Company fires 7 for smoking outside of work...

From news24.com:Washington - A United States health care company has fired seven workers who refused to quit smoking.

Michigan-based Weyco Inc's new policy bans its staff from smoking - even away from work - to cut health care costs.

"Some call this a violation of privacy," Weyco president Howard Weyers said in a statement.

"Weyco is proud of its stance on smoking and wellness.

"For every smoker who quits because of it, there will be many people - family members, friends, co-workers - who are very thankful the person won't be going to an early grave."

The company told workers in late 2003 that smokers would not be employed after January 1.

About 15 to 20 of the firm's 200 employees were smokers at the time and about a dozen quit smoking.

So what do you guys think about how business is trying to control what we do in our private lives? And how far will it go? I'm not a smoker, but I think this goes a little too far.

That does seem a bit out of line, I can understand making them not smoke at work, but I don't think they can say no to not smoking at home. They should have just implemented a bonus program for those who don't smoke, or quit smoking.

If I owned a business I would want to have the right to decide who I hire. If I don't want alcoholics working for me, or if I don't want cigarette smokers working for me, or if I do or don't want weed smokers working for me, I think I should be allowed to decide. I only feel that way when it comes to drugs or alcohol though, not hobbies or anything. But really, I dont know. Its a tough call. I believe in equal opp. for race, sex, religion, but I believe cigarettes to be a drug, and if a company doesn't want drug users, not excluding cigarette smokers, then I can't really argue that. I understand other people will never agree with that, but I can just accept it as a difference of opinion. So since it aint my call, I will just toss my opinion in there, and let the lawmakers handle it.

If I owned a business I would want to have the right to decide who I hire. If I don't want alcoholics working for me, or if I don't want cigarette smokers working for me, or if I do or don't want weed smokers working for me, I think I should be allowed to decide. I only feel that way when it comes to drugs or alcohol though, not hobbies or anything. But really, I dont know. Its a tough call. I believe in equal opp. for race, sex, religion, but I believe cigarettes to be a drug, and if a company doesn't want drug users, not excluding cigarette smokers, then I can't really argue that. I understand other people will never agree with that, but I can just accept it as a difference of opinion. So since it aint my call, I will just toss my opinion in there, and let the lawmakers handle it.

Its not a question of not hiring people, its the fact that they got fired for it, and thats just wrong.

Harsh but fair.

With any luck, smoking will be illegal in the next 50 or so years. We're quickly become self-aware of where smoking is going and this is just a small, albeit harsh step in the right direction.

They're a health care company too, it's like a police officer repeatedly breaking the law.

You know, I don't like cigarette smoke. But that's not to say that I don't believe people to have the right to do so. People know the risks, and I'm getting sick and tired of the government and everyone else trying to tell people what they can and can't put into their(our) own fucking bodies. I can understand a company saying no smoking while on the job, or if you are a smoker you will be denied health benefits for certain aspects of care. Just let people do what the hell they want to. It's their own bodies and they can do so to them as they please. Damn this kinda shit gets me irritated.

Its not a question of not hiring people, its the fact that they got fired for it

Understood. I still feel the same.

Texas, this isnt the government telling them not to do it. Its the employer saying stop or else we dont want you to work for us anymore. IMO the employer should have that right.

i thought shit like that only happened in the military... the company doesn't fucking own you. if they want to say you can't smoke on our property or you can't smoke while you are on duty.. fine. but on your own time, in your own home? those people need to get bent. who gives a shit about statistics and charts. I don't want the fucking MAN in every aspect of my life. go to work to work. then leave.

Just let people do what the hell they want to. It's their own bodies and they can do so to them as they please. Damn this kinda shit gets me irritated.

The government wants to make sure it has nice healthy taxpayers.

Yes, it's your own body, but if you propagate such self-destrcutive mentalities as this to impressionable young children, you're not really helping anybody, not even yourself then are you?

