Weyco II - Just When You Tought It Was Safe To Be Overweight. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

JumpinJesus · 02-01-2005, 08:03 PM

The company that brought us the anti-smoking high-jinks now brings us the hilarity of threatening its overweight employees, after saying it wouldn't threaten its overweight employees just a week ago.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/31/news....reut/?cnn=yes

Quote:

Lose weight or lose your job
Business owner who forced workers to quit smoking now wants them to get skinny, too.
January 31, 2005: 12:50 PM EST

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight.

A ban on tobacco use -- whether at home or at the workplace -- led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco Inc., which handles insurance claims.

The workers refused to take a mandatory urine test demanded of Weyco's 200 employees by founder and sole owner Howard Weyers, a demand that he said was perfectly legal.

"If you don't want to take the test, you can leave," Weyers told Reuters. "I'm not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here."

Also a health concern: overweight workers.

"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," Weyers said.

He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 bonuses and plans to offer $45 vouchers for health club memberships.

The 71-year-old Weyers, who said he has never smoked and pronounced himself in good shape thanks to daily runs, said employees' health as well as saving money on the company's own insurance claims led him to first bar smokers from being hired in 2003.

Last year, he banned smoking during office hours, then demanded smokers pay a monthly $50 "assessment," and finally instituted mandatory testing.

Twenty workers quit the habit.

Weyers tells clients to quit whining about health care costs and to "set some expectations; demand some things."

Job placement specialist John Challenger said Weyco's moves could set a precedent for larger companies -- if it survives potential legal challenges.

"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue: rising health care costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual," Challenger said.

So far no legal challenges have been made to Weyco's policies.

The thread about smoking brought up this possibility, discussing just how far this company is willing to go. Within the week, his policies are extending to those who are overweight. He seems to lament the fact that overweight employees have legal protection against discrimination. Honestly, what's next?

I find it interesting that no one has challenged the legality of this yet. I understand that he has the right to run his company the way he wants, but does he have the right to dictate the private lives of his employees?

Yes, this was discussed under the smoking thread, but the new addition of overweight workers increases the scope of the topic.

the_marq · 02-01-2005, 08:06 PM

I guess that means dangerous sexual activites are next.

MSD · 02-01-2005, 08:55 PM

When he puts a third restriction on his employees, I'll start to question his existance and theorize that he was invented by bored journalists on a slow news day.

martinguerre · 02-01-2005, 11:02 PM

it's called a union. we used to have these things...that prevented employers from pulling shit like this...

anyhow, i don't think i would tolerate employment with a company that wanted to dictate the rest of my life for me.

Vincentt · 02-02-2005, 01:35 AM

I think... he owns the place, let him do as he wants.
Any of those people can choose to quit and go get another job.

ironman · 02-02-2005, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincentt

I think... he owns the place, let him do as he wants.
Any of those people can choose to quit and go get another job.

My thoughts exactly. We are so concerned about political correctness, that we tend to oversee a lot of stuff. If i manage a company and most of my employees are overweight and smoke, is a no brainer that sooner or later, i will have to face a lot of health problems within the company that will make it less productive.
A few weeks ago i took a flight to Miami and had the very bad luck of been seated next to this 350+ pounds man, the guy was covering all his seat and literally seated on half mine, he even had raised the arm rester (if that's what it's called) because he didn't fit his seat. The plane was packed, so i had to carry his weight for 2 and a half hours. If you ask me, that guy shoulded pay 2 seats or i shoulded pay half, which brings me again to the main topic. If my employees are overweight there is a good chance that i will have to pay more to get them to travel and do their jobs.

Blaspheme · 02-02-2005, 08:43 AM

My wife works in benefits administration for a large corporation. You simply would not believe the amount of money it ends up costing to care for the fat employees. Even ignoring the major operations like stomach reduction etc, they have vastly higher medical costs just because of the additional "regular maintenance" type of medical appointments that their weight causes them to need.

I don't know if I feel it's right for this guy to change the rules for people after he hires them like this, but I definitely support his stance on any new employees he hires. I don't think anyone has a right to tell him that he or his company should be forced to lose money just because an employee wants to spend all their time sitting on a couch while watching TV and inhaling boxes of Twinkies.

streak_56 · 02-02-2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincentt

I think... he owns the place, let him do as he wants.
Any of those people can choose to quit and go get another job.

I would happen to agree. But there are certain restrictions that a manager can place on his/her workers.

boredom · 02-02-2005, 09:06 AM

what determines overweight tho, I mean the manager could just say one looks overweight and they'd be fired.

ironman · 02-02-2005, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuvdar

what determines overweight tho, I mean the manager could just say one looks overweight and they'd be fired.

