never had someone start hacking and coughing because I was mountain biking next to them. Not the same impact on other people. As soon I have to breathe in the smoke from someone else's cigarette, your choice of activity becomes an issue for me.

Why shouldn't I also be able to fire people based on their sexual preferences if I can show that their choice of lifestyle is as risky or more so than smoking. Why should all my employees have to pay more because of their promiscuous lifestyle? Why single out smokers?

I repeat. The original post specifically said this was targeted to folks who smoke on their own time and at home. Why shouldn't they be able to target your risky off work lifestyle choices as well?

it's happened...

Morgan Stanley a few years back fired someone for having appeared in a playgirl layout, citing morality clauses.

I wish I still had the link. I read something that showed that people who tested positive for marijuana use cost companies significantly less in insurance claims.
It's a bummer, seems like another shut-out argument on TF. I think people confuse "majority opinion" and "fact" too often. We'll all die(yes, you too, even with your exercise regimen and your Atkins diets or whatever), and I’ll be happy with my life when I die, wither or not I listened to what was "healthy" or "legal" or any of that.

flstf, if you read up in my earlier posts, I do see this as setting a dangerous precedent about a company trying to control what an employee does on his own time. It is a slippery slope issue and I wouldn't want it to be too broadly applied.

I did allow my comments to get slightly off-topic... from smokers at this one company being told they couldn't work there as smokers, to just general smoking vs. non-smoking debate. But having had problems with smokers' rudeness and vile habits on a daily basis (smoking directly outside the entrance to the hospital, grocery, or restaurant I am trying to enter, discarding cigarette butts on the roadside as if that weren't littering), I am all for anything that reduces the number of cigarette smokers out there. I know that there are lots of people who will disagree with me and say that I am being unfair to smokers. Too bad! Luckily, I am entitled to my opinion. :)

the boss has the right to set the job criteria however they feel fit, as long as its not discriminating against something about a person that they can't change, provided it doesn't affect the job itself [read: race, sex, etc.].

i work at a place where people are fired for having bad credit. noone complains.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion and I respect that. I am also glad that you see the slippery slope that gets started when companies do this. At least we can probably agree that what goes around comes around and your and my lifestyle choices may be on the block next.

Yes, but only when it specifically relates to the ability to perform the job. A strip club owner is not required to hire fat or unattractive people because being hot is part of doing a good job there. Smoking does not make you a bad employee.

What is the point of firing someone for bad credit? I don't get it. How does that effect performance.

It's a scary trend we are seeing. Why should our employers be allowed to dictate what goes on in our personal life?

:hmm:

Am I reading this right? Am I the only one slightly disturbed by the kernel of eugenics I see in this post? DNA screening to ascertain suitability to work? Are you for real?

*Goes back to reading Brave New World*

Let me guess, too broadly applied is when it invades your personal life.

It doesn't affect performance but can affect MORALS. Some financial companies do not want risky employees who may have motivating for graft and corruption.

If you signed some sort of agreement, that is one thing. Otherwise it's bullshit and should not be allowed.

How exactly does posing in playgirl mean you are morally corrupt?

Sure, why not if it keeps healthcare costs down for the rest of us. Why should we have to pay more for folks with inferior genes who insist on reproducing? This is of course meant to be ironic. Probably a poor choice of an example on my part.

It's not that bad of an example. It shows what extremes this could lead to.

Ya I can't see why they can fire you over something you do at home :confused:

Right! Took the words right outa my mouth. :thumbsup:

I wish people where I work would get fired for this. That would be fucking great!

People are humans first, not workers.

I can't belive anyone would argue for a company being able to dictate a workers lifestyle. What if they decided next you need to save more money and withheld 1/2 your paycheck in a mandatory savings fund? Or your wife does not meet the educational or financial standards of the company? You spent more then the company felt necisary on christmas gifts? We live on a continent of great freedom, it is unacceptable for a company to take a didactic role for how you can and can not choose to live.

The Ford motorcopy had an entire department around the 20's that would personaly visit their workers homes, inspect their lawns, wife, children and lifesyle to decide wheather they met Ford standards for the legendary $5 dollar a day wage. Not even Ford though would fire workers who did not meet their standards, they simply did not receive the enter income and were left at a base wage around $2.50 a day.

I know someone here will retort with mandatory drug testing, which I don't oppose. I think you limit yourwork force to a certain type of people, not necisarly drug users but people who are willing to accept that kind of involvment. It makes far for more sense to me to have a zero tolernce policy for employee's personal lives affecting their work. Elimenting any need to have testing or policys.

So I guess in this continent of Freedom that you speak of, as a business owner I'm not free to pick and choose how I see fit the credentials and requirements of my employees?

You can be human all you want... but if you want to be an employee at some companies you have to follow the guidelines and requirements they have for their employees.

By the same arguments you are making, you then are saying that steroids should be fine for ballplayers because what they do on their time is their own business.

