Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke
WRAL.com ^ | 01-25-05 | WestVirginiaRebel

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: 100000postsalready; cancer; emphysema; employmentatwill; freedomofcontract; johnnycarsondead; pufflist; smokers; smokersrights; stench
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last
To: longtermmemmory
"How about just auto drivers?"

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.

101 posted on 01/25/2005 10:41:03 AM PST by Gingersnap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
Not everyone who smokes gets cancer. There are statistics,...

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.

102 posted on 01/25/2005 10:42:27 AM PST by Tamar1973 (Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats-- PJ O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

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.


103 posted on 01/25/2005 10:43:47 AM PST by hookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

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.


104 posted on 01/25/2005 10:48:20 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: hookman
This smoking ban was put into affect after I had worked there and smoked in the designated area.

Doesn't matter. Your employer can change the rules mid-stream.

105 posted on 01/25/2005 10:49:49 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

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.


106 posted on 01/25/2005 10:51:13 AM PST by WestVirginiaRebel ("Senator, we can have this discussion in any way that you would like.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: hookman

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.


107 posted on 01/25/2005 10:51:49 AM PST by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: All

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.

108 posted on 01/25/2005 10:52:02 AM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
BTW, I think rules like this are generally BS. If an employee does their job, a smart employer should butt out of their provate lives.

However, I think the employer has a right to be a jerk.

109 posted on 01/25/2005 10:52:15 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
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 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.

110 posted on 01/25/2005 10:53:59 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

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.


111 posted on 01/25/2005 10:56:47 AM PST by WideGlide (That light at the end of the tunnel might be a muzzle flash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

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.


112 posted on 01/25/2005 10:58:04 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon

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).


113 posted on 01/25/2005 10:58:35 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Were you at work when you posted this?

01/25/2005 9:22:07 AM PST
 
Are you suggesting that this may not have been "mission critical FReeping?"  You sound just like my boss, "There's no such thing as work related FReeping/ pornography/ napping"...
Owl_Eagle

"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"

-Hillary Clinton
(Yes, she really said that
Peggy Noonan
The Case Against Hillary Clinton, pg 55)

114 posted on 01/25/2005 11:01:49 AM PST by South Hawthorne ("If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" –Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon; All

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.


115 posted on 01/25/2005 11:06:20 AM PST by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

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.....


116 posted on 01/25/2005 11:07:35 AM PST by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: WideGlide
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.

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.

117 posted on 01/25/2005 11:08:41 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon
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.

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.

118 posted on 01/25/2005 11:10:44 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

"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.


119 posted on 01/25/2005 11:16:09 AM PST by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon
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.

120 posted on 01/25/2005 11:26:19 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

I have, in various contracts and other issues.

It all depends on the nature of the issue, I suppose. Are you suggesting that attorneys commonly would handle business related litigation in another state for which they are not admitted?

BTW...Im not an attorney, but a business owner.


121 posted on 01/25/2005 11:36:10 AM PST by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon
Are you suggesting that attorneys commonly would handle business related litigation in another state for which they are not admitted?

Generally, yes. You get local counsel to make court appearances for you if you can't get admitted pro hac vice, but many lawyers (especially at larger firms) will handle lawsuits and/or commercial transactions in other states.

122 posted on 01/25/2005 11:38:52 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: hookman

When I worked we were being paid by the company for our breaks and were supposed to stay on company property because of liability-----we were not actually being paid for our lunch hour so could leave the property.


123 posted on 01/25/2005 11:40:27 AM PST by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

I stand corrected then.


124 posted on 01/25/2005 11:42:45 AM PST by Dat Mon (will work for clever tagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
All execs watch is profits and slackers.

Since you didn't answer the question then I presume you won't whine if he tells you to grab your stuff and do your "mission critical FReeping" elsewhere?

125 posted on 01/25/2005 11:51:05 AM PST by B4Ranch (Don't remain seated until this ride comes to a full and complete stop! We're going the wrong way!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973
Hey, at least the company will be able to keep its healthcare costs down. Cancer, emphysema, etc are expensive diseases to treat.

