Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time
UPDATED: 8:55 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.
On the company's Web site, it states:
Weyco Inc. is a non-smoking company that strongly supports its employees in living healthy lifestyles.
Next up? Get caught packing twinkies in your lunch, you get fired!
Welcome to New Hampshire's "new improved!" health care system. A company's policy premiums are directly proportionate to the over all age and health of its subscribers and their dependents. A company is systematically penalized for hiring the elderly and pre-diagnosed patients. Pregnancies, cancer, and illness endured in a year will jack your company's policy the next year.
Pay us your premium. If you actually want to use said insurance, you will pay us more.
Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test
Hmm this seems a bit different then being fired for smoking, nice job with the title though :D
To be honest i don't see a problem here. Do gyms employ fat slobs to teach their work out classes? Its a health care company - they have a right not to employ someone that isn't taking care of their health.
Welcome to New Hampshire's "new improved!" health care system. A company's policy premiums are directly proportionate to the over all age and health of its subscribers and their dependents. A company is systematically penalized for hiring the elderly and pre-diagnosed patients. Pregnancies, cancer, and illness endured in a year will jack your company's policy the next year.
Pay us your premium. If you actually want to use said insurance, you will pay us more.
Understandable, but wouldn't the eventual cost be passed on to the employee anyways? Besides, couldn't they just charge those with health issues more to insure them? If you were to buy invidual policies, you'd have to pay more if you're a smoker vs a non smoker.
Biral said:
To be honest i don't see a problem here. Do gyms employ fat slobs to teach their work out classes? Its a health care company - they have a right not to employ someone that isn't taking care of their health.
As a matter of fact, yes, they do. It would be discrimination if they didn't. At the gym I go to, there are employees of all shapes and sizes. I've seen really fit beefy guys who could likely pick up a car and chuck it across the parking lot with one hand, and then there are some that are a bit more...cumbersome, and squishy shall we say. Personally to me, it makes no difference what someone looks like even if they're an employee of a health club. I'm there to take care of my body, not compare myself to what I could be.
Should a computer company not hire someone with boy band looks just because he doesn't look like your steretypical Bill Gates circa 1983 computer geek even though he's highly qualified?
I live in Maryland, it's a similar situation. I pay "individually" in my company, but I pay more than the folks who live in DC or VA. My state makes me pay higher rates for everyone in my state. Sucks muchly.
I can understand it from a business perspective, but... it is lending itself to discrimination in hiring practices. If a company can keep it's benefits in check, why would they hire a potential financial risk? This is potential bankrupcy for smaller companies trying to maintain benefits for thier employees.
Then there's the watercooler talk... Damn that Nocte's loins for spawning last year. :D
I remember when we were first looking at insurance (with 3 people we didn't need it, now we do, lol) for our company, some of the stuff was a "group" policy for everyone, and it wasn't fair for people like me who are under 30, single, no history of health issues, etc. People's spouses had like every box checked on the insurance form, and our insurance was literally going to be 400-600 PER PERSON to cover one person's spouse, basically.
When we got a little bigger, we were able to make it individual policies per person, and some people pay 800 a month, some people pay 120. Personally, I think it's a rip, but I can't exist without it. The day I don't have it is the day I slip and break my leg and am laid up for 3 months at home. Sucks, don't it?
I'm sure they made very sure of the legality of this policy before they instituted it. You can't just kick someone with a chemical dependence out the door, but firing people who refuse to take a drug test is a bit different from firing people who smoke. Presumably if anyone had tested positive the company would have supported them through detox and rehab just like any other junkie.
lol... what you really want is tort reform. Take away the $$$, take away the dirt scumbag l@wyer$. The ones who promise 100k+ , find they have to 'work', then have a secretary/paralegal fire the client. Been there, done that.
Firing someone for refusing to take a test for something illegal is one thing. Firing someone for partaking in a legal activity during non-work hours is something different entirely.
What if they'd fired any employees who engaged in homosexual activity outside of work? I mean, gay men are statistically in a higher health risk category than hetero's. Would that be justified? Would you be defending their actions then?