In the military they do this shit all the time... for instance. there's a new thing that just came down in okinawa... no participating in or even spectating of drifting, even on a legal track. what bullshit is that. they said it was because it's dangerous. well i'm in the military and i have to do what the fuck i'm told but i feel that as a human i should be able to judge risks and be responsible for myself and the activities I choose to partake in so long as they abide by the law... there's nothing anyone should be able to do about it... now if something came down that said smoking was illegal... that's a different story. then the employer can do that... obviously.

what if you got fired because you drag race legally? got fired for scuba diving? fired for mountain biking because it's too much of a liability.

what the fuck. how old are these people anyway that the company thinks it is an imminent danger for there people to be smoking. shit... god forbid they DRIVE to work!

In the military...no participating in or even spectating of drifting, even on a legal track...because it's dangerous...

Anyone else find that really ironic?

I like smoking, I do it because I choose to, and to have someone force their beliefs and values on me is completely out of line. I am fully aware of the health risks, and fully accept them. I am always very conscious about smoking in public, and make sure my cigarette smoke will not affect anyone else. It bothers me that some people can not accept that despite the fact that smoking is bad for you, it is the individuals choice.

it's not about smoking. it's just that... okay.. what else then? where is the line?

Sorry, the slippery slope argument doesn't hold any water whatsoever. Anyone who needs to ask where to draw the line probably isn't in charge of his bodily functions, let alone a company. Anything illegal, or that somehow interferes with your line of work should clearly not be allowed. Cigarettes are neither, unless you work at a gas station for example, in which case I would agree that if they want to smoke they should have to go elsewhere.

Put aside your personal opinion for a moment and ask yourself if you believe it would be fair for me to fire people for eating McDonalds outside of work. Sure it isn't illegal and doesn't interfere with your work, but it's bad for you.

it's not about smoking. it's just that... okay.. what else then? where is the line?

I can see it now:
Employees will get fired from condom companies because they had kids.

Ford employees will get fired for driving a Chevy.

Taco bell employees beacause they at at McDonalds.
:screwy:

What an utter farce. Lucky it'll never happen to me. 2/3 of the company smokes :D

how is this rule enforced? just don't smoke at work and tell them you quit.

Texas, this isnt the government telling them not to do it. Its the employer saying stop or else we dont want you to work for us anymore. IMO the employer should have that right.
what if your employer sent you a message saying something like "automotive enthusiast will no longer have a job with our company due to the dangers associated with performing routine car maintenance and/or spirited driving." wouldn't you kinda be like "who the fuck are you to tell me what i can and can't do in my free time?"

Texas, this isnt the government telling them not to do it. Its the employer saying stop or else we dont want you to work for us anymore. IMO the employer should have that right.
I said the government or anyone else. I realize that it is the employer who did this, and not the government. I don't think the employer has the right, nor should be given the right to tell people they have to quit smoking. It's ridiculous. Like I said, I understand them wanting to do this b/c of health benefits. However, just say that they are ineligible to receive it, if the medical problems that occur are due to smoking.

The government wants to make sure it has nice healthy taxpayers.

Yes, it's your own body, but if you propagate such self-destrcutive mentalities as this to impressionable young children, you're not really helping anybody, not even yourself then are you?
Isn't that the truth. Just more greed by the government. What do you mean propogate this to young children? People have been smoking for ever just about. It's the parents responsibility to teach their children the dangers of smoking and what can happen. Besides, when are there children at work? That's not a good enough argument, IMO, to say that the employer can fire the employees.

It all comes down to $$ in this case. Smokers obviously have a high risk of getting diseases such as emphysema(sp?) cancer, and many other health related problems. If one of their employees ends up with one of these illnesses, then they are going to lose money in many ways(health care, job productivity, disability etc...) If they dont want to have to deal with these issues because of someone elses life choices then they can do whatever they feel will make them an extra buck. They're just thinking ahead.

