Posted on 01/25/2005 8:59:47 AM PST by WestVirginiaRebel
LANSING, Mich.-Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.
Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours at home.
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
Well, yes, they'd have to go too. And bikers, of course. To really optimize the workforce, all women should be required to be single and all men should be required to be married since single women and married men have less stress.
No kids or pets. Actually, employees should just be decanted every morning.
That is the basis of insurance--analyzing statistics to determine risk. That's why car insurance for teenagers is higher than insurance for 30 year olds. That's why life insurance, etc. is more expensive as one gets older. It's all about statistical anaylsis of risk and most studies clearly show an increased risk of lung cancer emphysema, COPD, asthma, etc. in people who smoke consistently.
This smoking ban was put into affect after I had worked there and smoked in the designated area. Smokers pay more for health insurance offered by the hospital.
There were legal challenges based on motorcycle ownership. They did not stand and thus the SUV challenge would not stand. It is a question of off workplace envirnment activity and liability.
I remember Rugger had to back down on one of these pissing matches.
Doesn't matter. Your employer can change the rules mid-stream.
What if you get a ride to work in an SUV by somebody who doesn't work for the company? Could the boss fire you for that? How far do we take this?
The way I see it, if the boss's rules impact the employee's personal life in such a way that they cause undue stress and therefore poorer work performance, and the boss did nothing to alleviate said stress, the employee would have a case.
Personally, I would make a distinction between a hospital and private property. Why? Because private property IMO is not presumed to be for public access, a hospital by its very nature is established to serve the public.
Coupled with the fact of public funding, I think a legal case could be made that a designated area must be maintained to be used by employees during their breaks.
JMHO.
Property Rights
The right to refuse any person from entering your home. You can do that for any reason or no reason. You may hate smoke yet allow smokers in your house. You may love smoke yet not allow smokers in your house. Even irrationality does not keep you from exercising your property rights.
You own a business, it is your property. If you want to hire employees they have to agree to your terms and you agree to theirs. It's called free association. Either one is free to walk away and not associate. Both the employer and employee must agree to associate before employment can begin. No person is held captive. Free association is also the freedom to not associate. The employee is free to quit the job -- for any reason or no reason. The employer is free to fire an employee for any reason or no reason.
Businesses have to operate profitably to survive in a free market . If their discrimination -- be it smokers, fat people or whoever they chose or refuse to have as customers or employees -- the marketplace will respond. Discriminate too harshly and they'll soon be bankrupt.
So much wasted bandwidth -- so little time.
However, I think the employer has a right to be a jerk.
The boss should be able to fire you for that. They generally are, legally.
The way I see it, if the boss's rules impact the employee's personal life in such a way that they cause undue stress and therefore poorer work performance, and the boss did nothing to alleviate said stress, the employee would have a case.
If the employee does not like the employer's rules, they can quit. No one is making them keep their job.
Weak logic Modernman. Smokers don't seek to get Emphysema or Lung Cancer any more than your gay friends want to have that lifelong relationship with HIV. AIDS/HIV is a logical consequence of risky choices. Just like the consequences of another risky choice - SMOKING - which once you have lung cancer you can't stop having it.
Well, I had a friend who had just taken a job with Univac in the seventies and when an employment physical indicated that due to family history and a slightly less than perfect glucose test, that she might develope diabetes in the future, she was fired, after one month on the job.
We have an "employment at will" policy which states very clearly, the employee or the company can terminate the relationship "at will".
That a company must pay an individual for the work they have done is unrelated to this, at least that is my understanding (I'm an HR guy, not a lawyer).
"You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in. I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being"
Before we start going off into philosphical never never land..it is necessary to recognize reality.
Reality is:
A 'work for hire' contract, like any other contract, is ultimately subject to the regulation of each particular state. If you doubt that, try to have a lawyer who is NOT admitted to the bar in your state draw up a business contract for you...they wont do it.
All corporations are established legal 'creations' and entities of each state in which they reside, and are subject to the regulations of each state.
One of my employees was off on disability for 3 months after bruising his brain when his Harley dumped on a road where somebody had spilled gravel. With a helmet the crash would have been nothing more than road rash.
These things are never easy.....
AIDS and lung cancer are both covered by the ADA. Smoking and homosexuality are not. You cannot be fired simply because you have AIDS or lung cancer, but you can be fired if you are gay or smoke.
I practice in DC and am admitted in Virginia and NY. It is perfectly legal for me to draft a contract for a client in California.
"It is perfectly legal for me to draft a contract for a client in California."
I never said it was illegal...I said that attorneys would not do it.
I should have stated, IMO, MOST attorneys would not.
Not true, in my experience. I've never run into an attorney who refused to draft a contract that would be governed by another state's laws.
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.