maleficent

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?

__________________

pig

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.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Derwood

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.

__________________
"You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

braisler

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.

__________________
---
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein
---

Charlatan

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?

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

eribrav

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.

Glory's Sun

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.

Cynthetiq

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 don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

thinktank

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.

projectself

<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.

IC3

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.

__________________
"To win any battle, you must fight as if you were already dead" -Musashi

flstf

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.

braisler

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.

__________________
---
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein
---

flstf

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.

Cynthetiq

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...

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

projectself

<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.

thinktank

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?

projectself

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

StanT

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.

IC3

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.

__________________
"To win any battle, you must fight as if you were already dead" -Musashi

Craven Morehead

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

maleficent

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.

__________________

kutulu

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.

kutulu

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?

splck

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.

__________________
nice line eh?

MSD

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.

braisler

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.

__________________
---
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein
---

maleficent

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.

__________________

StanT

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.

yellowchef

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.

flstf

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

braisler

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.

__________________
---
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
- Albert Einstein
---

flstf

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?

flstf

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?

Cynthetiq

it's happened...

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

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

thinktank

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.

braisler

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.

noodles

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.

__________________

flstf

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.

kutulu

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?