I just found this alarming article

[DeeBye]

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.
[right][snapback]66496[/snapback][/right]

Most companies wouldn't threaten to fire someone for smoking on their own time.

I don't see how giving them notice makes this any more palatable. Just because you work for a company does not give them the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own personal time. Whether it's next week or next year, what's the difference? Whatever happened to personal freedom?

[Bolty]

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. :)
[right][snapback]66414[/snapback][/right]

Try firing people because they are African American and see what happens, then. :)

-Bolty

[Haider]

Can they fire fat people too?  What about those who ride motorcycles, skydive, or don't eat enough fiber?
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.
[right][snapback]66381[/snapback][/right]

In fact, fat people are next:

Quit smoking or quit your job, company says
Overweight workers could be next

Thursday, January 27, 2005 Posted: 5:28 AM EST (1028 GMT)

CHICAGO, Illinois (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.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/26/smoking...index.html

[Hammerskjold]

>"We have to work on eating habits and getting people to exercise. But if you're obese, you're (legally) protected," Weyers said.

Yeah, but what are the chances of them hiring an obese person? My guess is they see 'fatties' as another potential walking insurance risk. Call me cynical but I think their resume's would go straight to the circular file cabinet. Aka the garbage can.

It could be argued that health and exercise is important in everyone's life, and someone with a desk job probably gets less than someone say, working in construction. But really, at what point do you penalize someone for having a big mac on their own time. Maybe we should set up a caloric tax, anyone going over their daily recommended caloric intake should pay the difference in dollars. The funds will go to a public institution that promotes and enforces good health. I suggest a name like 'The Ministry of Fun'.

>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.

I'm curious to see this guy in one of his company x-mas party. He sounds like a wild and crazy party hound.

[Ashock]

Try firing people because they are African American and see what happens, then.  :)

-Bolty
[right][snapback]66511[/snapback][/right]

See if you can spot the difference.... Try firing people if they are African American and see what happens, then. :)



-A

[whyBish]

Just because you work for a company does not give them the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your own personal time.

I think that there is a spectrum, not an absolute on that statement. If I owned a company and couldn't fire a murderer / rapist or whatever just because they did such activities outside work hours, then that would be daft. Equally daft would be the other end of the spectrum, being able to fire someone because they don't sing the National Anthem in their home at 2:37 am every Sunday morning.

I personally think that it *should* be right for an employer to fire someone for something they do on their personal time, *if* what they do negatively affects their performance (or presents an increased risk of negative performance effects). E.g. banning airline pilots from drinking the night before a flight

[whyBish]

That remark about not hiring women has irked me.
[right][snapback]66478[/snapback][/right]

Same. I keep getting into arguments about women being lower paid than men (here in NZ... no idea about the outside situation). If that was the case then market theory suggests that a company could make excess profits by positively discriminating towards women in their hiring policy (as you illustrate above). The increase in companies looking to do the same would squeeze out most of the excess profit.

[whyBish]

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

Sounds like an essay I wrote back at the age of fifteen. The question was on "what policies could government introduce to increase health"
I proposed public execution of smokers, and a fat tax.

The question did not mention anything about practicality, fairness, or sensibility.

[whyBish]

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

That would reduce productivity, and I can't see how it would increase health.

[Rhydderch Hael]

I think that there is a spectrum, not an absolute on that statement.&nbsp; If I owned a company and couldn't fire a murderer / rapist or whatever just because they did such activities outside work hours, then that would be daft.&nbsp; ...

Bad analogy, since criminal conviction does have legal ground for a dismissal. In all probability, you may not be able to keep a murderer or rapist in your employ if you wanted to— the state would have priority over how the person spends their time.

[DeeBye]

I personally think that it *should* be right for an employer to fire someone for something they do on their personal time, *if* what they do negatively affects their performance (or presents an increased risk of negative performance effects).&nbsp; E.g.&nbsp; banning airline pilots from drinking the night before a flight
[right][snapback]66561[/snapback][/right]

I absolutely agree, but in this specific case smoking is a completely legal choice which does not have any adverse impact on work performance.

[Nebuul]

Women sometimes get pregnant.&nbsp; If this happens, they might be unavailable for work for up to 2 WEEKS OR LONGER!&nbsp; It's probably better not to employ women just in case.
[right][snapback]66402[/snapback][/right]

Pregnant women are protected by law. You can't fire them and must allow for maternity leave.