They are. So are other diseases. Smoking related diseases tend to differ from others. Cancer and emphysema from smoking tend to be late onset diseases. Employers would on average to get many years of productive employment from an individual before any diseases manifest. Other "behavior factor" illnesses tend to manifest themselves much earlier in life. I'd like to see some statistics on the "costs" smokers cause the employer vs the costs others bring.

Young fertile women add significantly health care costs on a company every time they have a baby. Not only for the immediate costs and lost work time, but by adding another body that will require 20 years of expenses.

By personal observation, obese employees add far more medical costs at far younger ages than smokers who tend to remain thiner. Are 20 years worth of medications to treat weight related diabetes and all of its myriad of complications less expensive than say several months of cancer therapy for a dying smoker who statistically is more likely to be retired (and thus off the employers health care) or nearing retirement after years of productive employment.

Should a company fire pregnant women or individuals who exceed normal body weight because it's good for the bottom line?

I have a feeling that from a cost analysis, this company could not justify its actions unless it treated other common 'behavior' related health conditions in the same way. It looks, on the surface, to be political correctness run wild.

126 posted on 01/25/2005 11:59:54 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

A jerk yes, but only within the confines of a jerk UNDER the law.

Why not force employees not to own guns?

This would not stand court scrutiny particularly when it does not involve the job.


127 posted on 01/25/2005 12:05:44 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
They get what they pay for.
Owl_Eagle

"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"

-Hillary Clinton
(Yes, she really said that
Peggy Noonan
The Case Against Hillary Clinton, pg 55)

128 posted on 01/25/2005 12:23:33 PM PST by South Hawthorne ("If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" –Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

How unfortunate it is that the American taxpayer gets saddled with the costs of medical treatment and the reconfiguration of workplaces to accomodate people whose disability is the result of their own reckless behavior. And since when are employers able to fire gay people? A protected minority I believe. You need to get a clue dude.


129 posted on 01/25/2005 1:27:02 PM PST by WideGlide (That light at the end of the tunnel might be a muzzle flash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: WideGlide
And since when are employers able to fire gay people? A protected minority I believe. You need to get a clue dude.

Google is your friend. Only 13 States plus DC outlaw discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation. An additional 8 states outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation in public employment (i.e. government employment) only. There are no federal laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has ruled that sexual orientation is not a protected class.

In most of the US, it is perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay (or straight, or bisexual or whatever).

See:

http://www.lambdalegal.org/cgi-bin/iowa/states/antidiscrimi-map

130 posted on 01/25/2005 1:40:41 PM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy

"You may not like it, but you can go work somewhere else then. You have that choice, to work some where else. He has the right to expect lower medical costs, fewer health issues, etc., because he does not employ smokers."

Agreed. I own a small business and the benefits of owning one are few and far between. It is good that I can make these kinds of decisions as to what my direct costs of running that business is. It is human nature that employees want it all and business owners want profit.


131 posted on 01/25/2005 2:37:55 PM PST by quant5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: mdhunter

MAYBE it would slow the rate of increase temporarily but nobodies health care insurance costs are going down.


132 posted on 01/25/2005 2:43:10 PM PST by ichabod1 (The Spirit of the Lord Hath Left This Place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

Lambda Legal. I can't imagine why I've never consulted an unbiased source like that before. Thanks for the heads up. Oh by the way Modernman....YOU'RE FIRED!!</sarcasm>


133 posted on 01/26/2005 4:04:51 AM PST by WideGlide (That light at the end of the tunnel might be a muzzle flash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: mdhunter

Bottom line, insurance companies, and the hr divisions that service them have gotten the idea that they run things. And that ain't no way to run a business. When bottom line concerns are subjugated to social (political) aims, the industry has become decadent.


134 posted on 01/26/2005 4:27:06 AM PST by ichabod1 (The Spirit of the Lord Hath Left This Place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
Well, hell. If we're gonna start firing people based on future potential for illness, we may as fire everybody.

We're all gonna die from "something".

Don't forget gays!

135 posted on 01/26/2005 4:54:14 AM PST by moondoggie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WideGlide
Lambda Legal. I can't imagine why I've never consulted an unbiased source like that before. Thanks for the heads up. Oh by the way Modernman....YOU'RE FIRED!!