:repost:


See the political/current events forum.

it's my experience that most smokers take a billion breaks during the day for a smoke. Maybe they just wanted to cut the people smoking b/c they want everyone to work the same amount. I remember I used to work with smokers, I'd do much more work than them b/c they'd go for a smoke break every hour, come back, and after being outside they like to take it a lil easy. Mind you I'm not saying all smokers are like this, I've also worked with smokers who work extremely hard, and smoke to reduce the stress. But maybe at their company, the smokers were the slackers and this is an excuse to get rid of em

Next thing you know they will be telling us which toilet papaer to use to wipe our asses with.

It’ll be interesting to see how the lawsuit pans out. That’ll decide how this will play out. As for my own personal feelings; well I’m a 10 year smoker who quit about 3 years ago. I’m on the fence with this one. Part of me feels that cigarettes should be outlawed from this planet! Yet another part of me feels that the government has no right to tell me what I can or can’t do with my self.

Yo, fredjacksonsan! I know that there is a same thread going on in the political/current events forum! I stay out of there because things tend to get stupid there. So i hope the mods don't merge these 2 together. Peace!

it's my experience that most smokers take a billion breaks during the day for a smoke. Maybe they just wanted to cut the people smoking b/c they want everyone to work the same amount. I remember I used to work with smokers, I'd do much more work than them b/c they'd go for a smoke break every hour, come back, and after being outside they like to take it a lil easy. Mind you I'm not saying all smokers are like this, I've also worked with smokers who work extremely hard, and smoke to reduce the stress. But maybe at their company, the smokers were the slackers and this is an excuse to get rid of em


Agreed. The smokers in my office have gone on 4 smoke breaks today of about 10 minutes each. They've been here since 8 and it's now 1145.

Agreed. The smokers in my office have gone on 4 smoke breaks today of about 10 minutes each. They've been here since 8 and it's now 1145.
are you at work in the same office today? i just checked your post history for the day and you have posting on AF since 8:00 am. sounds like you're just as unproductive as the smokers.

i quit one job i worked at because they allowed smokers to take a 15 minute break every frickin hour. but i couldnt take a piss without getting permission. i started taking candy cigarettes out and chewing on them but they wrote me up for it. thats when i said buh-bye

This is a two-week old story....we've already moved it to 'politics and current affairs' once and beaten it to death...
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=355148

how is this rule enforced? just don't smoke at work and tell them you quit.


"
I believe I read somewhere else that the company administers a test to the employee,(similar to a drug test I guess,) which tells them if the employee is still smoking or not. So you really can't tell them you quit, if the test results say something different.

are you at work in the same office today? i just checked your post history for the day and you have posting on AF since 8:00 am. sounds like you're just as unproductive as the smokers.


Touche'!! Our office has intermittent bursts of activity, and the smokers here DO usually go out when nothing's happening, to their credit. Although there have been times that things hit the fan while they were out.

But things were different at the last place I worked, constant phones ringing and service issues; we'd have to take up the slack for the smokers. On our team of 6, often the 2 smokers would go out at the same time, leaving the rest of us to answer their phones in addition to our own. So instead of working 2 phone lines, we'd be working three, doing their work for them, which often extended to 20 minutes or more after they got back.

If I owned a business I would want to have the right to decide who I hire. If I don't want alcoholics working for me, or if I don't want cigarette smokers working for me, or if I do or don't want weed smokers working for me, I think I should be allowed to decide. I only feel that way when it comes to drugs or alcohol though, not hobbies or anything. But really, I dont know. Its a tough call. I believe in equal opp. for race, sex, religion, but I believe cigarettes to be a drug, and if a company doesn't want drug users, not excluding cigarette smokers, then I can't really argue that. I understand other people will never agree with that, but I can just accept it as a difference of opinion. So since it aint my call, I will just toss my opinion in there, and let the lawmakers handle it.


what?! You're equating cigarette smoking with getting drunk or smoking drugs?