[Hammerskjold]

>Pregnant women are protected by law. You can't fire them and must allow for maternity leave.


I could be wrong here, but I read the comment on women as sarcasm. I thought he was trying to say if you carry the policy far enough, what's to prevent discrimination against women. Kind of like the 'good' ole days, where maternity leave means you leave (and don't come back) when you're pregnant.

[Hammerskjold]

>That would reduce productivity, and I can't see how it would increase health.


I disagree, though I admit my working theory is not foolproof yet. Productivity can increase if femmebots are made attractive (and atttractively priced at a corporate rate) enough. But not too pretty, otherwise that would raise too much distraction. It should not be too homely either, that would lower morale all around. And definitely not in the middle, that is the most dangerous compromise of all because more male workers will think the femmebot unit is now 'attainable'. A lot of productivity would be wasted due to workers actively pursuing the unit.

Ideally it should be attractive, can do light typing, and have a lilting girlish laugh that responds automatically to any of the male worker office banter. (It should also have a state of the art monitoring device built in, and should a male worker waste too much time trying to chat up the unit, it can emit in a loud voice THIS IS ROBOFEMME OFFICE UNIT X7039--- GO BACK TO YOUR DESIGNATED WORK CUBICLE NOW!)

As for increasing health, most males tend to raise their exercise levels when the presence of an attractive female figure is introduced in the environment. Or at least raise their blood pressure and heart rate levels. So an increase in cardiovascular activity is very likely. To raise active resistance or weight training, the femmebot should be programmed at timed intervals to ask a wandering male worker to lift a specially designed heavy box for her. (This box should be an easily adjustable weight resistance apparatus disguised as a simple office supply container. For a working proof of concept I am currently using a box of rocks.)

I admit it's not perfect yet, but given enough time and possibly a generous research grant I think I can finally bring the workplace into the 21st century. Robots that aids us is nothing new, it has a rich history that stretches back to the 19th century, as documented in this link
http://www.bigredhair.com/boilerplate/index.html

Curiously the corporate sector has been slow to embrace this type of technology, the completion and addition of a femmebot can greatly revolutionize that oversight.




*For those who takes this seriously, I also have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn, NY.

[gekko]

I absolutely agree, but in this specific case smoking is a completely legal choice which does not have any adverse impact on work performance.

Not quite. Smoking may not have a direct and immediate impact on the quality of an employee's performace, however, this is not the whole story. For long term employment, a smoker is more likely to have health problems and therefore will require more benefits from the health benefits to be payed out. Long term, smokers cost the company money.

It's an interesting question -- at what point should your employer (or the government, for that matter) have the right to step in and dictate behavior that only directly impacts the individual. Think smoking in your home versus smoking in a hospital waiting room. The latter obviously impacts more than just the individual, so most people don't have a problem with banning smoking from this kind of public place. The former is much more difficult -- whose business is it if I don't want to eat healthy or exercise? Whose business is it if I smoke or don't look both ways before crossing the street?

However, given than smoking (and since it's been brought up, obesity and the like) is directly linked to long-term health risks, when the money involved is not only your own, it's no longer only a matter of personal freedom. If your smoking means I have to pay more money in taxes (where public health care exists, as here in Canada) or health insurance, it's my business now, too -- even if you're smoking on your own time.

The only difficult part I foresee is where the line has to be drawn (i.e. not eating 100% of the recommended vitamins every day? smoking? obesity? not wearing a hat when it's too cold? being born into a family with higher than average risks of heart disease?). I suppose this is simply one of the inherent problems with health care -- it naturally favours the sick; it doesn't actually encourage being healthy.

gekko

[Roland]

Minor comment:

The only difficult part I foresee is where the line has to be drawn (i.e. not eating 100% of the recommended vitamins every day? smoking? obesity? not wearing a hat when it's too cold? being born into a family with higher than average risks of heart disease?).&nbsp; I suppose this is simply one of the inherent problems with health care -- it naturally favours the sick; it doesn't actually encourage being healthy.

gekko
[right][snapback]66602[/snapback][/right]

Smoking is a choice. No one forces you into it (second-hand smoke aside). It's something you either do or don't do, of your own volition, and although quitting may be difficult, it too is of your own volition. Same goes for taking all your vitamins or wearing a hat in the cold. But being born into obesity or a higher risk of hearth disease is completely beyond your control. Whether you do anything to improve your odds in life, to change your situation for the better, IS a personal choice that you do or don't do of your own volition, but otherwise you have no control over the aforementioned factors. As such, it's a bit of a flawed analogy.