A BMI of 25 or more and 50 pounds over your statistic weight makes you obese.

VitaminH · 02-02-2005, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironman

A BMI of 25 or more and 50 pounds over your statistic weight makes you obese.

A BMI of 25-30 is classified as overweight. Over 30 and you are considered obese.

If this guy is allowed to proceed, you can expect to see more of this as health care costs continue to rise.

Averett · 02-02-2005, 10:39 AM

Quote:

He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 bonuses and plans to offer $45 vouchers for health club memberships.

That's pretty awesome. I wish my employers would do that, and I'm not even overweight!

JumpinJesus · 02-02-2005, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Averett

That's pretty awesome. I wish my employers would do that, and I'm not even overweight!

Granted, it's good that he's encouraging his employees to live healthier lifestyles and he's even offering them help to become healthier. That's what I think is good.

What concerns me is the precedent this may be setting. This was discussed at length in the other thread, so there probably isn't a whole lot of new information to be discussed in this one, but I still find it unsettling. What standards are going to be used? Will we all be at the whims of an employer to spontaneously decide what we're allowed to do?

The argument is used that a private employer can hire and fire at will, but how much are we willing to give up? What if - and this is a stretch, I know - but what if your employer decides that he wants all his employees to attend the same church? When do we say enough is enough?

Dostoevsky · 02-03-2005, 03:09 AM

It's expensive to retain smokers and overweight employees due to health care premiums I would suspect. I don't fault Weyer as an employer for purging his payroll of high risk employees who aren't willing to take steps to improve their health. I'll tell you what I'm tired of, people who are generally unhealthy due to smoking and eating too much collecting federal money for their health care. I'm tired of paying taxes to support this growing segment of society. I don't think I'm alone here.

whocarz · 02-06-2005, 02:14 AM

What kind of heartless monster would actually encourage his employees to lead healthy lifestyles? It makes me so sick I could vomit.

Strange Famous · 02-06-2005, 08:11 AM

I am amazed that the workers have not gone on strike, certainly the company has no right to tell employee's that they cannot smoke when they are not on actually at work... hopefully this guy will be hit very hard by constructive dismissal cases in tribunal, and the company will go under: workers must be protected from this kind of intrusion into the private sphere.

Vincentt · 02-06-2005, 09:41 AM

"workers must be protected from this kind of intrusion into the private sphere"
By having the company shut down?
And all of them losing their jobs anyway?

sigh

If they don't like it, then they can go get a new job.

la petite moi · 02-06-2005, 10:49 AM

I think it's pretty cool he's giving bonuses to those who lose weight. Also, I think it's awesome that he gave these smokers an ultimatum so they'd quit smoking.

And, as nwlinkvxd says, it's not like they have a legal right to work at his place anyway.

mokle · 02-06-2005, 11:46 AM

I applaud him for going against the grain and taking a step in the right direction.

Strange Famous: If an employee's smoking is costing him money (a la health care costs), then he has every right to tell them to stop. It's -similar- to company drug testing. Sure, maybe you only smoke weed on your own time, but theoretically that can lead to increased accidents on the job, which leads to increased spending by the company. If a company can drug test, I see no reason why they can't smoke-test.

Strange Famous · 02-06-2005, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la petite moi

I think it's pretty cool he's giving bonuses to those who lose weight. Also, I think it's awesome that he gave these smokers an ultimatum so they'd quit smoking.

And, as nwlinkvxd says, it's not like they have a legal right to work at his place anyway.

people should have certain rights to be free from discrimination in the workplace, as in any other part of society. If he decided to sack everyone of a certain race, should that be allowed? There must be some protection for people from abitrary dismissal and bullying. Basically what this action says is that the worker is a piece of property, that you do not have independant rights, that you are not entitled to a truly private existence... he is mandating that the worker cannot smoke in their own home, and if they do they will be punished. I certainly hope the company is bankrupted very quickly. Even for all the workers to lose their jobs, is a worthwhile sacrifice to show that this kind of abuse of the workforce will not be allowed.

You DO have a legal right to employment under certain circumstances, at least in my country. After a period you have job protection and you cannot just be sacked on a whim... correct procedures must be followed, people do and should have a right to work, and a right to keep their job if they do not do anything wrong.

I am glad that I live in a nation where this action would be utterly illegal and the company could not exist.... I am sympathetic for these workers that the working class and the state have not protected them.

Certainly the best case scenario is not for the company to be closed, it is for the company and all its assets and all wealth related to the company to be confiscated without any compensation, and given in joint to the workers of the company. The boss, in his advanced age, should be entitled to a small old age pension which will be sufficient for his needs.