Whatever their bias, their research on the various anti-discrimination laws is correct. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

You claimed that homosexuals are a protected class. You are wrong. Your smartass comments cannot cover that fact.

136 posted on 01/26/2005 7:06:01 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: k2blader

It's a private company. There is nothing wrong with this.


There is lots wrong with this.

It's none of that company's business what an employee does in their off hours.

This is America not the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

I pray they get their asses sued off and stop this crap.


137 posted on 01/26/2005 7:09:59 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (Goodnight Chesty, wherever you may be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
This is America not the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Exactly. That's why private employers and their employees can freely set the conditions of their relationship. One of these conditions can be rules against smoking, even in an employee's private time.

138 posted on 01/26/2005 7:15:14 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: NCPAC
I think any private company should be able to hire/fire anyone of its choosing for any reason it chooses. Again, it is a PRIVATE company.

The fact that it's a private company does not give it the right to fire people for any reason whatsoever. Employment is a relationship resulting from express and/or implied contractual obligations on both parties. Contract employment binds both parties to the terms of a written agreement, while "employment-at-will" creates obligations most often bounded by objective tests - reasonable expectations and rational relationships to the ability to perform one's duties. You may be able to fire a smoker because their habit interferes with their productivity (and this must be documented). You may fire a smoker because their employment contract contains an agreement not to smoke on the job, or to quit after a given period of time (again documentation would be required). You cannot, however, fire a smoker because they will cost you more to insure them (if so, you shouldn't have hired a person you knew was a smoker). You cannot fire a smoker simply because you don't like the way they smell - any more than you can fire an obese person because you don't like the way they look.

The Government has unfortunately complicated contract and labor law through the imposition of all manner of awful non-objective and punitive (to employers) measures (see: OSHA) so that traditional standards of responsibility and liability no longer hold. As with so much else about modern jurisprudence, common sense went out the window a long time ago, and lawyers helped push it off the ledge.

139 posted on 01/26/2005 7:43:43 AM PST by andy58-in-nh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh
You cannot, however, fire a smoker because they will cost you more to insure them

Smokers are not a protected class anywhere in the US. There is no law anywhere that protects them from being fired for their behavior.

You cannot fire a smoker simply because you don't like the way they smell

Sure you can. There is no law anywhere in this country preventing you from firing someone for having bad body odor.

any more than you can fire an obese person because you don't like the way they look.

Obese people are not protected by the ADA. Only in a very few places are they protected by law (DC being one of them). You are free to hire and fire people based on looks and weight, in most circumstances. As an example, would an overwight model have a cause of action if she was fired for putting on weight? Of course not.

140 posted on 01/26/2005 8:17:33 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
1. Smokers are not a "protected class" only as smokers. That does not mean that an employer can fire an employee for any behavior related to smoking, however unrelated to performance or workplace hygiene. If an employer chooses to hire a person it knows to be a smoker, it cannot then turn around and fire that person solely because of increased insurance expenses.

2. Bad body odor is a hygenic issue directly impacting on the quality of life for workplace employees, and in retail environments, the need to attract business customers. These are rational, objective considerations upon which employment decisions may turn. An employer must decide whether the smell of smoke on an employee's breath or clothes is acceptable - or not, and the rule, once made, can't be applied discriminately - made to apply to one employee and not another.

3. You ask "would an overweight model have a cause of action if she was fired for putting on weight?" Well, if the person in question is a model, or a firefighter, or a professional dancer: probably not. In such cases, the person's weight has a reasonable relationship and direct bearing on their ability to do the job. For most average cubicle-dwellers or cashiers, that's probably not the case.

141 posted on 01/26/2005 12:46:16 PM PST by andy58-in-nh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: SAR
Let's see what happens when they fire the fat people who don't lose weight. No, wait, that will never happen. Nevermind.