Just had to comment on that.

As for my personal feelings on the matter.... given that the company is directly related to healthcare, have given ample notice to all their employees, have gone out of their way to give aid to the smokers in their employ to help them quit (an altogether very expensive and trying ordeal), and have not yet actually "fired" anyone for their transgressions, I'm inclined to side with the company on this one. The media may want to spin it out to be some heinous crime, but IMHO I see no fault. I'm no lawyer, but they sounded like they had all their legal ends covered. Besides, they've done WAY more than most companies would to ensure a minimal hassle with the new policy, and I might add way more than would be legally required.

Personally, I see no case, and think the issue is set and done. Smokers want to smoke, find a new job. IMHO, this policy should apply to ANYONE involved directly with healthcare, most notably nurses, doctors, and medical students, especially since that category of work holds the highest amount of smokers out of any employ, to my recollection. But, that's just my opinion, and I don't expect many (if any) people to agree with my views.

[LochnarITB]

most notably nurses, doctors, and medical students, especially since that category of work holds the highest amount of smokers out of any employ, to my recollection.
[right][snapback]66610[/snapback][/right]

I have no doubt that this is true. I spent most of 2003 in close proximity to nurses 24 hours a day. I was shocked to see how many of them smoked. Obviously, this is only a small sampling of a large population but the reasons I saw for it apply to the industry as a whole. When they would go to have their cigarette, you could see the tension in them as they lit up and the relief they gave themselves with the first puff. I understand the tension they are under but I also see that the tension is often from dealing with people suffering from the ravages that smoking can inflict on the body. One nurse I knew even contemplated starting smoking for that relief. When I saw that, I was furious with her. She did reconsider but I was amazed that she even tried it in the first place.

I would also like to add to this thread that obesity does not belong in the same discussions with those of smoking and drinking. Smoking and drinking are a choice that the body does not require and, in most cases, does not benefit from. Eating is required for the body to function and the struggle is to moderate the fuel that the body is given. If the body required 2 rum and Cokes and a half pack of Marlboros a day, then they would be the same discussion.

[Nystul]

Are we looking at this the wrong way? The fact that it's a health benefits company doesn't make this more pallatable, it makes it a lot scarier.

From the company's website, pretty typical health insurance stuff:

"Zywave Reports is a Web-based decision support system designed to help employers manage their group medical plans. Zywave reports leads employers to faster and more effective decisions about plan changes by providing powerful claims analysis that can be used to formulate plan design. The claims analysis lets employers detect and determine problems with medical utilization or plan cost, isolate the root causes of utilization problems, and create money-saving solutions. In addition to a health plan analysis, Zywave Reports offer sophisticated plan modeling and benchmark comparisons that take the decision-making process to the next level."

If Weyco's money-saving solution for their own company is to adopt a tobacco free policy (and having read their policy, yes they will fire you for using tobacco outside of work), how long is it before they offer the same suggestion to their clients?

Perhaps there is an ideological concept here. Just like all priests should believe in God and uphold the morals of their religion or get fired, all health care bean counters should believe smoking is bad and act accordingly? If the policy's only justification is reducing insurance costs, I don't think it should be legal (and suggest that perhaps it isn't). The language of the policy to me looks to be written in such a general way that any business from NASA to KFC could use it.

[DeeBye]

Are we looking at this the wrong way?&nbsp; The fact that it's a health benefits company doesn't make this more pallatable, it makes it a lot scarier.
[right][snapback]66624[/snapback][/right]

I can imagine all kinds of scary future scenarios if this becomes common practice. The reason I didn't want to turn this into a debate about smoking is that smoking is not the only unhealthy thing people do, it's just the easiest to target. The "slippery slope" argument applies in full force here. If a company's accountants see that they can save boatloads of cash by not employing smokers, they might look into banning other "bad" habits. Soon enough we wouldn't have any personal choice whatsoever, at least if we wanted to remain employed. The precedent might be already set.

Thank you, but I like eating a big greasy breakfast on Sunday morning.

[DeeBye]

I could be wrong here, but I read the comment on women as sarcasm.
[right][snapback]66594[/snapback][/right]

You are correct.