Cigarette smoking is a personal choice that doesnt affect others like those do... if they dont want an alcoholic working its because they dont want somebody intoxicated on the job, making them do their job worse. Same goes for smoking marijuana, they dont want somebody high at work and not doing their job right. Smoking cigarettes doesnt affect the way you do your job in any way.

This is a complete infringement of human rights, smoking is like a hobby. Smoking affects you about as much as eating at Mcdonalds everyday, so you're saying that if somebody loves Mcdonalds its ok for an employer to fire them because they eat Mcdonalds outside of work and its bad for you?! They have NO right to tell you what you can and can't do to your body if it doesn't affect the job.

Complete bullshit imo

The only thing I'm going to say about this is that Smoking KILLS well into the thousands, if nto hundred thousands each year.

Drag racing, spirited driving, Mcdonald's and other such pitiful comparisons do not. Give me a break with the whole 'where are they going to draw the line' bit, If you are doing something that countless studies have proven can kill you any number of ways when you work for a health company, it looks really bad on their part.

Unless Mcdonald's or Taco bell customers start to die off in numbers equalling cigarettes, stop complaining.

Yo, fredjacksonsan! I know that there is a same thread going on in the political/current events forum! I stay out of there because things tend to get stupid there. So i hope the mods don't merge these 2 together. Peace!

Cool; I figured someone would see it; and things do tend to get quite hotly opinionated in the politics area.....

what?! You're equating cigarette smoking with getting drunk or smoking drugs?

Cigarette smoking is a personal choice that doesnt affect others like those do... if they dont want an alcoholic working its because they dont want somebody intoxicated on the job, making them do their job worse. Same goes for smoking marijuana, they dont want somebody high at work and not doing their job right. Smoking cigarettes doesnt affect the way you do your job in any way.

This is a complete infringement of human rights, smoking is like a hobby. Smoking affects you about as much as eating at Mcdonalds everyday, so you're saying that if somebody loves Mcdonalds its ok for an employer to fire them because they eat Mcdonalds outside of work and its bad for you?! They have NO right to tell you what you can and can't do to your body if it doesn't affect the job.

Complete bullshit imo

There is a direct correlation between smoking and many deadly diseases.

Hundreds of people die each day from smoke inhalation in fires. And smokers are doing it voluntarily.

Anyway, I was getting off topic. The employer in question told their employees more than a year and half before the policy was implemented, that because of increased healthcare costs for smokers, they were going to have a nonsmoking work force. People had 1 1/2 years to quit smoking or find another job - it was their choice. Several of the people were fired because they refused to take the test to show if they'd been smoking.

I'm sure a more fair approach in this instance might have been to assign a higher premium to the higher risk people. We're all familiar with high auto insurance for teen males, so then smokers should have higher cost health insurance since smoking is ultimately bad for you.

But then we'd be into "Well, your genetic makeup shows numerous risk factors, we can give you health insurance but it's going to be $2000 a month and we won't cover heart attacks"; and other things like that.

So the company did what it could to help keep costs down and employees healthy. It is cheaper to pay for employees to have a health club membership than it is to pay for the health problems a sedentary lifestyle causes over time.

There is a direct correlation between smoking and many deadly diseases.

Hundreds of people die each day from smoke inhalation in fires. And smokers are doing it voluntarily.

Anyway, I was getting off topic. The employer in question told their employees more than a year and half before the policy was implemented, that because of increased healthcare costs for smokers, they were going to have a nonsmoking work force. People had 1 1/2 years to quit smoking or find another job - it was their choice. Several of the people were fired because they refused to take the test to show if they'd been smoking.

I'm sure a more fair approach in this instance might have been to assign a higher premium to the higher risk people. We're all familiar with high auto insurance for teen males, so then smokers should have higher cost health insurance since smoking is ultimately bad for you.

But then we'd be into "Well, your genetic makeup shows numerous risk factors, we can give you health insurance but it's going to be $2000 a month and we won't cover heart attacks"; and other things like that.

So the company did what it could to help keep costs down and employees healthy. It is cheaper to pay for employees to have a health club membership than it is to pay for the health problems a sedentary lifestyle causes over time.