TheFrogel · 02-06-2005, 12:22 PM

I'm throwing my lot in with the employer on this one. Every employer has the right, I think, to choose what risks to take and what costs to cut. If he realizes that he has to pay higher insurance premiums for smokers than for nonsmokers, and if nonsmokers can get the job done just as well, why not hire nonsmokers and fire smokers?

A possibly awful parallel: An employer sees two applicants, one with a degree in the field he will be employed in, one with a degree in something totally random. It will cost less and take less time to train the first applicant in the job, so the employer will more likely pick him. The second applicant has just as much right to the job, and may do it just as capably, but he will cost more, so why spend more money than you have to? Besides, smoking is voluntary (obesity is debatably so); smoking is a lifestyle choice. It's something a person can change, and if they really want to, they will. If they don't want the job badly enough to quit, thier loss. I don't see the fault, really.

Yakk · 02-06-2005, 12:29 PM

In many parts of the US, employment is 'at will'. Other than a short list of things, an employer or employee can quit or fired at will. A contract may add additional requirements.

Unions normally negotate this kind of thing.

The theory is, government interfearance into private arrangements should be minimized.

Lebell · 02-06-2005, 07:30 PM

Soooo,

All you weekend warriors that like to ski or mountain bike or ski dive or whatever...

Are you willing to give up your dangerous activity in the name of lower health care costs?

mokle · 02-06-2005, 08:51 PM

I'd waive my company coverage before I gave up my extreme sports

flstf · 02-07-2005, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFrogel

Besides, smoking is voluntary (obesity is debatably so); smoking is a lifestyle choice. It's something a person can change, and if they really want to, they will. If they don't want the job badly enough to quit, thier loss. I don't see the fault, really.

I agree that an employer should be able to hire anyone they want and restrict whatever lifestyle choices they want. However I think we should let them know that this type of thinking disgusts us. Like Lebell pointed out, eventually they will restrict any and all activities that their accountants consider unhealthy or may have some risk. Heck, they may even make me trade in my Harley for a Volvo, LOL.

yelkcots · 02-07-2005, 04:02 AM

I think that it is a good idea for Weyco to do what he is doing and infact I think that I would do much the same thing in his shoes because of the amount of money it would cost him.

I dont think that he should be criticised for what he is doing because the workers should realise that he is not only doing it for himself, but if they choose to change their lifestyle and get fitter/less overweight/stop smoking, then he is actually doing them a big favour in the long run too.

A lot of people are saying that he will be broaden the bans e.g. into extreme sports etc. but i think that this will be self-monitering because he will end up losing so many employees and not be able to find new ones to employ fast enough that it would not be cost efficient, and after all this is why he started all this in the first place.

d*d · 02-07-2005, 04:21 AM

I'm not comfortable with the idea that employers are able to take in factors that have NOTHING to do with your ability to perform your job. He is forcing lifestyle choices on people, fine they can leave and go work for another company but it means that there is one less place for people who smoke and or are overweight to work. I beleive that an employer should have no right to tell you how to life your live unless it impacts your productivity. The whole thing had fascist undertones imho

flstf · 02-07-2005, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yelkcots

A lot of people are saying that he will be broaden the bans e.g. into extreme sports etc. but i think that this will be self-monitering because he will end up losing so many employees and not be able to find new ones to employ fast enough that it would not be cost efficient, and after all this is why he started all this in the first place.

I think you give them too much credit. There are many lifestyle choices that companies may find to be not cost efficient.

noGon · 02-07-2005, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincentt

I think... he owns the place, let him do as he wants.
Any of those people can choose to quit and go get another job.

Gotta agree..
But thats the same with anything tho.

Strange Famous · 02-07-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Soooo,

All you weekend warriors that like to ski or mountain bike or ski dive or whatever...

Are you willing to give up your dangerous activity in the name of lower health care costs?

And after this, compulsory genetic testing for all employee's... those who are found to have a genetic predisposition to heart disease or cancer to be dismissed... those who refuse testing to be dismissed. The logic of the mantra "it is his company, he can do what he wants" WILL end in the dismissal of all people of certain races, or the sacking of women who refuse to wear short skirts, or sleep with the boss... either you accept an employee has rights or they are anothing, a commodity to be exchanged for wages who is not recognised as a human.

In my opinion the main error made in judging this case however is to say the company belongs to the person who is legally defined as the owner of the corporation as an article of private property. The company has been created by those who worked for it. and therefore the fruits of their labour morally belong to these people. It would be moral and just for the owner to be dispossessed immediately and the company to become the communal property of its employee's as a whole.