What people do on their own time is no one else's business.

The sooner people understand this, the better off we'll be. The end.

Smoking a cigarette doesn't affect worker productivity unless your job is to run around all day.

You are basicly free to choose, you have the power only to employee people who want to work for you. You give people compensation for their labour, enough money and perhaps a workforce would jump through every hoop you ask of them.

Not at all, steroids are banned from use, they understood that agreement and felt they could live with it or it did not impose on them. I would have no problem signing an employment contract with mandatory drug testing because I do not use drugs, the policy does not impose on me. If I was asked to sign a contract that included banning alchohal, smoking (a cigar smoker myself) and owning a sports cars, I would refuse. They may all be activities an employer belives could adversly effect my work but all of my hobbies, I can modderate as I choose. The reason for employment is so I can survive and provide a lifestyle for myself I enjoy. For myself, working at a company that restricted my freedom would defeat my main purpose for employment.

This will be common soon. Its already in effect at the 3000+ employee hospital that I work at. You smoke, you're gone. I wasnt aware that there was a test to determine if someone was smoking though.

The guy likely paying the greatest amount of his company group health plan.

Lump me in with the others who think that an employer has no business dictating to its employees what legal activities they may engage in at home or on their own time.

I don't have a problem with them banning smoking from their premises and while on the clock, but I do have a problem with my employer telling me what I can or cannot do in my own time, especially when said activity is legal.

What surprises and frightens me is the number of people who are fine with it. This is largely due to the demonification of tobacco. We find it disgusting, even if it is legal, and therefore are perfectly fine with companies taking punitive action against employees who smoke. Which brings me to this:

Exactly. It's a "do it to them, just don't do it to me" attitude.

Flash this: I have a right to do whatever I want to do, in the privacy of my own home, that is not expressly prohibited by law. Your position seems to be that I have no right to do anything which is not specifically protected.

I wasn't planning a rant, but IMHO your pre-emptive strike against those who would argue with you took out a few neighboring countries in the process.

Bullfuckingshit!

I work in a place that lets people get away with smoking at work. I get in arguments all the time over smoking. I hate smoke, and I always ask if people would not smoke near me. At first I'm nice about it. Then I'm a raging lunatic. For example, I have put a cig out on the back of one dickheads hand. Been in a few shoving matches at work. Now, are you trying to say that this doesn't make people do less work? The fuckwads that try to piss me off go out of their way to smoke near me. If they would just do their jobs and ignore me I probably wouldn't notice, but noooooooooo. They have to come and fuck with me and get nothing done at work. I've said this to many smokers, and I'll continue to. I have waaaay more respect for shit eaters because at least a shit eater doesn't do it in public and force it on people who think it's disgusting. Hell, if it weren't for the internet I wouldn't even believe that people ate shit. Think about this.... When was the last time you saw a woman shit in a mans mouth in public... Then the man get up and go spit the shit from his mouth into a persons face????? I'll bet never. I see smokers do that hundreds of times a day. This is why I respect shit eaters more than smokers. If smokers were only as polite as shit eaters the world would be a better place.

In the long term, with days off being sick (smokers are off sick more often than non-smokers), your productivity is lowered.

Ah, it is always easy to discriminate against something that you yourself are not guilty of.

If you REALLY were concerned about health care costs, here are some things you should ban your workers from doing (or MAKE them do):

-smoking: covered here

-obesity: also as mentioned above, this is very dangerous. Even being 10 pounds overweight can have a negative health effect, so a weekly weigh in should be instituted.

-sports: the health care costs of many sports has a negative effect that cannot be balanced by the benefits. For example, people frequently hurt themselves skiing, playing softball, waterskiing, etc. You can work out at the gym, using a company approved workout routine.

-congenital diseases: of course you cannot make someone NOT have one of these, but there are no laws on the books that says you can't screen your employees for them. Even a simple questionaire like, "do you have asthma, a history of heart problems, family members with breast cancer" etc will go a long way towards lowering costs.

-church goers: Yes, this should be required, as studies show that people who pray and go to church tend to be physically and mentally healthier than those who don't. Ditto for being married. (Of course, married people tend to have kids and those tend to have a negative effect on the bottom line as such people selfishly want weekends off to spend with their families...)

-meat eaters: vegetarians also tend to be healthier than meat eaters, so no more steak for you, or your dog.

-pet owners: owning a pet tends to make people happier and healthier (it lowers the blood pressure), so a fuzzy holdable pet should be mandatory.

and finally,

-alcoholic consumption: studies show that a small glass of wine or similar alchohol is actually good for you, but no more. Like to go out drinking and partying? So sorry.

Of course, it gets so damn silly that NO ONE will be working, as no one can meet the impossible list of 'no-noes".

