I just found this alarming article

[DeeBye]

http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html

Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

UPDATED: 1:59 PM EST January 25, 2005

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 or at home.

Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.

The rule led one employee to quit before the policy was adopted. Four others were fired when they balked at the smoking test.

Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes estimated that 18 to 20 of the company's 200 employers were smokers when the policy was announced in 2003. Of those, as many as 14 quit smoking before the policy went into effect. The company offered them help to kick the habit.

"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.

Granted, employees of a health benefits company should know better. Let's all agree that smoking is really, really bad for you. Now that that's out of the way, how can a company fire someone for doing something completely legal, on their own time?

[Doc]

Because, if that company offers health coverage, those employees could cost them a lot of money in medications spent on smoking related illnesses. Uneeded expenses.

To be honest, I would fire them as well, and use the estimated amount of money spent on keeping smokers healthy on a company gym and a fitness center.

Yes, I used to be a smoker. Cancer can make you one bitter son of a biscuit.

[DeeBye]

Because, if that company offers health coverage, those employees could cost them a lot of money in medications spent on smoking related illnesses. Uneeded expenses.
[right][snapback]66378[/snapback][/right]

Can they fire fat people too? What about those who ride motorcycles, skydive, or don't eat enough fiber?

To be honest, I would fire them as well, and use the estimated amount of money spent on keeping smokers healthy on a company gym and a fitness center.

Yes, I used to be a smoker. Cancer can make you one bitter son of a biscuit.
[right][snapback]66378[/snapback][/right]

I would REALLY, REALLY like to keep the debate about smoking out of this thread. I know that this is probably an unrealistic goal. We all know that smoking is bad for you. That's not the issue as I see it.

The problem, as I see it, is that people are getting fired for doing something completely legal on their own time.

[Bolty]

Lawsuit.

-Bolty

P.S. I mean, DUH. Obvious discrimination. As another pointed out, next they'll fire overweight people, since they also have more health problems than healthier ones.

[whyBish]

That would be illegal in NZ. However the govt. covers all medical expenses here, not private company plans, so it's not really the same situation.

I would expect that it is illegal in America. Would be fair enough to say that they can't be covered medically by the company if the don't meet certain criteria, but not to judge hiring based on that criteria *UNLESS* that criteria was relevant to the job being at hand (e.g. health and fitness requirements for firefighters, asthmatics can't enter in NZ etc.)

In NZ, discrimination in employment is legal if and only if that discrimination is relevant to the position (e.g. A model for male clothes: Can discriminate against hiring a woman etc. Its the same type of rule that allows gender based sports events such as Womens tennis etc.)

http://www.hrc.co.nz/index.php?p=13862

[quote]Are there situations in which it is lawful to
select employees on the grounds listed in the Act ?

Yes, there are situations in which it is lawful to select employees on one of the grounds covered by the Act. These include:

* Genuine occupational qualifications: Sometimes being a particular age or sex is a genuine qualification for a job. For example: Bar staff must be over 18 years of age to serve liquor in licensed premises
* Domestic employment in a private household - except on the grounds of race, marital or family status
* Work outside New Zealand - in some situations
* Religious organisations and private schools: Eligibility for jobs with some religious organisations and schools may be restricted on the basis of sex or religion, but not on other grounds such as race or age
* Counselling: If the position involves counselling on highly personal matters, such as sexual matters or the prevention of violence, it is possible to discriminate on the grounds of sex, race, ethnic or national origins or sexual orientation
* Privacy: People of a particular sex can be employed for jobs such as the fitting of clothes in certain shops
* Youth rates: If an employer is paying youth rates, employees under 20 years of age can be selected.{\quote]

[DeeBye]

Lawsuit.

-Bolty

P.S.  I mean, DUH.  Obvious discrimination.  As another pointed out, next they'll fire overweight people, since they also have more health problems than healthier ones.
[right][snapback]66388[/snapback][/right]

Have you seen Gattaca?

[Rhydderch Hael]

Can they fire fat people too?  What about those who ride motorcycles, skydive, or don't eat enough fiber? ...

