Weyco fires 4 employees for refusing smoking test

AP ^ | 1-24-05

[Dan from Michigan]

Weyco fires 4 employees for refusing smoking test
1/24/2005, 2:50 p.m. ET
The Associated Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.

[dfrussell]

This will not last long. Those smokers will become rich. It's a legal product, used legally

Irrelevant, companies can and do restrict behavior of employees.

[metesky]

I agree. Property rights are property rights.

[Just another Joe]

My but you do have some pent up hate and aggression there, don't you?

I WILL laugh my arse off when they come for your vice.

[monday]

"I am a republican and support a companies right to choose who they hire based on their own rules."

Oh boy. Bet you can't wait till companies start screening based on genetics. Any history of high blood pressure in your family? How about allergies? They are very expensive to treat. Lets see, any heart disease, Altymers, mental illness? What about Cancer? Any cancer in your family history?

Does your family ski, or swim? These are dangerous activities that could cause your companies insurance premiums to rise if you were to submit a claim. You can't be doing that sort of thing much longer.

[Conservababe]

As long as the company is paying for their health benefits, I'd say they have a right to address an employee's health.

A chilling statement....

[BobS]

A $400 Billion lawsuit against this company will be just correct.

[Born to Conserve]

I think you need to consider this issue from the point of non-smokers. Do non-smokers have a right to not smoke (second hand or otherwise)? Do non-smokers have the right to control the cost of their business as they see fit?

A good test might be to think about a autoeroticist's right to autoeroticize in public places.

People have a right to not observe that kind of behavior. Agreed?

[investigateworld]

I would certainly take that as a sign I wouldn't be happy there.
BTW, it's rather funny that I was death on dope when I ran a construction company. Dopers have a high tendency to "lose" tools, job sites get robbed, injuries claims are higher, etc. Plus I flat out don't like contributing to the under world. One of my favorite "cops and robbers" jokes from my previous career was when the local thieves stole a car from a University Hospital parking lot. They kindly mailed us the car's registration along with the photos they found of the owner and his girlfriend molesting an eight YO girl. The University refused to believe the facts, as he was the "most dedicated employee".
The suspect was the director of the anti-smoking campaign.

[monday]

"Where would the government get the "legitimate" right to FORCE you, as an employer, to employ people you don't want?"

They do. It's called non discrimination laws and are designed to "force" employers to employ people they don't necessarily want. Where have you been?

[WASH]

One third of the DOD personnel smoke cigarettes.

Should the DOD as an employer ban all cigarette smoking?

Should we as taxpayers,paying for the health care costs of DOD smokers, demand that the DOD impose such a ban as a cost saving measure?

[AFreeBird]

You can't quote C.S. Lewis or anyone else for that matter to a busybody.

That logic won't fly.

Of course the day will come when B C's employer will start DNA testing to determine "undesirables", and he'll have to hope his family's genetics don't betray him.

If they do, then he'll have reaped what he has sown.

[monday]

"Not so. Obesity is considered a 'disability' and in most cases protected by Federal law against discrimination."

lol.. and being addicted to smoking isn't a disease? One is addicted to Big Macs the other to cigarettes. I believe they are more similar than you think.

[Doohickey]

http://www.weyco.com/web/company/news/

Guess they're already feeling the heat. Try the link on their news page.

[GloriaJane]

Wonder if he will start testing people to see how much they eat when they're away from work? And will they be fired if they are shown to be eating something that will cause them to become over weight? Since obesity seems to be the leading cause of health problems these days.

[Doohickey]

Wow, you're quite a jackass. Was that your major? Jackassotology?

[dfrussell]

You're avoiding the question. There is a new precedent being established (and challenged) in that this employer is claiming authority over employees' private time. Smoke breaks are immaterial - that's company time, not private time, and if they want to act on that they do have the right.

I think you're missing the point: most employees may be terminated without cause. Some, as in the case of tenured professors, are more difficult because they are explicitly protected.

There is nothing illegal about a company having a no-smoking policy and enforcing it -- even post ipso facto.

A good example is the "Don't ask. Don't tell" policy... and, yeah, I know it's the military and UCMJ.

[Born to Conserve]

"I WILL laugh my arse off when they come for your vice."

I assume you are invoking the concept of the 'slippery slope', which is, ironically, considered an argumentative fallacy.

There are and have been many, many vices banned, without civilization crumbling.

I pride myself in having many vices, all in moderation. I drink occasionaly, I smoke a cigar occasionaly, I shoot my guns because I like the noise occasionaly. I'm not worried about anyone taking my 'vices'.

[Just another Joe]

Try the link on their news page.

Takes me to a blank page.
Too funny.

[ShadowDancer]

Saving the company money? You can't be serious. In that line of thinking, they should be able to fire anyone who eats at McDonalds. You for that, too?

[exnavychick]

Good golly, I would certainly hope not...but I can see it coming. They were pushing a lot of smoking cessation when I was in...and I didn't get out that long ago, really.