But even in a capitalist view, this sort of thing should not be allowable.... where to we draw the line?

Sacking of smokers
Sacking of overweight
Sacking of all people who's parents were not born in America
Sacking of all women who will not wear revealing uniforms?
Sacking of all who are not members of the Baptist church?

If one is allowable, then all of the other cases are merely matters of degree.

Yakk · 02-07-2005, 12:39 PM

Employment discrimination on the matters of race and sex are not allowed, Federally, IIRC. Correct me if I'm wrong?

States have their own laws, which may extend the above.

Many states have sexual harrassment laws, which make some of your above acts criminal. Others have anti-prostitution laws (or at least solicitation).

Quote:

In my opinion the main error made in judging this case however is to say the company belongs to the person who is legally defined as the owner of the corporation as an article of private property. The company has been created by those who worked for it. and therefore the fruits of their labour morally belong to these people. It would be moral and just for the owner to be dispossessed immediately and the company to become the communal property of its employee's as a whole.

Actually, the concept that those who put up the capital (ie, deferred earned consumption) to fund a corperation own it is sort of the core of capitalism, strange.

Remember that is what capital is -- 'earned consumption' which you choose to not consume, and instead allocate to projects that could earn you more consumption rights (aka, money) later on. Because some people value potential consumption, others can consume more immediately. And the 'invested' deferred consumption typically generates wealth.

If labour was the only measure of worth, deferred consumption would be valueless. Which means generating more wealth than you want to use immediately goes unrewarded.

But both my and your points are tangental.

Quote:

Sacking of smokers
Sacking of overweight
Sacking of all people who's parents were not born in America
Sacking of all women who will not wear revealing uniforms?
Sacking of all who are not members of the Baptist church?

If one is allowable, then all of the other cases are merely matters of degree.

I suspect Smokers, Overweight and Baptists restrictions above are legal under US Federal law. Not born in America is also probably legal, but it might run into the anti-racial discrimination law.

JumpinJesus · 02-07-2005, 02:59 PM

As an update, it turns out four of the fired employees are going to sue after all. I saw it on the news this morning. I'll locate a link and post it once I find one.

Fire · 02-07-2005, 08:12 PM

This fucking sucks- period- not because I believe in smokers rights- not because I believe that discrimination is wrong- all that aside- it is a JOB- employers should have NO right to regulate the legal activities of their employees- If he wants to , why not exclude them from the health plan or charge them more- this needs to be slapped down quick, before walmart starts telling their employees that they have to have bush yard signs (and companies HAVE gotten away with telling their employees that they could not put a candidates yard sign in their own yards if it was'nt "approved") ... I mean when the fuck does it stop?

bing bing · 02-07-2005, 09:00 PM

So what, he's concerned about the health of his employees. An incentive to lose weight is certainly better than say, dying of a heart attack or going blind as a result of type-2 diabetes. Motivation is motivation and evidently, these individuals are in need, so good on him I say.

StephenSa · 02-09-2005, 11:28 AM

It seems he is making a positive move on the weight/fitness issue by providing vouchers and having open communication and education about health and fitness. He offers possible cash bonuses for those that strive to be healthier and provided health coaches. Good for him! These are incentives to live better and positive reinforcement regarding health issues. I'd like to see more employers do that. The smoking issue though I disagree with. With that he offers only punitive measures, ie: firing smoking employees. Instead he could offer similar incentives to get people to drop the smoking habit. He could bring in speakers from the American Heart Association, he could offer assistance with paying for quit smoking programs or cash bonuses for those that reach thirty, sixty, and ninety days smoke free. This would be positive reinforcement and support in promoting a healthier lifestyle. Instead he issues an ultimatum, quit or be sacked. People don't like ultimatums and they don't like people mucking about in their private lives. Not smoking at work, I can see. His place, his rules. Not smoking in ones private home (I'm not a smoker), none of his business. Health care costs going up? Tough. Cost of doing busines. Maybe I don't want to pay taxes to cover health care for the elderly. Maybe health care costs are going up because people are living longer and we have a ton of elderly to care for. Hmm... I guess its a financial issue so by that rational everyone over the age of sixty is euthanized. It just makes fiscal sense. Corporations already have too much control over our lives. Those that scream that the government needs to stay out our lives too often seem perfectly happy to let a corporation run rough-shod over them in the name of almighty capitlism. As long as I do my job well and there is a need for my position in the company it shouldn't matter what I do with my personal time be it smoking, fire eating, or snow skiing.

pinkie · 02-09-2005, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bing bing

So what, he's concerned about the health of his employees. An incentive to lose weight is certainly better than say, dying of a heart attack or going blind as a result of type-2 diabetes. Motivation is motivation and evidently, these individuals are in need, so good on him I say.