Aye. By the mentality of this company, they better screen all current and future employees for HIV, and summarily fire anyone who tests positive. After all, they'd be a huge burden on the company's health policies, too.

Oh, wait. That's discrimination, no?

[DeeBye]

After all, they'd be a huge burden on the company's health policies, too.
[right][snapback]66401[/snapback][/right]

Women sometimes get pregnant. If this happens, they might be unavailable for work for up to 2 WEEKS OR LONGER! It's probably better not to employ women just in case.

[Nystul]

The irony of a health insurance company firing employees because they don't want to cover their health insurance is bitter indeed. I bet that company's own policies offer coverage to smokers at other companies, probably with some premium added. Has anyone ever heard of a U.S. health plan that didn't? How can it be a problem to offer the same type of thing to their own employees?

I'm not sure if it would be grounds for a lawsuit, but it is fairly ridiculous in my opinion.

[Archon_Wing]

ow that that's out of the way, how can a company fire someone for doing something completely legal, on their own time?
[right][snapback]66376[/snapback][/right]

Duh. If you own a company you are allowed to fire anyone you want, and make all kinds of policies , no matter how idiotic they are. :)

[Tal]

http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html
Granted, employees of a health benefits company should know better.  Let's all agree that smoking is really, really bad for you.  Now that that's out of the way, how can a company fire someone for doing something completely legal, on their own time?
[right][snapback]66376[/snapback][/right]

I believe that these kind of firings fall under "at will" employment. They can specify terms of employment that an employee agrees to prior to hiring. Failure to comply means termination of the contract.

Though it will remain to be seen if it will be upheld or not. :)

[Mavfin]

[snip]

Yes, I used to be a smoker. Cancer can make you one bitter son of a biscuit.

I used to be a smoker, too. A heart attack at the age of 34 cured me of my nicotine addiction.

[Any1]

The decision is fairly ridiculous:

1. The fact is that smoking a still a legal acitvity in this country, albeit it's getting more restricted all the time.

2. The severe health (the health care cost effecting ones) reprecussions of smoking take many years (sometimes decades) to manifest. I wonder what the turn-around time for employees are these days.

3. Even when people quit, that doesn't guarantee they won't suffer health problems related to smoking. My grandfather smoked for 15 years, he quit for about 35 years, and still died of smoking related lung problems.

Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction some bean counter (read: execs) had, followed by an equally well-conceived solution. <_<

[Hammerskjold]

>Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction some bean counter (read: execs) had, followed by an equally well-conceived solution. <_<


That sounds about right to me. Smoking is not good for you, but that really is almost besides the point.

If these health nuts are so keen on having super healthy workers, there's other things that could be addressed. How about cleaning up that urban smog. Stop putting mercury and crude oil in the ocean so I can eat tuna with some peace of mind. Have a 24\7 team of nutritionist\chefs to cook workers healthy and tasty meals. Have friendly and trustworthy robot nannies to care of the young ones so female workers can be more productive. Actually scratch that, replace organic female workers with sexy femmebots.

And most of all, develop a robust selection program for human breeding to boost superior genetic traits and suppress or eliminate undesirable ones. The result would be a brilliant, strong, and healthy worker! You know kind of like this guy who I'm sure would make 'Employee of the Month' in some lucky office somewhere. http://www.bovil.com/gallery/HOF/09_khan

[DeeBye]

>Actually scratch that, replace organic female workers with sexy femmebots.
[right][snapback]66459[/snapback][/right]

I fully endorse this idea.

[kandrathe]

The decision is fairly ridiculous:

1.&nbsp; The fact is that smoking a still a legal acitvity in this country, albeit it's getting more restricted all the time.&nbsp;

2.&nbsp; The severe health (the health care cost effecting ones) reprecussions of smoking take many years (sometimes decades) to manifest.&nbsp; I wonder what the turn-around time for employees are these days.

3.&nbsp; Even when people quit, that doesn't guarantee they won't suffer health problems related to smoking.&nbsp; My grandfather smoked for 15 years, he quit for about 35 years, and still died of smoking related lung problems.

Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction some bean counter (read: execs) had, followed by an equally well-conceived solution. <_<
[right][snapback]66448[/snapback][/right]

I agree with you. There are people who smoke a pipe, or a cigar as an occasional pleasure who would not consider themselves habitual smokers. If I worked for that company I would quit, even though I have none of those vices. What's next genetic screening to determine your health cost risk category?

What about those unhealthy drinkers? How about discriminating against the unhealthy obese people? Or, ones that consume as excess of Red Dye #3? There are many ways to be unhealthy. Perhaps, they should require all workers to have a healthy ratio of Omege-3 to Omega-6 fatty acids. Or, require everyone to be Vegan.

[Doc]

Allow me to take my gloves off.

That remark about not hiring women has irked me.

Saying that is foolish. As somebody with both a keen and ruthless sense of business, it is better to hire women than men. Women are far more easily exploited than men. All sexual ideas aside... Give a woman medical, dental, and vision for her offspring, and school mirrored hours, offer day care services, and you pretty much own her due to her emotional ties to her children. You can treat her like dirt, make unreasonable damands like getting a project done in a week when it would normally take two, you can do whatever to enforce her productivity and she WILL do it simply because she is providing everything her children need and she knows she would be a fool to quit her job when everything is so good. Working mothers are far more productive go getters than males their own age, even male fathers. It's that whole maternal thing women have going on, makes them work like tireless mules. Only a complete and total idiot wouldn't hire a woman or say not to hire a woman due to the fact that they might get pregnant. Getting pregnant during the course of employment is a good thing... Dangle the right carrots and you can squeeze out a heck of a lot more work.

What, don't like seeing this side of me? Bah. Somebody know how to run a business, others don't. Don't badmouth what you can't understand.

[Bob]

Duh. If you own a company you are allowed to fire anyone you want, and make all kinds of policies , no matter how idiotic&nbsp; they are. :)
[right][snapback]66414[/snapback][/right]

I suggest that you jump ship (or country) and come over to the UK. You can't fire someone sumararily unless they do something which counts as gross misconduct (try getting 'being a smoker' to stand up as gross misconduct in an employment tribunal, assasinating the CEO maybe...). Or you can give two written and one verbal warning about conduct and then open up with the 'fired cannon', but since smoking can't be construed as misconduct they're gonna hit the same brick wall as above. The only other possibility would be the make them redundant, in which case the company can't employ someone else to do their job and would have to pay them out a hefty sum of money.

Are you seriously telling me that in the US employees don't have that sort of basic protection of their jobs?

Solutions in the US (as mentioned by Botly) A lawsuit, or a hostile takeover (by hostile takeover I mean 'mad rampage through company HQ with a semi-auto shotgun making sure to take out the entire board', although this course of action is not recommended :P )

-Bob

[Roland]

http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html
Granted, employees of a health benefits company should know better.&nbsp; Let's all agree that smoking is really, really bad for you.&nbsp; Now that that's out of the way, how can a company fire someone for doing something completely legal, on their own time?
[right][snapback]66376[/snapback][/right]

This was on the news today. What the article fails to mention is that, not only has the company provided benefits and aid to help their employees quit smoking, they ALSO gave them 15 months advance notice. This was not sprung on them suddenly - it was known about for over a year.

Suddenly, I can't feel nearly as much sympathy as I initially did. Give them aid to quit smoking and 15 months advance notice? That's more than most companies would give.

Oh, and one more thing: those four employees that got "fired"? Nope, they left of their own volition. They four agreed, on their own, to make a stand and quit because they didn't agree with the policy. So far, no one has been FIRED, although people have quit on their own.

Yeah, like I said, suddenly I don't have nearly as much sympathy. And as for lawsuits? I don't see any succeeding, although they already have had their lawyers look over the policy well in advance.

[Archon_Wing]

Are you seriously telling me that in the US employees don't have that sort of basic protection of their jobs?


[right][snapback]66480[/snapback][/right]

Well in the US the "protection" comes in the form of being able to sue recklessly. -_-

Anyhow, I wrote both these posts not being completely serious, so do not take them as any represenation of reality.