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 ...
No, it would take a smoker to attain the carbon monoxide levels in the blood. The gas is cleaned out and released through exhaling and the tester registers the levels.
A faulty exhaust system on your car could trigger it however.
I see your point. However, before I was hired by the company I work for now, they did a credit check on me. Even though people go into debt and get into shopaholic stuff on their own time (usually), the company which hired me felt they had a right to check my credit rating. They were concerned that if they hired someone who didn't have control of their own finances that I could be a threat to their finances, through employee theft so they wanted to check to make sure I had decent control over my finances.
I had the right to say no and I would have also been exercising my right not to be hired by them. There is a fine line and we are all struggling with where that line might be.
People have no understanding of what "employment at will" actually means.
It's not about whether or not you could steal something. It's whether or not you are a reliable person who meets their obligations. That's fair game because it directly relates to your ability to be a trustworthy employee.
Not everyone who smokes gets cancer. There are statistics, but nothing that indicates Joe CEO can look into a crystal ball and decide you're going to be hooked to an oxygen tank at age 40.
There's a way for people to be one hundred per cent healthy, with no illness or disease.
It's called nonexistence.
Exactly right, and how is this company able to single out smokers? Homosexuality and Obesity are far more dangerous to ones health and far more expensive for health insurance companies, yet they don't fire those to groups???
About two years ago, my grand-nephew was born with a fatal illness that killed him within six months. Afterwards, someone called my niece to ask her about a family history of infant death. Genealogy is a hobby in my family and my mom dutifully reported that we had a history of such fatalities. I was surprised because most of the women in our ancestry are the hardy type who pioneered this country. My mom happened to remember one obscure line, but now it's in a government database somewhere. So will that info keep future generations from getting jobs? It might save a future employer insurance premiums and they have the right to hire who they want.
Thomas Edison refused to hire anyone who used tobacco. Nothing new here.
The rule is completely enforceable. You have no right to smoke on someone else's property.
Don't the taxes I pay fund the hospital?
The key there is "doesn't affect or disrupt my workplace".
Very few smokers can smoke only at home. Most have to leave their post during the day to smoke. Further, by smoking you are opening yourself up to numerous diseases that will likely impact your work performance, either through absenteeism or decreased physical capability. In all cases, the end result is less money made by the employer. Why should a private (or public for that matter, since it's my tax money doing it) organization essentially subsidize your poor health? After all, by paying you while you underperform, either through smoke breaks or reduced productivity, that's exactly what they are doing.
So what?
Seems to me like inviting strange penises into one's rectum is an entirely voluntary act...With consequences.
Well this is perhaps the one thing that I agree with the DUmmies on, I saw this story at DU the other day when I was there for my daily dose of humor, of course they are predicting the end of the world over this in thier normal stupidity filled way. But I have always felt that what you do in your personal time should not have any effect on your job unless
1. You are in some way still representing the company (i.e. wearing a shirt with thier logo on it).
2. Your activity has a negitive effect on your job (i.e. constantly drinking too much and coming into work hung over, etc)
3. You demonstrate behavior that could cause problems for the company (i.e. if you are dealing drugs or even using there is a good posibility that you may have brought drugs either on your person or in your car onto the property of the business)
Anything else if it is done in your free time then so be it. I see nothing wrong with a company that doesn't like smoking refuseing to allow an employee to smoke anywhere on the business grounds, but they can't run your personal life that is a violation of your civil liberties.
Few people voluntarily seek to get AIDS. Furthermore, once you have AIDS, you can't stop having it. You can stop smoking, however. That's why smoking is voluntary and AIDS is not.
Is he allowed to NOT hire illegal aliens?
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 | Report Abuse ]
A private company cannot dictate to people what they do after business hours, only during the time the people are working and getting paid. After that, their life is their own. Or are you suggesting that these people are being paid 24 hours a day? They might as well tell their workers what clothes to wear, what car they can drive and what music they can listen too. This is an illegal firing and I hope they are sued over it.
My attitude is that we are supposed to live in a civil, reasonable society, where rights are protected for all people to the greatest extent possible.
In your case, if there is public funding in part or whole of a facility, a court would probably require a designated area to be established on the grounds, but the overall ban on smoking on hospital grounds in non-designated areas would stand, IMO.
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.