I don't think so. It's about money and control, period. Forcing people to conform to weight/smoking/health in general guidelines doesn't teach them anything except how to submit to the hand that signs the checks. It's taking away personal freedoms - bullshit to the trillionth degree!

Anyone ever see Gattaca?

Frowning Budah · 02-09-2005, 06:26 PM

Some of you have real easy answers when you are talking in general terms. Lets get personnel. I am obese. Sorry if that bothers you. Do I cost the health insurance more than somebody at an optimum weight. Probably. Guess what, I have a wife who was bulimic for over 30 years. She now weighs close to her correct weight, but I guarantee she cost the insurance company much more than I do because of the damage she did to her body trying to conform to societies concept of what was acceptable.
The very idea that some one can set themselves up as the authority as to how someone else should live their lives is repugnant.

JumpinJesus · 02-09-2005, 06:56 PM

What bothers me about all the "it's-his-company-he-can-do-what-he-wants" replies is the seeming willingness of people to subjugate themselves to their employers. Well, maybe not subjugate themselves but be okay with the subjugation of others.

If, after working for a company for 5 years, your boss approaches you and says, "Look, you drive a modified Honda Civic. Street racing is dangerous. I don't like street racing. Sell your car or find another job."

How many of you would shrug, say, "He's the boss," and phone in an ad to your paper's classified section while simultaneously perusing the help wanted section...just in case?

Or, after 15 years of employment, your boss approaches you and says, "I see you ate at McDonald's the other day. They're food is unhealthy. I prefer that you eat only organic food approved by me. Beginning next week, I expect to see your grocery receipts. If I see you at McDonald's, you will be fired. I don't want your kids eating pizza, either because it's unhealthy. They could become obese and you could end up using sick days to care for them."

How many of you would go home and tell your kids, "Sorry, no more pizza, my boss doesn't like it. But hey, it's his company. He can do what he wants to me as long as I work there."

I'm trying to gauge just how staunch some of us are in our statements that a boss can dictate to his employees the terms under which they may live their lives.

BTW, I know I promised a link. I'm having a little trouble finding one. Don't despair, though. I know you're all checking back here frequently in the hopes that it's posted. :wink:

jorgelito · 02-09-2005, 07:11 PM

Wrong, it's about cost control measures.

Just add choice to it: If you are overwieght or smoke then deny them coverage (by the employer) that's more than fair. All the other silly scenarios are irrelevant as they do not incur cost to the employer (through health coverage).

Oh, most professional athletes are prohibited from riding motorcycles, bicyles, playing other physical sports etc., so weekend warriors, if you want to live a "risky" lifestyle, forfeit coverage from the employer. It's a win-win. You can still do whatever you want, and the employer doesn't have to subsidize it.

bad jane · 02-10-2005, 02:36 AM

i'm interested in knowing how he determined that all these obese people are simply lazy and unhealthy.

i think it is great that he offers gym vouchers (my company does the same and lots of people take advantage of that). bonuses to those who take off weight is also great--but a bit unfair to those who have no weight to lose if you ask me.

but not all people who are obese are fat and lazy slobs. there are medical conditions that cause weight gain. one of my co-workers is obese, she has hypothyroidism. is it really fair to fire her for something beyond her control? i'm not aware of any exemptions that protect our employer for being charged more based on her weight since it is based on a medical condition. another co-worker gained a significant amount of weight due to some meds she had to take--so would it be ok to fire her even though her weight gain is a result of medical treatment? i mean, fat is fat, right?

even if you agreed that there should be excemptions for people with medical conditions--anyone who wished to take advantage of that would then have to give up confidential health information. that info is confidential and forcing someone to provide it in order to keep their job really doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

imo, this is a hell of a lot worse than firing the smokers (though i didn't agree with that either).

*edit* i forgot to even consider women who get pregnant...many women keep quite a bit of their pregnancy weight. you could say they should be more careful of exercise and what they eat during pregnancy--but try telling that to some poor woman who's just spent the last 6 months on bedrest due to complications with pregnancy. my best friend gained quite a bit with one of her kids (and it took her more than a year to get it all off) because she spent the last 4 1/2 months of her pregnancy in the hospital, on bedrest. flat on your back for several months isn't exactly the best way to go about getting in shape.

