Big Brother is now hiring.

[taranaki]

Could this be the worst case of 'employer totalitarianism' ever?

http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/health/4134754/detail.html

There are those who would say that the 'golden rule' applies..those who have the gold,make the rules.Now if this guy chooses to only hire non-smokers, that's his business.However,I can't see any justification whatsoever for firing existing employees who don't conform to his new-found hatred of tobacco.Last I knew,smoking was still perfectly legal, and your responsibility to your employer stopped when you left his premises.This is a step towards the return of the 'master and servant' mentality of the 19th century.

[Heep]

How is that policy even legal? Maybe there are more differences in employment laws than I thought between Canada and the US, but as far as I know, in Canada at least, you can't fire or refuse to hire someone based on their personal life and decisions - you must hire whoever is best suited to the position.

I can understand how they were fired - they were fired for refusing the test, not fired for smoking.

[YogsVR4]

This one will be interesting as it plays itself out. You have the liberties of doing what you want on your own time and you have the cost of doing business (health care costs driven by certain behaviors). Though I think that they should never have been let go in the first place as people have the right to harm themselves however they want, I also think that employers should not have blanket coverage for their employees. If some want to partake of dangerous activities (sky diving, lion kicking, whatever) then they pay less insurance coverage for those people.

There is no doubt that some activities and habits do drive up the costs of doing business. How that additional cost should be shared among employees and employers (not to mention that added costs can surpress raises which I like so much) is going to be what the upcoming lawsuits will drive.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Heep

I can understand how they were fired - they were fired for refusing the test, not fired for smoking.

That's the bit I don't understand....Smoking is perfectly legal,and unlike dope or booze,consumption out of work hours has no potential impact on performance or safety.

You should not be allowed to dictate behaviour unless it is rightfully covered by legislation.If healthcare costs to the employer are a factor in
deciding the makeup of staff,surely it would be better to offer an enhanced package to those who could voluntarily pass these tests instead of firing those who couldn't?

[thegladhatter]

Well...it IS a health care company. Seems like a bit of bad publicity if their workers are living unhealthy lifestyle.

It is an interesting case. (only in Michigan )

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by thegladhatter

Well...it IS a health care company.

Healthcare companies work to make sick people better.

[From their website]
As a full service Third Party Administrator and Benefit Services Company, WEYCO, INC has built a reputation as the leader in innovative benefits solutions and quality customer service.

This staggeringly stupid and pretentious 'mission statement' tells us nothing of what they actually do..

Further in comes the reality.

Voluntary Dental, Vision, Life Insurance
Voluntary Disability, AD&D, Critical Illness
Insured Medical, Dental, Vision
Short-Term Disability
Long-Term Disability
Life Insurance
Short-Term Medical Coverage for Individuals and Families



They're in the insurance business.Their only concern is payout and income.And if they'll screw their own employees for the sake of a potential* dollar, think how badly they might treat their claimants.

*Contrary to PC myth, not all smokers develop expensive medical conditions.Even fewer develop them during their working lives.Not all employees will stay with a company for long enough to develop said illnesses,and not all smokers smoke at an equall risk rate.Firing 4 emplyees for refusing to submit to an invasion of their privacy ain't going to change the world.

perhaps their 'mission statement should be modified to read

WEYCO, INC has built a reputation across the internet for arbitrary and pointless abuse of the rights of its staff to have a life of their own.

[DGB454]

I think a lot of it stems from the rising cost of health care for the employer. One company is in Michigan. There is also another company in Michigan that did the same thing but didn't get the publicity. The employees that got fired can do very little about it because Michigan is one of a few states that has a law(I forget what it's called) that allows an employer to fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all. I think the law was an attempt to get some of the lazy workers off the payroll without having a huge discrimination or union battle. Right or wrong at this time there is nothing these employees can do about it.

I know where I work the people who do smoke have to go outside in a gazebo type building that the company built for them. Every hour on the hour about half of the salaried employees put on there coats and head outside for 10 to 15 minutes to smoke. This amounts to 80-120 minutes that the company is paying for that person to do nothing.
I can understand why companies want to completely get rid of smoking on their premises. But what they do away from work is a different matter I guess. As long as the employer doesn't foot the bill for that employees bad decissions. Possibly the answer is to get the employee to sign a waiver that releases the employer from paying for any type of medical bills that are directly related to smoking.

[fredjacksonsan]

I agree with Naki; if they want to smoke, fine, but if they want to reduce their health insurance cost, they must be tested to show they're nonsmokers.

It's true that not all smokers get serious diseases from smoking; but enough do to statistically see that it is detrimental to health.

[Heep]

Originally Posted by DGB454

The employees that got fired can do very little about it because Michigan is one of a few states that has a law(I forget what it's called) that allows an employer to fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all.

Hmm, well that explains how they did it

I don't think the company should pay for smoke breaks, and if people want to continue to smoke forfeiting that break pay, that's their issue.

[fredjacksonsan]

Agreed; I kept track of a couple smokers at a very busy job I worked (ok keeping track reduced my efficiency also) but they spent in excess of 2 hours per day smoking.

[Heep]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Agreed; I kept track of a couple smokers at a very busy job I worked (ok keeping track reduced my efficiency also) but they spent in excess of 2 hours per day smoking.

My uncle is a manager at a large local paper mill, and the employees who don't smoke get paid 5 minute breaks. The employees who do smoke get paid 20 minute breaks. Several employees buy a pack, go out with the others, light it up and let it burn out in their hand without taking a puff, so they can get a 20 minute break.

[fredjacksonsan]

Good for them! There's no reason someone else should get 4x the break time.

[YogsVR4]

What do you expect from my blue state


Though I do get entertained watching the few smokers we have stand outside in our -18F temperatures today.

[Heep]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Though I do get entertained watching the few smokers we have stand outside in our -18F temperatures today.

Lol yeah - even if I had a smoking addiction I think I'd just go all shaky and insane rather than stand out in that

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by DGB454

I think a lot of it stems from the rising cost of health care for the employer. One company is in Michigan. There is also another company in Michigan that did the same thing but didn't get the publicity. The employees that got fired can do very little about it because Michigan is one of a few states that has a law(I forget what it's called) that allows an employer to fire an employee for any reason or no reason at all. I think the law was an attempt to get some of the lazy workers off the payroll without having a huge discrimination or union battle. Right or wrong at this time there is nothing these employees can do about it.

I know where I work the people who do smoke have to go outside in a gazebo type building that the company built for them. Every hour on the hour about half of the salaried employees put on there coats and head outside for 10 to 15 minutes to smoke. This amounts to 80-120 minutes that the company is paying for that person to do nothing.
I can understand why companies want to completely get rid of smoking on their premises. But what they do away from work is a different matter I guess. As long as the employer doesn't foot the bill for that employees bad decissions. Possibly the answer is to get the employee to sign a waiver that releases the employer from paying for any type of medical bills that are directly related to smoking.

The law is called "AT WILL EMPLOYMENT"

This has nothing to do with insurance costs because he plans on doing the same thing with overweigth people. And we all know that insurance costs are not affected if you are overweight. It's about a business owner pushing his views on his employees.