Obesity in the workplace, the next crusade. - Tom

142 posted on 01/26/2005 12:48:37 PM PST by Capt. Tom (Don't confuse the Bushies with the dumb Republicans - Capt. Tom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

AIDS isn't the result of a voluntary activity? Injuries from sports performed outside the workplace? What about speeders? People that paint are inhaling carcinogens too? If you fill up your car yourself, you are getting your Threshhold Limit Value of benzene and MTBE for the day - and that's voluntary.

So is living under powerlines. New car smell isn't good for you either (sublimating esthers from plastics).

This is stupid. Were I buying stuff from this guy, I'd whack him for flatulating in the wrong key, and then I'd light up a Cohiba.


143 posted on 01/26/2005 12:56:00 PM PST by RinaseaofDs (The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh
That does not mean that an employer can fire an employee for any behavior related to smoking, however unrelated to performance or workplace hygiene.

49 out of 50 states are "employment-at-will" jurisdictions. An employer can fire an employee for a good reason, bad reason (assuming no illegal discrimination) or no reason at all.

Absent a law protecting a certain class of people or a certain activity, that class of people can be fired.

Your employer could walk in and fire everyone wearing a red shirt. He could fire all smokers. He could fire all non-smokers. He could fire anyone who drove an SUV. He would be an ass if he did these things, but such actions would not be legally actionable.

Conversely, your employer could choose to hire only tall people, or short people, or attractive people, or skinny people.

144 posted on 01/26/2005 1:04:46 PM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
AIDS isn't the result of a voluntary activity?

That's not the issue. Continuing to have AIDS after you get it is not voluntary. Continuing to smoke is. That's why AIDS is covered by the ADA, but smoking isn't.

This is stupid.

I agree, but this employer has the right to be stupid.

145 posted on 01/26/2005 1:06:53 PM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

Cancer related complications are probably also covered by the ADA, I would imagine.

Anal sex with men is the voluntary activity that may lead to AIDS. Smoking is the voluntary activity that may lead to cancer. Another cause of AIDS is sharing hyperdermic needles.

As such, can I fire all my diabetics?


146 posted on 01/26/2005 1:15:58 PM PST by RinaseaofDs (The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: RinaseaofDs
Cancer related complications are probably also covered by the ADA, I would imagine.

Yes, cancer is covered under the ADA.

Anal sex with men is the voluntary activity that may lead to AIDS. Smoking is the voluntary activity that may lead to cancer. Another cause of AIDS is sharing hyperdermic needles.

Homosexuality and smoking are not covered by the ADA. AIDs and cancer are.

As such, can I fire all my diabetics?

No.

147 posted on 01/26/2005 1:18:44 PM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
That's why private employers and their employees can freely set the conditions of their relationship. One of these conditions can be rules against smoking, even in an employee's private time.

The words "freely set the conditions" doesn't really apply in this instance, though, does it? These workers were employed by the company prior to the new rules going into effect. The terms they "freely" agreed to changed. I think they would be pretty silly to agree to not smoke in their off hours as a condition of employement, and then be surprised that their refusal to honor their agreement results in their termination. However, in this instance, the rules were changed ex post facto. In some states (unlike Illinios, where this same company was forced to retain a smoker they employ despite the new rule, thanks to state laws) this is perfectly legal.

I still think it's unethical, and I would like to see this company get the hammering they deserve for their actions. Loss of customers would be a great way to start. I know I would never go to work for a company that treated their employees so shabbily. All in the name of making a buck? Honestly, I don't think that was their motive, as they had other options for dealing with those workers if all that really concerned them was the bottom line.

148 posted on 01/26/2005 1:26:37 PM PST by exnavychick (There's too much youth; how about a fountain of smart?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
The same company will start testing everyone for alcohol abuse too.
Just think how much insurance will be saved if the employees didn't drink!
/sarcasm off
149 posted on 01/26/2005 1:28:03 PM PST by RetroWarrior ('I will guard my post from flank to flank and take no 'crap' from any rank')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

I smoked for the same reason a person engages in sexual activities...pleasure and enjoyment. I am as aware of the risks of smoking as anyone is aware of the risks of multiple sexual partners.

Life is full of cause and effects. Actions have consequences.

This is a control issue disguised as an economic issue.


150 posted on 01/26/2005 1:29:11 PM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson