Posted on 01/26/2005 1:13:55 PM PST by Middle-O-Road
CHICAGO (Reuters) - The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else.
A ban on tobacco use -- whether at home or at the workplace -- led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco Inc., which handles insurance claims.
The workers refused to take a mandatory urine test demanded of Weyco's 200 employees by founder and sole owner Howard Weyers, a demand that he said was perfectly legal.
"If you don't want to take the test, you can leave," Weyers told Reuters. "I'm not controlling their lives; they have a choice whether they want to work here."
Next on the firing line: overweight workers.
"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," Weyers said.
He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 bonuses and plans to offer $45 vouchers for health club memberships.
The 71-year-old Weyers, who said he has never smoked and pronounced himself in good shape thanks to daily runs, said employees' health as well as saving money on the company's own insurance claims led him to first bar smokers from being hired in 2003.
Last year, he banned smoking during office hours, then demanded smokers pay a monthly $50 "assessment," and finally instituted mandatory testing.
Twenty workers quit the habit.
Weyers tells clients to quit whining about health care costs and to "set some expectations; demand some things."
Job placement specialist John Challenger said Weyco's moves could set a precedent for larger companies -- if it survives potential legal challenges.
"Certainly it raises an interesting boundary issue: rising health care costs and society's aversion to smoking versus privacy and freedom rights of an individual," Challenger said.
So far no legal challenges have been made to Weyco's policies.
I know a lot of employers THINK they own me, but they don't.
I prefer to live my life how I choose regardless of what my employer thinks about it.
Where's all the "Individual rights/Choice groups"?
Next in line are bald people.
I'd just tell him to cancel my health insurance and put the money in my paycheck. Cigarettes are expensive ya know! I'd also tell him his wife was ugly as hell, get fired, collect unemployment while drinking beer and smoking cigs outside his building. That's just me though...
The company has every right to do it and American workers have every right not to work for him. I hope no one would. Gotta feel sorry for someone who has such low self-esteem that he would work for a mini-tyrant like Weyers.
It does cost a small fortune to pay insurance for employees as it is.
Sounds like a case of exasperation by this employer over the costs of health care.
What was this guy's company doing and would who he sells to be offended by people who's clothes always smelled of smoke? I don't get it.
I'm not a smoker, but if I were and I worked for this idiot, I think I'd push it and force him to put his threats into action.
Once he did, I'd sue. It's the only way to put a stop to this kind of nonsense.
"The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else."
YES!!! That is the sentence I have been wanting to see in all of this!
I agree, but wonder about the legality -- even from a Libertarian's perspective -- of changing the rules for people who've already been hired.
Oh, man, I cannot believe you said it's OK for this guy to do it ...
That's one heck of a slippery slope you're advocating.
I think the guy's a control freak, to be honest.
He wouldn't save that much money by getting his employees to quit smoking. He's assuming that the employees will work for him long term, and based on the evidence at hand, I'd say he's over-optimistic.
I think this is a great example of the free market. Don't work for this guy if you don't like his policies.
And Blacks need not apply either because they live in run down neighborhoods with crime and all that. Discrimination works for all people.
Some people who are overweight can't lose.
What then?
Ditto with smokers.
"Slippery slope?" This is no slippery slope. The guy wants control of his business. Good for him.
>>He has brought in an eating disorder therapist to speak to workers, provided eating coaches, created a point system for employees to earn health-related $100 bonuses.<<
This guy could be on to something. Imagine a job that normally pays, say, $50k a year. He hires you for $35k with a stipulation that if you weigh in every year (at the end of the tax year) within a certain weight range, you will receive a $30k bonus!
Hah, hah. It would be like "mail in rebates." Those that are too lazy to take advantage end up losing out.
The funny thing is that the "average" pay around the office would probably be in line with what every other company pays.
What a great way to "pay" your employees to stay in shape (and statistically, ensure higher productivity).
I like it!
>>This guy isn't an employer, he's a SLAVEMASTER and anyone who works for him is a slave.<<
Psst. ALL employees are slaves. He does seem to be looking out for the health of his though.
>>Next in line are bald people.<<
I doubt it.
Sports fans maybe, though.
What happens if other companies adopt his policies to save money?
About the only choice you'd have left is to start your own business, and might be forced to adopt the same policies yourself due to market pressures.
I'm not of the opinion that a total free for all with no regulation is in our best interests. Sometimes the market drives some pretty poor policy - like southerners engaging in slavery and unable to stop due to economic issues.
The men should have come to work wearing makeup and a dress. Then there's no way he could fire them.
But if you're a homosexual we'll hire you and give your partner free health care too.
No ...
This guy wants control over his employees. Totally different matter.
Did you notice the part where it says his employees can't smoke AT HOME?
How is that control over his business?
>>I think the guy's a control freak, to be honest. <<
Most people who own their own business are. But I see it as a positive attribute being exercised within the confines of where it is reasonable and prudent.
>>And Blacks need not apply either because they live in run down neighborhoods with crime and all that. Discrimination works for all people.<<
Not relevant to this thread.
Nope.
Looks like a pure pocketbook play to me.
