A Job or a Cigarette?

Newsweek ^ | Feb. 24, 2005 | By Jennifer Barrett Ozols

[Mrs.Nooseman]

That is kind of what I said in the last part of my statement.

[G.Mason]

" Wouldn't it be a hoot if this Orwellian schlub suddenly dropped dead of a heart attack and was found by two overweight smokers?"

I like it.

BTW ... that "garden hose" bit was along the same lines. ie: dying of self-inflicted, carbon monoxide, gas. ;)

[Kretek]

We are in agreement here.

[G.Mason]

"It is not unreasonable to require employees to be sober while on duty, especially when one's dealing with dangerous heavy equipment."

Or pushing a little red button on a nuclear submarine. ;)

[Protagoras]

Anti smoking laws are actually anti property rights laws. They are facist in nature. Many Freepers love such laws.

[camle]

15 years after hire, eh? kinda makes me think that the real reason for termination has more to do with salary (the longer term workers tend to earn more) than it doesn smoking. the smoking sounds more like an excuse than a reason in this light.

[Kretek]

Or pushing a little red button on a nuclear submarine. ;)

Like, wow, dude. Lookit all them pretty flashing lights... ;-)

[MissTargets]

Nary a word about alcohol.
Me thinks Mr. Weyers is not a teetotaler.

[camle]

there's a big safety issue with drinking alcohol or beer too. why not fire people who drink beer on the weekends, too?

a good drunk can often last into working hours, and a bad hangover almost certainly does.

[Protagoras]

No - the rules were changed, in the case of one fired individual, 15 YEARS after that person started working there.

I guess after fifteen years he didn't value his employment enough to follow the new rules. He made his choice.

[Condor51]

It's not you, its me.
When I was typing I had a feeling that a whack-job like this would proably 'ban' fat people from his company too. I should have went back to the thread be fore hitting the 'Post' button and read your comment.

This guy is nothing but a fascist.

[Bear_Slayer]

I worked for a company with clean rooms, and we were restricted in terms of deordorants, hairsprays, perfumes, etc.

I just quit cold turkey eight weeks ago, . . . without patches, gums, pills, or anything else

It doesn't take that much to keep me away from work.

*note to self:

read post more carefully

[Mrs.Nooseman]

Sorry,my brain must still be asleep.
LOL.
I need another cup of coffee to wake up my brain.;0)

[G.Mason]

"Like, wow, dude. Lookit all them pretty flashing lights... ;-)"

Oh ... Wow!

ROTFLMAO !!!

[antisocial]

When only non-smokers can work, the smokers will not be able to pay taxes, (or buy ciggarettes) who will then be singled out to make up for the loss of tax revenue? Will
smokers be given wellfare, when they are no longer eligible
to work? Will that be cheaper on society than our current system? Inquiring minds want to know!

[Kretek]

My understanding is that the persons who were fired, were fired for refusing to provide urine samples for tobacco-use analysis.

The policy, however, stated that if the analysis came back positive the person would be fired.

I'm sure there's a tactical legal advantage to doing it one way or the other, providing a sample and getting fired vs. not providing a sample and getting fired...

My understanding is that Weyers is a former football coach and is somewhat of a health & fitness freak, gets offended at the sight of out of shape people, etc.

[G.Mason]

" This guy is nothing but a fascist."

And that's about the best that can be said about him.

I am thankful he isn't in politics. Lord knows we have enough targets.

[jusduat]

Maybe I'm missing something here....why is it ok to
fire smokers because they are increasing health care costs,
but it is illegal to fire gays when they also increase health care costs? What about people who have diabetes?

[Ramius]

Of course they should have the right to hire and fire whomever they choose. That still doesn't mean this isn't ridiculous.

There is a better case to be made to forbid employees from engaging in a whole range of dangerous activities that might result in injury. Skiing & snowboarding, in-line skating, white water kayaking, rock climbing... riding a motorcycle.

Thinking back on the various medical issues among my coworkers, it seems obvious that the most serious injuries and the most lost time from work all relate to either risky hobbies that people have or, the number one cause of lost work: children. I used to track sick days and payroll in a former life, and I can say authoritatively that the number one most expensive employee from a lost-time standpoint and a medical expense standpoint are those with young children.

I can't recall a single instance of somebody becoming expensive to employ because of anything even remotely associated with smoking. Smokers don't actually seem to get sick any more frequently than nonsmokers, but people, especially single moms with young kids... they're out all the time.

If this were really about costs, then they're reaching way way down the list of risks and completely ignoring other low hanging fruit that would in fact save more money. Its so obvious its like the proverbial gorilla in the room. This has nothing whatsoever to do with health costs or any "genuine" concern for the health of employees.

This is a small-minded little control freak that gets off on flexing his power. He's become bored with his power over people while they are being paid by him, and is reaching for some new thrills.

[camle]

so its' catch-22. either you give him control over your personal life by giving hims the sample, risking termination if you get a positive (or false positive?) result, or you get fired for not providing the sample.

so.. what's to prohibit him from using that sample to test for other things, like coffee or chocolate? or diabetes?