Employers ponder tough tactics to halt smoking (spouse can't smoke either, random testing mandatory)

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 6/17/08 | Victoria Colliver

[LibWhacker]

Howard Weyers tried the "carrot" approach by giving his employees incentives and encouragement to quit smoking. But when that didn't work, he resorted to the stick. A big stick.

Weyers, owner of a health care benefits administrator in Lansing, Mich., gave his 200 employees an ultimatum in 2004: Quit smoking in 15 months or lose your job. He refused to hire smokers. Ultimately, he extended his smoking ban to employees' spouses and monitored compliance through mandatory random blood testing.

Weyers' method, while effective, wouldn't fly in California because the state has laws that prohibit employers from making hiring or firing decisions based on employee participation in a legal activity. But participants in a smoking cessation forum hosted Monday by the Commonwealth Club of California found the idea nonetheless intriguing.

[TexasGunLover]

California because the state has laws that prohibit employers from making hiring or firing decisions based on employee participation in a legal activity.

Private companies should be able to hire and fire and employee people on any criteria they want. That's why they're private. If people don't like it, they can work somewhere else.

If I own a business and don't want to hire people with tattoos or drive a red car, it's absurd the government can tell me, as a private business owner, otherwise.

[Moose4]

No way I’d ever work for that guy. I can see certain situations where an employer might want to restrict their employees from smoking at work, and MAYBE from smoking at home (if a job demanded peak physical performance, perhaps). But not allowing a spouse to smoke? No way.

He may be within his rights to do it in some states, but good luck getting people to work for a martinet like that.

}:-)4

[KarlInOhio]

What happens when all the money we've been sending to our Saudi friends < cough, cough> comes back to buy companies that enforce Sharia law on their employees.

[GunsareOK]

....but good luck getting people to work for a martinet like that...

I agree. This guy has been on his crusade for several years. I hope a competitor hires many of the people he's fired and that the competitor puts him out of business.

[Maceman]

What happens when all the money we've been sending to our Saudi friends < cough, cough> comes back to buy companies that enforce Sharia law on their employees.

Excellent question.

[chesley]

That battle was lost long ago.

I might agree with you if the government totally abandoned that power. But it won’t, and it will continue to expand its power.

[at bay]

Yes and just wait til they develop a blood test for cheeseburger consumption! You non-smokers that say it can’t happen to you be forewarned: they are very near perfecting a spray that can be used on the hands to determine if a person has recently handled a pizza take-out box.

[tarawa]

I do not agree. What if a business owner declared they would not employ anyone who kept a firearm at home?

[Pilated]

I wouldn’t work for the man or any company that was this power mad. I’d starve myself to death before working for this type.

[Pilated]

I wouldn’t work for the man or any company that was this power mad. I’d starve myself to death before working for this type.

[Pilated]

I wouldn’t work for the man or any company that was this power mad. I’d starve myself to death before working for this type.

[Rutles4Ever]

Look, it’s very simple. This is discrimination, end of story. If he’s concerned about the cost of covering smokers, then there should be a way to simply penalize them by covering less of their healthcare. That would be fair and equitable. Firing them is atrocious when there are ways to account and not lose your livelihood.

Since legally smoking does not qualify as a morals clause violation on any planet that I’m aware of, I’m not sure why you’re defending the owner on this.

[glorgau]

Since legally smoking does not qualify as a morals clause violation on any planet that I’m aware of,

You obviously haven't lived in the San Francisco Bay area.

[Polynikes]

I wonder if this is just the start? I doubt it it. I wonder if he will be so vigilant regarding employees who might contract AIDS insomuch as the modes of transmission are fairly well established at this time. Somehow I doubt it.

[TexasGunLover]

I do not agree. What if a business owner declared they would not employ anyone who kept a firearm at home?

Why should the government force an employer to do something? By your logic, I should be able to come into your house, make a snack and watch TV, because, again by your example, you have no rights.

Private businesses should be able to hire who they want. No one forces you to work for someone. If you don't like their terms, don't work there.

[TexasGunLover]

Look, it’s very simple. This is discrimination, end of story.

Sigh... discrimination, the cry of the liberal.

I’m not sure why you’re defending the owner on this.

Duh... because they're a private business owner. If they want you to work in a suit they can enforce that. If they want you to wear a clown suit, they can enforce that. If they want you to talk with your mouth full while talking to clients they can enforce that.

No one forces you to work for someone. If you don't like the terms of employment, find another job. I wouldn't work for a company that forbid me to carry a weapon. However, I do believe in the right of a private entity to enforcing their rules when you are under their terms. Imagine as a homeowner, you could not enforce rules upon your visitors. You're proposing removing rights of the employer from setting their terms. Since your employment with them is by your choice, you have to follow their rules.

Saddling the business owner with more government mandates is just furthers the liberal cause.

Socialism is running rampant at Free Republic. Anti-Business, "Big Oil" whiners, anti-private business rights people are just losing their minds.

I expect calls for price restrictions and more government regulation against "discrimination" to break out at any time here. I am just astounded by the liberal stances everyone is starting to take around here...

[Rutles4Ever]

Gee, that’s interesting. You seem to think the Constitution is a suicide pact.

If every business in America banded together and outlawed any employee from owning a handgun, what would you do? Your brand of freedom can swing to the other end of the pendulum, too. It’s only “fair”, I would venture, as long as it doesn’t affect you personally.

I find it peculiar that you prefer to defend the private rights of corporation over the private rights of an individual.

[Just another Joe]

Private companies should be able to hire and fire and employee people on any criteria they want. That's why they're private. If people don't like it, they can work somewhere else.

If I own a business and don't want to hire people with tattoos or drive a red car, it's absurd the government can tell me, as a private business owner, otherwise.

I agree.

The converse is true also. If I, as a business owner, want to hire ONLY smokers, and allow smoking at my place of business, I should be able to.

I, as a business owner, should be able to allow smoking at my business, by the general public, and if someone doesn't like it they don't have to frequent my business.

Sounds fair to me.

[TexasGunLover]

I, as a business owner, should be able to allow smoking at my business, by the general public, and if someone doesn't like it they don't have to frequent my business.

I agree 100%. You own the business... you'll either survive in the market or not based on your business practices but you have the choice, not the government.