Exactly. After the bald, fat, ugly and unfit people quit he should look at everyone left.. you know pregnancy is expensive with prenatal care, delivery and maternity leave. Hmmmm .. No sex!?
And what's next?
Paying you so you don't have kids? After all, everyone knows kids require you to be off work all the time - costs a lot of business $$$.
There are some things that an employer should not be involved in.
>>Some people who are overweight can't lose.
What then?
Ditto with smokers.<<
See my post #17
They will be paid less or move to another company. If I owned a company, I would do an across the board pay cut to all employees (to make it fair) and then the first "weigh in" bonus would be paid probably at least a year out. I would probably implement it on a January 1st.
Well, that is a good, logical reason -- it costs the company more money to employ people who smoke or are overweight.
Of course, that begs the question: What about gays (who may get AIDS)? Women (who may get pregnant)? Anyone with a pre-existing condition or family history (diabetes, cancer, heart condition, etc.)?
Maybe he's sick of the way they smell. Maybe they really are costing him money due to the fact that they miss more work due to illness, insurance, costs, whatever. It really doesn't matter; if he doesn't want them in his business, that's should be his choice.
"Next in line are bald people."
Yep!
Quit gaining weight or Quit Your Job
Quit being so ugly or Quit Your Job
Perhaps. Depends on how culturally acceptable the particular thing is.
It's not reasonable and prudent when it interferes with what I do at home.
Nor do I want this kind of business ideology spreading and limiting my choice of decent employers.
There is a big difference between a slave and an employee at this guy's company. A slave has no choice. This guy's employees are free to quit his company.
I once quit a job over mandatory drug testing. I am a libertarian to my core, which means that I believe in the concept of ownership. This guy owns his company and should be able to hire and fire based on HIS values. I don't at all like the idea that the government regulates hiring and firing. Enforce contracts and punish fraud, sure. But let the business owners hire and fire who ever they want. If they limit their talent pool to much the market place will punish them.
I think for most company's drug testing of any sort is not a good idea. But I don't think it should be illegal.
You can legally fire fat people.
Quit being so ugly or Quit Your Job
You can legally fire ugly people, too.
Why not? Don't blacks have more health issues than whites? That's what the MSM seems to say all the time.
There would be no more smokers and people would be much more fit in this country.
I suppose you don't think it is fair that someone who looks better than you has a better chance at that receptionist job either.
Discrimination based on race is illegal. Discrimination based on many other things (such as smoking) is not.
Actually, using the logic that this employer is exercising legitimate control over his business by saying he doesn't want smokers or fat people working for him, it's hard to argue that he's not allowed to specify the race and gender of his employees.
I feel like it's overwhelming too, but these stories on discrimination are getting attention and politicians are beginning to get wise to anti tactics.
Totally banning the use of a legal product by employers may just be the "straw that breaks the camel's back". A lot of non-smokers and legislators still believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The antis aren't even being subtle with their intentions any more, as their most recent ad campaigns are proving! They are pressing their luck now, and have gone way beyond reasonable limits.Sure, the antis have been pushing for this all along, but now their efforts to demoralize smoking by influencing employers, have crossed the line. Either smoking is going to have to be made illegal, or they have to back off. Federal and state legislators can't afford to kill "the goose that laid the golden egg" for their tax budgets, so they will have to enact "lifestyle" legislation for the unprotected states. They can't just ignore it. If 29 states have already passed statutes, how can the remaining 21 remain inactive? Sooner or later, civil rights groups are going to have to get involved in protecting smokers too. They have already set the precedent.
Anyway, I wanted to let other smokers know that we aren't the only ones being angered by this discrimination. I'm still optimistic enough to believe this tide will turn...the antis are beginning to trip themselves up with all their "study" lies and endless greed for power.
And all your employees would leave, you wouldn't be able to hire more, and you would go out of business.
Probably the only reason why it hasn't happened to this idiot already is the current economic situation.
And on Jan 2nd, your phone would ring all day long, unanswered.
He claims that he's trying to cut back on insurance costs. Why doesn't he just start genetic etsting and be done with it?
So it's OK if he says he doesn't want to hire women? Or blacks? Or Asians? And every woman who becomes pregnant will be fired?
So it's OK for him to say he only wants white men working for him and no one else?
No sex except on weekends.
No greasy foods.
No red meat.
No alcohol.
No sweets.
No older vehicles (cause they get poor mileage and require more maintenance...)
No makeup (because they kill poor mice in R&D)
Yup, I'd be laughing to hard to tell this guy to shove it.
Well, I think he should be able to hire based on any damn thing he wants to. If he only wants to hire heterosexual white guys named Bruce, he ought to be able to. I mean, if he owns the business that should be his judgement to make.
And who gets to decide what's culturally acceptable?
I thought the Constitution was specifically written to protect the rights of the individual.
Whether the tyrant is the government or my employer doesn't make much difference to my experience of said oppression, IMO.
That is against the law. But he SHOULD be able to make his decision based on any criteria he wants to. That is the great thing about capitalism, the market place will sort it out.
No wonder he's worrying about the obese people now, all the former smokers have probably gained weight, DOH!
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.