Posted on 01/24/2005 12:38:46 PM PST by 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.
>>Whatever happened to hiring the best qualified individual for the job?<<
I agree wholeheartedly. Those that are careful to do just that, considering all facets of what is meant by "best qualified" will stay in business longest.
No argument on that point. Offshoring can be profitable short-term, but less so long-term, but that isn't the argument here. You made a specific comment about return on investment that alleged that any employee who smokes gives a company less of a return than those who don't. That is not always correct.
Don't have to like it, or agree, but then again, you aren't the exec or owner making the decision.... When you are, then you can do it your way... until then... its irrellivant, nature of the beast.
You're right. I'm not the owner making the decision. And I don't have all the facts to even judge whether the owner is right or wrong in this particular case. He may have been getting rid of dead wood, or he could have just as easily been firing some of his most productive employees. Neither you or I are omniscient enough to determine which is the case given the few facts we know from the article.
Um, skinny people have health problems as well -- ever hear of Karen Carpenter? Or will your weight limit also include a minimum amount, so that the anorexic are fired as well?
Wow, you're so darned tolerant, aren't ya? Allowing somebody to smoke on their own private property (as long as they take care of their own health care costs, of course? What a libertine you are!
You do understand that there are public lewdness laws, correct? And for you to compare masturbation to smoking says something about your mindset, and it ain't good.
With all your anti-smoking rhetoric, you smoke *cigars*? Hypocrite, thy name is Born to Conserve!
Please show a link/law that says this. I know 2 homosexuals who were fired for kissing in a mall and were fired by their boss who witnessed it. they won the law suit - damages were not disclosed. So where do you get your information.
So are mini-skirts but I can fire you for wearing one to work against my dress code
Freedom cuts both ways.
1st Circuit (MO) held just last year that the action(s) cited as grounds for ad valorem dismissal must either 1) occur on company-owned or -leased premises, or 2) occur when the employee in question is a designated agent of the company while off-premises, or 3) directly damage the property (presumably including intellectual property) of the company, or 4) directly or indirectly be defamatory of the company and/or its products and/or employees. Actions not satisfying any of these conditions do not any longer, in Missouri at least, constitute grounds for dismissal under an ad valorem contract.
Missouri is never a pioneer in these types of labour decisions, therefore I must conclude logically that other states operate under similar laws and/or judicial rulings.
'Defamatory' is, as ever, nearly the ultimate weasel word here; it has come to mean whatever any given jurist **says** it means, no more and no less. The older I become, the more I appreciate Dodgson's creation of Humpty Dumpty in 'Through the Looking-Glass'.
;^)
Mr. Mulder, you'd be amazed at the number of folks on FreeRepublic who believe that a "worker" (vis-a-vis an "employer") _has no_ "rights".....
And the same folks believe that whatever rights workers have secured for themselves (through governments, unions, courts, or whatever) should be _revoked_.
Such a condition is called slavery. Didn't we fight the bloodiest of our wars back in the 1860's to outlaw that very thing?
Cheers!
- John
"Boy, I would! No more smoke wafting in from the open doors by the smoking areas."
And no more whimpering and crying from the whiners inside.
Even there, bankruptcy may be used to circumvent a contract... pretty common these days.
I'm not saying companies use termination wisely, I'm only saying that your real option is to get along or get out.
Random drug testing is a fact of life for many people who were employed prior to the policy being enacted. This isn't much different.
The people involved were offered company paid smoking cessation classes... if they'd rather smoke than continue being employed, it was their choice.
Interesting analysis, and I believe you're correct. After all, substance abuse of drugs and alcohol are currently covered under the ADA as a disability. Why not tobacco use? After all, it is literally more addictive than heroin!
Your right, the opinions/responses to this article are all over the map.Do you think many people at the DU site will ck out this article?Bet they assumed no one would take the time to ck FR out:)
Nooo...
If you pay your insurance premium then do whatever you like. No problem with that whatsoever. That's between you and the insurance company.
If your employer pays your insurance premium then if you smoke you're raising the rate your employer has to pay. That's the issue.
Well, in that case, it's the employers choice not to allow them to participate in that plan, I would think, or force a smoker to cover the increased cost to participate. That seems like a much more reasonable approach, if their only concern was the costs of providing health care to employees. I'ev never heard of an employer being forced to provide health insurance free of charge to his employees, only that the option be there for the employees to participate. (And that's only with companies of a certain size, IIRC)
IMO, this looks like it was a way to get rid of undesirable employees, and banning smoking was a means to achieve that end, period.
I just picked this particular post of yours at random to say that I agree with you that companies should not provide health coverage.
In Norway we have been discussing this regarding our national health care system. When the government "pays" for healthcare it got the citizens by the balls and can logically be expected to try to snuff out sugar, smoking, alcohol etc etc.
Cheers.
Do you really mean to say that since something is thought to be a "fact of life", then the only option available is to go along with it, no matter whether it is right or wrong?
I didn't know random drug testing was considered legal in all industries. I was under the impression that drug testing was a legitimate or legal requirement only for employment in those professions where there is a risk to the public, i.e. airline pilots, bus drivers, or truck drivers. The people working for this type of company are office workers, pencil pushers, and salespeople - no brain surgeons. Funny, but I have never heard of a surgeon having to go pee in a cup before cutting into someone's brain. I assume they may be exempt.
The most ironic thing about this whole situation is that anti-smokers keep insisting that nicotine is so damn addictive that smokers can't go for long without "self-medicating". Yet here is a situation where four out of about about a hundred or so employees are fired because they wouldn't pee in a bottle. No indications or mention in the article of the fabled tell-tale signs these people are smokers. Nobody said they stink or are causing disruptions in the office environment. They certainly aren't taking breaks every hour during the day to go outside to do the evil deed. If so, then the company could have fired them on the spot instead of trying to force them to pee in a bottle. No, this whole scenario is bizarre. Something is definitely strange about this.
When you have a major issue with a company policy, you have two real choices: get along or get out.
Your opinion of "right or wrong" is only relevant when you own the company or are a major stockholder. If they employees have a problem, let them buy the company and change the policy. If you have a problem, form your own company and set your own policies.
Followups will be ignored.
>>Um, skinny people have health problems as well -- ever hear of Karen Carpenter? Or will your weight limit also include a minimum amount, so that the anorexic are fired as well?<<
if you re-read my post, you will see that I said "I think a prospective employer should have the right to weigh in their employees every month or so and terminate those that are over OR UNDER an arbitrary limit."
Your question is answered there. I even capitolized it in the original post for emphasis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.