That introduces a completely different spin on the topic. If they told them well in advance of the policy that would be implemented then that is completely different. I agree with the employer now knowing that information. I thought that it was something that just came up out of no where. That gave them 1.5 years to either quit smoking or find a new job. Therefore I am now in agreeance.

What is next though? Are you going to get fired because you are 75Lbs. over weight or because you colestrol is 50 points to high. I think this is total Bullshit. And before you say smokeing is much worse for you that either of these that i listed think about it. Both lead to heart prolbems that are just as bad if not worse and take just as many lifes a year.

That introduces a completely different spin on the topic. If they told them well in advance of the policy that would be implemented then that is completely different. I agree with the employer now knowing that information. I thought that it was something that just came up out of no where. That gave them 1.5 years to either quit smoking or find a new job. Therefore I am now in agreeance.


Now I can see why you were so fired up! I DEFINITELY agree that if it was sprung on them, that the company was dead wrong.



What is next though? Are you going to get fired because you are 75Lbs. over weight or because you colestrol is 50 points to high. I think this is total Bullshit. And before you say smokeing is much worse for you that either of these that i listed think about it. Both lead to heart prolbems that are just as bad if not worse and take just as many lifes a year.

Cholesterol is something that may not be able to be controlled. I know a friend's family, they all have high cholesterol, have taken the medications, ate exactly as told, exercised and lost weight but their count stayed up in the 500's where it had always been - they naturally had high cholesterol, and almost all of them are healthy and live a relatively long time.

But now obessity.... Obesity is rampant in the US, and is a huge health problem in itself; from pulmonary diseases to diabetes and beyond. I wouldn't be surprised to see some policies start to come out. Of course, there ARE people that have "glandular conditions" but in general it's overeating and sitting around on your ass that makes you fat. You know it, I know it. People need to eat properly and move their ass to stay healthy.

With any luck, smoking will be illegal in the next 50 or so years
Yeah, that will do a lot of good. We all know how well its kept marijuana and cocaine away from people :rolleyes:

The only thing I'm going to say about this is that Smoking KILLS well into the thousands, if not hundred thousands each year.

Drag racing, spirited driving, Mcdonald's and other such pitiful comparisons do not. Give me a break with the whole 'where are they going to draw the line' bit, If you are doing something that countless studies have proven can kill you any number of ways when you work for a health company, it looks really bad on their part.

Unless Mcdonald's or Taco bell customers start to die off in numbers equalling cigarettes, stop complaining.

Thank you.

BTW, have you folks not seen the TRUTH commercials? 1200 people every DAY. Is there a number on McDonalds death rates? Lets not get ridiculous. Tobacco is a drug. Food is not. Automotive enthusiasm is a hobby. Smoking is not a hobby. No. It is not. And if it is your hobby, I damn sure don't want to be paying your medical bills. Lung cancer is not the type of thing that a 20 dollar a month increase is going to cover over 10, 15, 20 years. The bills run into hundreds of thousands. Where are you folks going to draw the line on what you compare cigarettes to? Ciggarettes : Mcdonalds? Cigarettes : Mountain Biking? Cigarettes : Obesity? GMAB. Being fat is not caused by a 10 minute "get fat break" every hour, or 2 packs of "get fat" a day. Sure its because they eat too much, or don't exercise enough, or for some, it's hereditary, but either way, it isn't because of a drug. And if it is, that's what drug tests are for.

If you think we should all be allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies, then that means you think all drugs should be legal. Im sure you don't agree with that. So, basically, you are saying you just want to be allowed to smoke if you chose to smoke. Well, good news. You are. But as an employer, there should be a right to hire/fire based on smoking habits. Yes Sir. Especially with a warning a year and a half in advance. Why should employers be forced to deal with your health problems? That is not fair to them. Take your health problems and your own "risk analysis" of "I Dont Care", somewhere else. That is how I would feel as an employer.

