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 ...
>> I guess my issue is that I work for my employer 40 hours a week. The rest of the time is mine and I can do anything I want durring that time so long as it doesn't affect or disrupt my workplace.<<
Were you at work when you posted this?
01/25/2005 9:22:07 AM PST
actually there is.
HOWEVER imagine if this is allowed to stand, then how about not hiring people who practice homosexual sex? That increases health costs.
How about requiring all employees to not own automobiles?
How about no motorcycle riders? (a body already litigated)
How about no beer or alchohol?
How about no red meat?
How about no conservatives since they burden the sensitivity training programs?
No smoking during working hours, yes valid point. However a legal activity inside your own home during non work hours? That is over reaching.
I can't believe that there are actually some schmucks on this thread that would defend this action....
Oh wait, I believe it...
Of course the policy would have to state they will hire homosexuals ( sarcasm: they are "born" that way don't you know, just not "born" at birth. Born at recruitment.) just not homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex.
Why pay the healthcare costs.
Of course they could just eliminiate the health program for all.
I do see what you're saying and I agree with you somewhat. an employer does have the right to expect and enforce certain behaviors on the job - but not off it unless a criminal act is involved.
I see the health care cost argument but it's too dangerous in our particular culture. Today it's smokers, tomorrow it's pregnant women and guys who sleep around. Today it's a health care cost issue, tomorrow it's behaviors that contribute to mental health problems. Maybe like being a gun owner or a Christian. No thanks!
What would really tick this guy off is if the fired employees opened a competing company next door.
Homosexuals can be hired, just not homosexuals who engage in homosexual sex.
Not all illnesses are protected, some are specifically excluded.
That is also for ONLY those who have AIDS, not sexual behavior.
How come lap dogs who spend their entire lives with a smoker never seem to suffer asthma and lung cancer? Where's the epidemic? I think there is an element of mass hysteria among non-smokers who make a profession of being "offended".
How about just auto drivers? Employers could just as easily forbid all auto driving. (just get a green employer) Car accidents kill far more.
Most states allow you to fire someone based on sexual orientation.
Agree. Guess who said after two yrs as president & asked by ABC what his most significant thing that he had done so far as president? George Bush said ADA.
There used to be a designated area for smokers, but recently they declared no smoking anywhere on the grounds. What was eventually allowed was smoking inside your own vehicle while on the hospitals grounds, specifically the parking garage. Of course that doesn't account for those employees who do not drive. Now the hospitals rules say that you cannot leave the grounds on your 10 minute break, but my question is what is the difference between smoking on the grounds of the hospital and smoking on a public side walk?
The company is not forcing anyone to give up smoking. If you want to keep smoking, you are free to quit.
They might as well tell their workers what clothes to wear, what car they can drive and what music they can listen too.
Employers can impose such rules, and they do. With regards to clothes, employees have been fired for posing in Playboy. With regards to cars, I know of an environmental NGO in DC whose employees are forbidden from owning certain types of cars, such as SUV's.
Your employer can pass a lot of BS rules that affect your personal life. Don't like them? Quit.
I know of whole lawfirm which are ONLY ADA enforcetn firms.
IT is a bigger scam than the tobbacco settlments.
"People have no understanding of what "employment at will" actually means."
Be carefull here. "Employment at will" is, to my knowledge, a particular legal term which defines the terms and conditions for employment as stipulated by a state.
The key here IMO is that every 'work for hire' arrangement, of which employment is one, is either a defined or implied contract. If you doubt that, try hiring someone, have them work for a couple weeks, and then refuse to pay them.
A 'work for hire' contract can usually be terminated by either party 'at will', but usually with some established conditions. For example, I allow you to quit, but you must give me two weeks notice. You fire me, but I require two weeks notice, or severance pay.
The remedy for breaking the terms of the contract may be monetary.
I believe that in this particular smoking case, unless the terms and conditions of the implied contract were spelled out in writing before these people were hired, that there will be a remedy dictated by the courts that wont be a carte blanche decision for the company, when the fired employees eventually bring their court case.
Ultimately, all 'contracts', as always stated in the fine print boilerplate, are subject to the regulations of the state, as are the companies who enter into the contracts.
The hospital may receive tax dollars, but it is not a public place like the sidewalk. You can be kicked out of a hospital for a variety of reasons, including violating hospital rules on smoking. You can't (generally) be kicked off a sidewalk.
SUV at work perhaps. SUV at home, would not stand any legal challenge.
They didn't have to go through my credit record to figure that out. They could have interviewed my referalls and gotten them to refer others to find out if I was "reliable" or not.
I am an insurance claims investigator. When we ask for people's credit/finanical history, it's not to find out if they are "reliable", it's to find out if they may have motive for theft or fraud. Which is the same reason my employeer originally wanted to see my financial history.
I hire you. Part of the conditions of me hiring you is that you do not drive or own an SUV. You violate that condition and I fire you.
Under what legal grounds would you have a claim against me in such a situation?
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.