02-01-2005, 08:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
the_marq All hail the Mountain King Location: Black Mesa	I guess that means dangerous sexual activites are next. __________________ The Truth: Johnny Cash could have kicked Bruce Lee's ass if he wanted to. #3 in a series

02-01-2005, 11:02 PM	#4 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	it's called a union. we used to have these things...that prevented employers from pulling shit like this... anyhow, i don't think i would tolerate employment with a company that wanted to dictate the rest of my life for me. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

02-02-2005, 01:35 AM	#5 (permalink)
Vincentt Addict Location: Tokyo, Japan	I think... he owns the place, let him do as he wants. Any of those people can choose to quit and go get another job. __________________ .

02-02-2005, 08:43 AM	#7 (permalink)
Blaspheme Tilted Location: Oregon, USA	My wife works in benefits administration for a large corporation. You simply would not believe the amount of money it ends up costing to care for the fat employees. Even ignoring the major operations like stomach reduction etc, they have vastly higher medical costs just because of the additional "regular maintenance" type of medical appointments that their weight causes them to need. I don't know if I feel it's right for this guy to change the rules for people after he hires them like this, but I definitely support his stance on any new employees he hires. I don't think anyone has a right to tell him that he or his company should be forced to lose money just because an employee wants to spend all their time sitting on a couch while watching TV and inhaling boxes of Twinkies. __________________ Faith: not wanting to know what is true. ~Friedrich Nietzsche

02-02-2005, 09:06 AM	#9 (permalink)
boredom Insane Location: California	what determines overweight tho, I mean the manager could just say one looks overweight and they'd be fired. __________________ Wiggum: Find anything this time, boys? Cop: Uh, no sign of him, Chief. Wiggum: Princess Opal? Opal: I see nothing here, but I'm afraid it's splitsville for Delta Burke and Major Dad. Wiggum: But they seem so happy! -- ``Bart the Murderer''

02-01-2005, 08:55 PM	#3 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	When he puts a third restriction on his employees, I'll start to question his existance and theorize that he was invented by bored journalists on a slow news day.

02-03-2005, 03:09 AM	#14 (permalink)
Dostoevsky Psycho Location: Macon, GA	It's expensive to retain smokers and overweight employees due to health care premiums I would suspect. I don't fault Weyer as an employer for purging his payroll of high risk employees who aren't willing to take steps to improve their health. I'll tell you what I'm tired of, people who are generally unhealthy due to smoking and eating too much collecting federal money for their health care. I'm tired of paying taxes to support this growing segment of society. I don't think I'm alone here. __________________ Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned. It is not advisable, James, to venture unsolicited opinions. You should spare yourself the embarrassing discovery of their exact value to your listener. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

02-06-2005, 02:14 AM	#15 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	What kind of heartless monster would actually encourage his employees to lead healthy lifestyles? It makes me so sick I could vomit. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

02-06-2005, 08:11 AM	#16 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	I am amazed that the workers have not gone on strike, certainly the company has no right to tell employee's that they cannot smoke when they are not on actually at work... hopefully this guy will be hit very hard by constructive dismissal cases in tribunal, and the company will go under: workers must be protected from this kind of intrusion into the private sphere. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

02-06-2005, 09:41 AM	#17 (permalink)
Vincentt Addict Location: Tokyo, Japan	"workers must be protected from this kind of intrusion into the private sphere" By having the company shut down? And all of them losing their jobs anyway? sigh If they don't like it, then they can go get a new job. __________________ .

02-06-2005, 10:49 AM	#18 (permalink)
la petite moi Filling the Void. Location: California	I think it's pretty cool he's giving bonuses to those who lose weight. Also, I think it's awesome that he gave these smokers an ultimatum so they'd quit smoking. And, as nwlinkvxd says, it's not like they have a legal right to work at his place anyway.

02-06-2005, 11:46 AM	#19 (permalink)
mokle Psycho Location: Alberta, Canada	I applaud him for going against the grain and taking a step in the right direction. Strange Famous: If an employee's smoking is costing him money (a la health care costs), then he has every right to tell them to stop. It's -similar- to company drug testing. Sure, maybe you only smoke weed on your own time, but theoretically that can lead to increased accidents on the job, which leads to increased spending by the company. If a company can drug test, I see no reason why they can't smoke-test. __________________ Mokle "Your hands can't hit what your eyes can't see" -Ali

02-06-2005, 12:22 PM	#21 (permalink)
TheFrogel Tilted Location: Pennsylvania	I'm throwing my lot in with the employer on this one. Every employer has the right, I think, to choose what risks to take and what costs to cut. If he realizes that he has to pay higher insurance premiums for smokers than for nonsmokers, and if nonsmokers can get the job done just as well, why not hire nonsmokers and fire smokers? A possibly awful parallel: An employer sees two applicants, one with a degree in the field he will be employed in, one with a degree in something totally random. It will cost less and take less time to train the first applicant in the job, so the employer will more likely pick him. The second applicant has just as much right to the job, and may do it just as capably, but he will cost more, so why spend more money than you have to? Besides, smoking is voluntary (obesity is debatably so); smoking is a lifestyle choice. It's something a person can change, and if they really want to, they will. If they don't want the job badly enough to quit, thier loss. I don't see the fault, really.

02-06-2005, 12:29 PM	#22 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	In many parts of the US, employment is 'at will'. Other than a short list of things, an employer or employee can quit or fired at will. A contract may add additional requirements. Unions normally negotate this kind of thing. The theory is, government interfearance into private arrangements should be minimized. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

02-06-2005, 07:30 PM	#23 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Soooo, All you weekend warriors that like to ski or mountain bike or ski dive or whatever... Are you willing to give up your dangerous activity in the name of lower health care costs? __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

02-06-2005, 08:51 PM	#24 (permalink)
mokle Psycho Location: Alberta, Canada	I'd waive my company coverage before I gave up my extreme sports __________________ Mokle "Your hands can't hit what your eyes can't see" -Ali

02-07-2005, 04:02 AM	#26 (permalink)
yelkcots Upright	I think that it is a good idea for Weyco to do what he is doing and infact I think that I would do much the same thing in his shoes because of the amount of money it would cost him. I dont think that he should be criticised for what he is doing because the workers should realise that he is not only doing it for himself, but if they choose to change their lifestyle and get fitter/less overweight/stop smoking, then he is actually doing them a big favour in the long run too. A lot of people are saying that he will be broaden the bans e.g. into extreme sports etc. but i think that this will be self-monitering because he will end up losing so many employees and not be able to find new ones to employ fast enough that it would not be cost efficient, and after all this is why he started all this in the first place.

02-07-2005, 04:21 AM	#27 (permalink)
d*d Addict	I'm not comfortable with the idea that employers are able to take in factors that have NOTHING to do with your ability to perform your job. He is forcing lifestyle choices on people, fine they can leave and go work for another company but it means that there is one less place for people who smoke and or are overweight to work. I beleive that an employer should have no right to tell you how to life your live unless it impacts your productivity. The whole thing had fascist undertones imho

02-07-2005, 02:59 PM	#32 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	As an update, it turns out four of the fired employees are going to sue after all. I saw it on the news this morning. I'll locate a link and post it once I find one. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

02-07-2005, 08:12 PM	#33 (permalink)
Fire Warrior Smith Location: missouri	This fucking sucks- period- not because I believe in smokers rights- not because I believe that discrimination is wrong- all that aside- it is a JOB- employers should have NO right to regulate the legal activities of their employees- If he wants to , why not exclude them from the health plan or charge them more- this needs to be slapped down quick, before walmart starts telling their employees that they have to have bush yard signs (and companies HAVE gotten away with telling their employees that they could not put a candidates yard sign in their own yards if it was'nt "approved") ... I mean when the fuck does it stop? __________________ Thought the harder, Heart the bolder, Mood the more as our might lessens

02-07-2005, 09:00 PM	#34 (permalink)
bing bing Addict Location: Melbourne, Australia	So what, he's concerned about the health of his employees. An incentive to lose weight is certainly better than say, dying of a heart attack or going blind as a result of type-2 diabetes. Motivation is motivation and evidently, these individuals are in need, so good on him I say.

02-09-2005, 11:28 AM	#35 (permalink)
StephenSa Psycho Location: Dallas, Texas	It seems he is making a positive move on the weight/fitness issue by providing vouchers and having open communication and education about health and fitness. He offers possible cash bonuses for those that strive to be healthier and provided health coaches. Good for him! These are incentives to live better and positive reinforcement regarding health issues. I'd like to see more employers do that. The smoking issue though I disagree with. With that he offers only punitive measures, ie: firing smoking employees. Instead he could offer similar incentives to get people to drop the smoking habit. He could bring in speakers from the American Heart Association, he could offer assistance with paying for quit smoking programs or cash bonuses for those that reach thirty, sixty, and ninety days smoke free. This would be positive reinforcement and support in promoting a healthier lifestyle. Instead he issues an ultimatum, quit or be sacked. People don't like ultimatums and they don't like people mucking about in their private lives. Not smoking at work, I can see. His place, his rules. Not smoking in ones private home (I'm not a smoker), none of his business. Health care costs going up? Tough. Cost of doing busines. Maybe I don't want to pay taxes to cover health care for the elderly. Maybe health care costs are going up because people are living longer and we have a ton of elderly to care for. Hmm... I guess its a financial issue so by that rational everyone over the age of sixty is euthanized. It just makes fiscal sense. Corporations already have too much control over our lives. Those that scream that the government needs to stay out our lives too often seem perfectly happy to let a corporation run rough-shod over them in the name of almighty capitlism. As long as I do my job well and there is a need for my position in the company it shouldn't matter what I do with my personal time be it smoking, fire eating, or snow skiing.

02-09-2005, 06:26 PM	#37 (permalink)
Frowning Budah Slave of Fear	Some of you have real easy answers when you are talking in general terms. Lets get personnel. I am obese. Sorry if that bothers you. Do I cost the health insurance more than somebody at an optimum weight. Probably. Guess what, I have a wife who was bulimic for over 30 years. She now weighs close to her correct weight, but I guarantee she cost the insurance company much more than I do because of the damage she did to her body trying to conform to societies concept of what was acceptable. The very idea that some one can set themselves up as the authority as to how someone else should live their lives is repugnant.

02-09-2005, 06:56 PM	#38 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	What bothers me about all the "it's-his-company-he-can-do-what-he-wants" replies is the seeming willingness of people to subjugate themselves to their employers. Well, maybe not subjugate themselves but be okay with the subjugation of others. If, after working for a company for 5 years, your boss approaches you and says, "Look, you drive a modified Honda Civic. Street racing is dangerous. I don't like street racing. Sell your car or find another job." How many of you would shrug, say, "He's the boss," and phone in an ad to your paper's classified section while simultaneously perusing the help wanted section...just in case? Or, after 15 years of employment, your boss approaches you and says, "I see you ate at McDonald's the other day. They're food is unhealthy. I prefer that you eat only organic food approved by me. Beginning next week, I expect to see your grocery receipts. If I see you at McDonald's, you will be fired. I don't want your kids eating pizza, either because it's unhealthy. They could become obese and you could end up using sick days to care for them." How many of you would go home and tell your kids, "Sorry, no more pizza, my boss doesn't like it. But hey, it's his company. He can do what he wants to me as long as I work there." I'm trying to gauge just how staunch some of us are in our statements that a boss can dictate to his employees the terms under which they may live their lives. BTW, I know I promised a link. I'm having a little trouble finding one. Don't despair, though. I know you're all checking back here frequently in the hopes that it's posted. :wink: __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

02-09-2005, 07:11 PM	#39 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Wrong, it's about cost control measures. Just add choice to it: If you are overwieght or smoke then deny them coverage (by the employer) that's more than fair. All the other silly scenarios are irrelevant as they do not incur cost to the employer (through health coverage). Oh, most professional athletes are prohibited from riding motorcycles, bicyles, playing other physical sports etc., so weekend warriors, if you want to live a "risky" lifestyle, forfeit coverage from the employer. It's a win-win. You can still do whatever you want, and the employer doesn't have to subsidize it.

02-10-2005, 02:36 AM	#40 (permalink)
bad jane Insane	i'm interested in knowing how he determined that all these obese people are simply lazy and unhealthy. i think it is great that he offers gym vouchers (my company does the same and lots of people take advantage of that). bonuses to those who take off weight is also great--but a bit unfair to those who have no weight to lose if you ask me. but not all people who are obese are fat and lazy slobs. there are medical conditions that cause weight gain. one of my co-workers is obese, she has hypothyroidism. is it really fair to fire her for something beyond her control? i'm not aware of any exemptions that protect our employer for being charged more based on her weight since it is based on a medical condition. another co-worker gained a significant amount of weight due to some meds she had to take--so would it be ok to fire her even though her weight gain is a result of medical treatment? i mean, fat is fat, right? even if you agreed that there should be excemptions for people with medical conditions--anyone who wished to take advantage of that would then have to give up confidential health information. that info is confidential and forcing someone to provide it in order to keep their job really doesn't sound like a good plan to me. imo, this is a hell of a lot worse than firing the smokers (though i didn't agree with that either). edit i forgot to even consider women who get pregnant...many women keep quite a bit of their pregnancy weight. you could say they should be more careful of exercise and what they eat during pregnancy--but try telling that to some poor woman who's just spent the last 6 months on bedrest due to complications with pregnancy. my best friend gained quite a bit with one of her kids (and it took her more than a year to get it all off) because she spent the last 4 1/2 months of her pregnancy in the hospital, on bedrest. flat on your back for several months isn't exactly the best way to go about getting in shape. Last edited by bad jane; 02-10-2005 at 02:43 AM..