People should be allowed to smoke at home if they friggin' want to. And I say this despite the fact that I think smoking is one of the most disgusting things a human being can do. What bothers me is when people smoke in public places that I cannot avoid, such as my college campus. SURE, people can do whatever the hell they want with their bodies, GIVEN that they are not harming other people in doing so. I'm allergic to the smoke; it usually makes me feel really ill, my sinuses act up, and it is just horrible. It just pisses me off that the liberal arts building *has* to be crammed with people smoking around it all the damn time. Yes, people should have the right to destroy themselves if they want to--fill your lungs with all the tar you want, I honestly don't care. Just don't spread the disease to me! Please! That's a fair exchange, no? I forfeit my right to bitch at smokers for doing something I consider to be disgusting, while smokers forfeit their right to ignore common courtesy.

This is going to turn into an ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) lawsuit, you watch.

But there's a clause in the constitution that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS that ANYONE should have control of what people do in their private life, after work. As long as you don't injure another person, you should have the right to do whatever the hell you want. period.

Alright, I'm pissed off at how people in this thread are making gross generalizations. So now if someone smokes, they're no longer a "person", they're a "smoker". And not just a person who enjoys smoking, but they're a "smoker" that represents every bad experience the person has had with someone who smokes.

As you could have guessed, I smoke. After reading this thread, I've learned that I'm a "smoker" who blows smoke in people's faces (never done it), smoke wherever the hell I feel like (I don't), and I'm not as productive at work as a nonsmoker(bullshit). Stereotype much? I also wear glasses. Are you now going to tell me I'm not as productive because I have to spend a couple seconds every now and then to clean them? I also have a working bladder and need to use the restroom every now and then. Would someone with small bladder need to be fired because they use the bathroom more than others? Give me a fucking break.

As for the company that's firing their employees that smoke, fuck them. I can't complain because it's their right to employ whomever they want as much as it's my right to smoke. But I do think it's absolutely stupid to tell their employees what they can and cannot do at home. I get the feeling the president would fuck over all his employees in the name of cutting costs and saving himself a few bucks.

i'm against it as well. and yes, i smoke.

it doesn't make me any less productive at work--my breaks are scheduled (as are those of non-smokers). as for sick days, hrm...i've not had one in a couple of years. then again, our "sick" days are the same as vacation days. you only get so many and then you're out the door. i've been working on the same floor of the same hospital for four years, we've had several people fired for taking too many days off work but none of them were smokers (or if they did smoke, it was never at work). statistically, workers may indeed take more sick days. then again, statistically, workers with children take more sick days too. and since they have as much choice about being a parent as i do in choosing to smoke...

i know of several local places that don't let employees smoke on the premises--not even in their cars. and i'm fine with that. if my hospital instituted a no-smoking policy, i'd find another job or quit smoking. but even if i were a non-smoker, i would never work for an employer who wanted to restrict what legal activities i could and could not do on my own time.

i have long accepted the fact that some people will assume the worst of me because i smoke. these same people will also assume the worst of someone who is overweight. these people are assholes, plain and simple. anyone who doesn't meet their standards is inferior and they have no probs treating them as such.

i enjoy smoking, i have zero desire to give it up. but i don't force my habit on anyone else. in public, i go to designated smoking areas when i light up. i don't throw my butts on the ground or out the car window. i don't blow smoke in anyone's face--smokers or non-smokers because believe it or not, smokers find that offensive too! i don't smoke in cars with non-smokers and i don't smoke in the homes of non-smokers. i may have a habit you don't like, but it doesn't mean i have to be rude about it.

Settle down, big guy. Your problem is not with smokers. Your problem is with assholes that also just happen to be...smokers. My guess is that they would be fucking with you no matter what. They just happen to know what gets a reaction out of you and use it as such.

I wonder how much work you didn't finish due to shoving people around and putting cigarettes out on people's hands? Don't you realize that such hostility is unproductive and unhealthy? Is your insurance company aware of your propensity for anger and violence?

Before you put a cigarette out in my eye, bear in mind that I'm being facetious.

I have a quick question, and I do not claim to be anything near an expert in the area. Many posters have made statements along the lines of "A company should have / does have the right to hire who they wish, based on whatever criteria they choose, so long as it doesn't violate Federal / State discrimination laws."

My question is this : in my understanding, companies are offered rather interesting tax breaks from the Federal and State governments, which is one of the reasons that wealthy individuals form S-Corps and other tax shelters, from what I understand. So, if a company is getting some form of tax break / incentive from the government, based on everyone's tax dollars, does this or does this not, in some sense, oblige them to be considerate of everyone who is paying into the pool? Ergo, perhaps I would agree more closely with the bolded statement above, if a company took its normal tax withholdings, determined the proportion of people who have "offensive" behavior out of the general population, deducted this fractional portion from their tax incentives, and paid more back into the general pool. Otherwise, you're taking money to increase your "productivity" from people you despise, and will not even hire. Regardless of whether their low-down, despicable behavior is conducted in the privacy of their own homes.

/my opinion