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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-156 next last
To: odoso
The test would not likely show second hand smoke.

It is a simple gas analysis (blow test) that measures exhaled CO gas that only a smoker or a person with a bad furnace would have.:-)

21 posted on 01/25/2005 9:10:33 AM PST by Cold Heat (What are fears but voices awry?Whispering harm where harm is not and deluding the unwary. Wordsworth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: k2blader

This is rich.

When are the CALOIRE tests for Hooters waitresses, or "bad breath" tests for bank tellers, or "Big Mac" tests for McDonalds employees.

What about "Mexican Food" test for people in the service industry who don't wish their employees to take the chance of being 'gassy'?


22 posted on 01/25/2005 9:10:44 AM PST by FreedomNeocon (2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #23 Removed by Moderator

To: SAR

They can always resolve this another way, drop health care completely, or raise employee contributions as soon as you make a claim. Opps, they already do this too.

The solution of course does depend on whether the company has any problem hiring and retaining good employees. I would suspect that a better solution would have been to have smokers pay a higher rate out of pocket, but I guess they can do what they want.


24 posted on 01/25/2005 9:11:15 AM PST by KC_for_Freedom (Sailing the highways of America, and loving it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
They weren't fired for smoking.

They were fired for refusing to test for smoking.

An important distinction, IMO.

25 posted on 01/25/2005 9:11:16 AM PST by DCPatriot (I don't do politically correct very well either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Jeff Head; Grampa Dave

Frog legs'll be ready in a while ! Ya'll want salt on em too ?


26 posted on 01/25/2005 9:11:58 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet. ©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mears
It's a private company that would be brought before the courts if it fired an employee with AIDS.Is that okay with you?

Illnesses like AIDS are protected by the ADA. Voluntary activities, such as smoking, are not.

It's a company that would be brought before the courts if it fired an obese employee. Is that okay with you?

Depends on the state. There is no federal law protecting fat people. Most states allow you to fire someone for being fat, too.

27 posted on 01/25/2005 9:12:05 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SAR

24HR Fitness will fire you if you gain too much weight. Happened here in Houston anyway.


28 posted on 01/25/2005 9:12:28 AM PST by mlbford2 ("Never wrestle with a pig; you can't win, you just get filthy, and the pig loves it...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

a 15 minute cigarette?


29 posted on 01/25/2005 9:12:39 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot
They weren't fired for smoking.

They were fired for refusing to test for smoking.

An important distinction, IMO.

Not really in this case, as a positive test for smoking would have resulted in firing. They were gone either way.

30 posted on 01/25/2005 9:13:31 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

Private companies ought to be able to do this with any sort of liability.

For that matter, I believe sexual orientation ought to be allowed to be discriminated against, along with political party preference and virtually any other criteria one could desire.

Why should the NAACP be required to have 60+ percent of their employees be white simply because whites make up a large amount of the population? Why should a church be required to hire homosexuals or pedophiles when they find that repulsive? If religion and race allow for discrimination, why not everything else that an employer might find undesirable?

Liberals love allowing people to make a "choice." Why not extend that to employers?


31 posted on 01/25/2005 9:13:34 AM PST by ScottM1968
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tamar1973

Do you really believe anyone's healthcare costs are going to go down?


32 posted on 01/25/2005 9:13:42 AM PST by ichabod1 (The Spirit of the Lord Hath Left This Place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel
I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. I had a sibling die due to what is believed to be a smoking related illness. Still, I am no smoking Nazi.

I do not think that smokers should be suing tobacco companies, nor should local governments be dictating to restaurants and such smoking policies. If a company wants to eliminate smoking then that is their prerogative.
33 posted on 01/25/2005 9:13:45 AM PST by Radix (Free snow. All you can handle. You haul!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
There is no federal law protecting fat people.

I believe obesity is now protected by the ADA actually.

34 posted on 01/25/2005 9:14:09 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

Why do I get the impression that the potential drop in health claims is going to be offset by a rise in costs in the legal department? Sometimes in life you gotta ask "(1) What am I trying to accomplish, and (2) does this action help me accomplish it?" Unless the answer to question one is "Get a whole lot of publicity and place the company in the eye of a national controversy" then the answer to question two is "No."


35 posted on 01/25/2005 9:14:39 AM PST by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: k2blader

Nothing wrong when on their property, but when on your own time off company property? If the Constitution "allows" you to abort a baby becuase of your right to privacy, it should certainly allow you to smoke a legal product on your own time off corporate property. Right?


36 posted on 01/25/2005 9:15:36 AM PST by theDentist (Jerry Springer: PBS for White Trash)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNeocon
CALOIRE tests for Hooters waitresses

I did have a hooters waitress once tell me that they're not allowed to eat the buffalo wings. Too fattening.

37 posted on 01/25/2005 9:16:31 AM PST by ichabod1 (The Spirit of the Lord Hath Left This Place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord
I believe obesity is now protected by the ADA actually.

Obesity isn't protected per se, but if you have a disease arising from obesity, that can be covered by the ADA.

If you're just a big fatass, the ADA does not protect you.

38 posted on 01/25/2005 9:17:10 AM PST by Modernman (What is moral is what you feel good after. - Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

True, both are equally difficult.


39 posted on 01/25/2005 9:17:34 AM PST by Bacon Man (I DARE you to make less sense!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: WestVirginiaRebel

Can a company require sterilization to prevent added healthcare costs to cover new pregnancies?


40 posted on 01/25/2005 9:17:59 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-156 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