If you think we should all be allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies, then that means you think all drugs should be legal.
Don't make and ASS out of yoU and ME :)

Yeah, that will do a lot of good. We all know how well its kept marijuana and cocaine away from people :rolleyes:


Sorry, poor word choice on my part.

With in the next 50 years, will any luck, Cigarettes will no longer exist, not commercially anyways.

Porsche- you’re right about people who come down with smoking related diseases latter on in life effect us all because it makes you unproductive and all. But unless hitler takes office (and guys, please let’s not turn this into a who hates/loves Bush flame war) I don’t see cigarettes being banned within the next few decades. The tobacco companies “own” too many politicians in Washington, the states make too much cash off the taxes they make, and people will see it as an infringement on our freedom! Look what happened during the proabition era! It just drove it underground.

Austin8214- people getting fired by their company for being too fat isn’t new! Hasn’t Hooters been sued about a hundred times before because of that?

Thank you.

BTW, have you folks not seen the TRUTH commercials? 1200 people every DAY. Is there a number on McDonalds death rates? Lets not get ridiculous. Tobacco is a drug. Food is not. Automotive enthusiasm is a hobby. Smoking is not a hobby. No. It is not. And if it is your hobby, I damn sure don't want to be paying your medical bills. Lung cancer is not the type of thing that a 20 dollar a month increase is going to cover over 10, 15, 20 years. The bills run into hundreds of thousands. Where are you folks going to draw the line on what you compare cigarettes to? Ciggarettes : Mcdonalds? Cigarettes : Mountain Biking? Cigarettes : Obesity? GMAB. Being fat is not caused by a 10 minute "get fat break" every hour, or 2 packs of "get fat" a day. Sure its because they eat too much, or don't exercise enough, or for some, it's hereditary, but either way, it isn't because of a drug. And if it is, that's what drug tests are for.

If you think we should all be allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies, then that means you think all drugs should be legal. Im sure you don't agree with that. So, basically, you are saying you just want to be allowed to smoke if you chose to smoke. Well, good news. You are. But as an employer, there should be a right to hire/fire based on smoking habits. Yes Sir. Especially with a warning a year and a half in advance. Why should employers be forced to deal with your health problems? That is not fair to them. Take your health problems and your own "risk analysis" of "I Dont Care", somewhere else. That is how I would feel as an employer.


:werd:

Don't make and ASS out of yoU and ME :)


Hey, he didn't use the word "Assume", you can't play that card!!

:grinno:

for something like this I can...
If you think we should all be allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies, then that means you think all drugs should be legal.

Hey, business is business. If it's costing a business more money in health care for employees who smoke, then why should they have to pay more? They dont have to keep them if they are costing them more. If you were a business owner and you had to pay more for health care because your employees smoked, you think thats fair? I sure dont. A business should make money any way it can (as long as its legal) and if it made a policy about emplyees not smoking, and some chose not to folow the policy, then they dont have to keep them. They can just hire new people. Simple as that.

Just because I thought it was interesting, I'll mention the fact that a couple of studies have been done that show smokers actually save money by dieing early in life. I'll see if I can dig them up. I'm not saying I agree with the findings, but it would certainly put a crimp in some of your arguments.

Just because I thought it was interesting, I'll mention the fact that a couple of studies have been done that show smokers actually save money by dieing early in life. I'll see if I can dig them up. I'm not saying I agree with the findings, but it would certainly put a crimp in some of your arguments.
Whats the point of saving money when youre gonna be dead? :eek7:

Just look at it logically - you put money away in super your whole life then cark it shortly after leaving work. Not hard to figure out.

Just because I thought it was interesting, I'll mention the fact that a couple of studies have been done that show smokers actually save money by dieing early in life. I'll see if I can dig them up. I'm not saying I agree with the findings, but it would certainly put a crimp in some of your arguments.
and also what about buying those exprensive ass cigarette packs every other day?? theyre like what $5 now? how the hell would you save money if youre buying a pack of cigarettes every other day? :screwy:

For health care...the studies showed that the early death offset the cost of healthcare for smokers, actually producing a profit.

The only thing I'm going to say about this is that Smoking KILLS well into the thousands, if nto hundred thousands each year.

Drag racing, spirited driving, Mcdonald's and other such pitiful comparisons do not. Give me a break with the whole 'where are they going to draw the line' bit, If you are doing something that countless studies have proven can kill you any number of ways when you work for a health company, it looks really bad on their part.



It is a proven FACT that obesity is much worse for your health than smoking. Eating McDonalds everyday = obesity = worse health than smoking.

and whoever said fat people dont take "fat breaks" or buy "fat packs" is wrong too... what do you call a bag of chips? For a fat person thats a "fat break" cause he can munch out on his "fat pack" lol

I dont want to argue about this tho, cause non-smokers always seem to be prejudice against smokers like they're the root of all evil or something :rolleyes: I'm gunna do what i want to do, and you dont have to do it. So stop trying to convice me not to... i dont go around hating on fat people and telling them to eat healthy.

One way I look at the whole situation is this. When our forefathers wrote the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, giving us rights and liberties, did they ever think this matter would be a problem in the future? Yes, smoking has been around for centuries, and has been proven to cause health problems, it just boils down to a person's rights, and liberties. If you start controlling something like this now, where will it end? You give these people (in this case the employer,) an inch and the next thing you know they've taken a foot...or even a mile. This could cause a firestorm across the country down the road where employers could dictate what you can and cannot do on your own time or in your own home. And I don't know, but didn't we go to war in the 1700's to get away from something like this? And the last time I checked , this country was still a democracy. Pretty soon we will all live in a society similar to George Orwell's "1984".

For health care...the studies showed that the early death offset the cost of healthcare for smokers, actually producing a profit.


You have a link or information from a reliable source on that?

Because it's your opinion until then.

One way I look at the whole situation is this. When our forefathers wrote the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, giving us rights and liberties, did they ever think this matter would be a problem in the future? Yes, smoking has been around for centuries, and has been proven to cause health problems, it just boils down to a person's rights, and liberties. If you start controlling something like this now, where will it end? You give these people (in this case the employer,) an inch and the next thing you know they've taken a foot...or even a mile. This could cause a firestorm across the country down the road where employers could dictate what you can and cannot do on your own time or in your own home. And I don't know, but didn't we go to war in the 1700's to get away from something like this? And the last time I checked , this country was still a democracy. Pretty soon we will all live in a society similar to George Orwell's "1984".

You HAVE the "RIGHT" to smoke. That's not being taken away from you.

Employers have the RIGHT to fire employees for not following company policy.

In some states, the law says that a business can release (fire, terminate, choose your word) an employee for any reason.

You HAVE the "RIGHT" to smoke. That's not being taken away from you.

Employers have the RIGHT to fire employees for not following company policy.

In some states, the law says that a business can release (fire, terminate, choose your word) an employee for any reason.
I know we as Americans have the "RIGHT" to smoke. What is being brought into question is that "RIGHT" to do it at home or away from work is being infringed upon. There will probably be many lawsuits and court cases brought up because of this , and the challenge will be to prove that the company's policy is an infringement of the personal "RIGHTS" of an individual. We'll probably end up seeing civil liberties groups get involved over this matter,and a lot more debates about the constitutionality of the company's policy towards it's workers. Maybe all the way to the Supreme Court.

You're right about that. I think part of the argument will be that nicotine is a drug, and it's a drug-free workplace (which it may then be argued they should also outlaw caffeine) etc etc.

As always, a broad statement can be challenged on many fronts, while a too-narrow statement doesn't cover enough eventualities.

But at the heart of the matter is the intent to reduce the number of smoking-related illnesses that the insurance has to pay for. If people smoke at home, not smoking at work doesn't really matter, since they're exposing themselves to the smoke while away from work (and arguably, reducing somewhat their exposure since not smoking @ work)


-edit- I'm definitely on the side of "what you do in your own home is your business and no one else's". But if the employer said you can't come to work under the influence of cocaine or alcohol, and the employees had 18 months to either quit or be fired, then I think it would be accepted. And it has. I know I know nicotine isn't the same, it doesn't affect your judgement, etc etc; which is true unless you DON'T get the drug, in which case, well, we all know how smokers are when they can't smoke.....

Here are two of the links. I can't find any of the others anymore. I realize that the first one doesn't hold as much weight since it was funded by Phillip Morris, so don't go nagging about it.

http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Philip-Morris-Czech-Study.htm
http://www.cato.org/dailys/1-16-98.html

I will post the other links as I come across them, but it has been a while since I saw them.

Now, other than the fact that everyone just knows that smoking costs the country money, do you have any sources to prove it...any at all? I'm not saying that I don't believe it to be true, but when I think about it, I have never seen any proof of this...it just seems to be a generally accepted fact for no reason whatsoever.

Just because I thought it was interesting, I'll mention the fact that a couple of studies have been done that show smokers actually save money by dieing early in life. I'll see if I can dig them up. I'm not saying I agree with the findings, but it would certainly put a crimp in some of your arguments.
I've seen that study too. I read abut it in the newspaper some years ago.


Hey, business is business.
So, it is ok to fire a woman because she is pregnant? Or a father because he has a sick son and couldn't go to work for a couple of days? Would it be fair to fire you if you had an accident and couldn't work for a month? Is business and profit a good reason for everything?

we all know how smokers are when they can't smoke...
I don't agree. I'm a smoker. Sometimes I have to spend 8 hours without smoking. It doesn't affect me. I simply wait and I have a good smoke when I can.

I think this story sucks. Nobody has the right to tell you what you can or can't do in your free time (unless you try to do something illegal, of couse). Smoking isn't illegal, nobody can stop you from smoking.

So, it is ok to fire a woman because she is pregnant? Or a father because he has a sick son and couldn't go to work for a couple of days? Would it be fair to fire you if you had an accident and couldn't work for a month? Is business and profit a good reason for everything?


A woman being pregnant is part of life. Thats why we aren't extinct. A father's son being sick is not caused by the fathers choice to smoke cancer sticks (hopefully). Having an accident and not being able to work for a month: workmans comp. You can't compare childbirth to smoking cigarettes. You can't compare having a sick kid, to getting lung cancer because of your choice to smoke. You can't compare an accident to smoking cigarettes. Seriously. Stop the ridiculous comparisons. When they fire people for being pregnant, or taking care of their child, or for an injury that wasnt their fault, then I will be mad. But smoking cigarettes is your own right that you choose to exercise everyday. But do you think you have the RIGHT to work for anybody you choose? Hell no. Your job is a priviledge. And if you want to smoke a drug, like cigarettes, you go right on ahead, because you are allowed to do so on your own free time, in your home, in your car, in a restaurant, etc. But if you wanna work here.... NOPE. Take your health problems, and your drug habits somewhere else. Just because you don't care about your health, doesn't mean they don't. You do not have the right to work wherever you chose. Its called "At Will Employment" and most employers now days use it. They can fire you for parting your hair wrong if they want, but that's not the case. They have a fair argument. Which is : We don't want to employ cigarette smokers. That is their right.


I am all for the legalization of marijuana, but do you think I will complain that a business won't hire weed smokers if it is legalized? Hell no. It makes sense. Consider yourself lucky that cigarettes are even legal. Stop bitching about it, you chose to start smoking despite the health consequences, now deal with it, or quit.



and about this, said by "MY3rd skyline" :
for something like this I can...
If you think we should all be allowed to do whatever we want with our own bodies, then that means you think all drugs should be legal.

I clearly said after that, that I obviously knew you don't mean that, and you were only referring to cigarettes. Which makes you bias.