Just curious.
Legal activity outside of work = none of your employer's business.
I'm sure they made very sure of the legality of this policy before they instituted it. You can't just kick someone with a chemical dependence out the door, but firing people who refuse to take a drug test is a bit different from firing people who smoke. Presumably if anyone had tested positive the company would have supported them through detox and rehab just like any other junkie.
I wouldn't give the company that much credit. Lawsuits fly about unjust termination all the time. Just the other day I saw an article on the news about a Pennsylvania (I think or it could be NY) government worker who essentially had all her responsiblities taken away from her. The gov't won't fire her because it's too much hassle, but she doesn't want to be spending tax payer's money doing absolutely nothing, she feels useless at work, so she's seeking legal actions. Surely you'd think that the government would've made very sure of their legal responsibilities when it comes to employment, no? Employers do stupid things in the interest of money.
Companies can put in place all the policies they want...for employees on their clock and premises, but to govern people in their free time by not allowing them to smoke in say, the privacy of their own home is ridiculous and infringing on a LOT of rights and freedoms. Somehow, I don't see that flying very high and any commie company who actually tries that will see their asses in court.
I know a good sized portion of the Safehouse smokes, so ill probably have atleast 3 or 4 people scream at me for this.
I dont see a problem with a company that charges the smokers more for their health care. The people take it upon themselves to put items that are known to cause conditions that cost a ton of money to treat. Ill say the same for the people who are grossly overweight. If you are in a condition that will cause the company to pay more to treat you, and are not doing something to improve it(if possible), then you should be the one paying the extra money, not the company and certainly not the other employees.
But firing them...agree with Nyssa, I see lawsuits int he future too. Its going to be one heck of a good fight too. You have one side crying discrimination. And the other side saying that those who smoke are causing the company to lose profit and are therefore not as qualified at the job(because of costs, not skill) than a non-smoker.
They didn't fire all the smokers, the article says at least fourteen people kicked the habit and they were kept on anyway. Those people are still going to cost more, on average, than their non-smoking coworkers.
But that is a good point, I did assume a new and controversial company-wide policy would get looked over by the lawyers, and that would require a certain basic competence from corporate America that might not be present.
When my wife was a retail manager she had an employee try to tell her she was entitled to smoke breaks. Not just the ordinary breaks all employees got but special smoke breaks every hour or two. It didn't fly but she still tried.
I'll wait while one of you figures out how smoking is protected under the law. Maybe you can argue it's a disability.
ciba said:
Exactly the point I was going to make. I don't think smokers are a "protected class."
This is absolutely correct and I fully agree that the business owners have every right to decide how to best run their business. Also, I hate cigarettes. However, I like having an occassional cigar. I heard about this on the radio yesterday, any my only concern regarding this issue was this:
Suppose some insurance underwriter does some market research and finds that people who live an alternative lifestyle are considered a higher health risk. Or suppose that the underwriter finds that people who have had a work related injury in the past are more likely to have another work related injury in the future. Or suppose that he finds that people who have been involved in an personal automobile accident are more likely to have a work related injury. Or he finds that people who's ancestors have a history of heart disease blah blah blah... And the insurance company adjusts their rates according thus forcing their client companies to adjust hiring practices based around these parameters to keep their company premiums low.
This is bad for two reasons. Number one, it opens the door for potential abuse and discrimination against employees along a number of lines, some traditional some not. After all, your don't have a constitutionally protected right to have a job. Secondly, it puts the insurance company at the helm of hiring practices across the state/nation sending their client companies on a costly roller coaster ride each time a policy adjustment is made and they have to come into compliance or face raised rates.
The point of any business is to make money. The insurance business is no exception. Their interest lies in collection premiums while maintaining as low a payout ratio as possible. It simply isn't in their best interest to consider the best interests of either the client company or the individual employee being insured. Now, obviously they have to keep things within reason lest they lose business to the competition. However, supply and demand WILL normalize rates and acceptable practices, and "within reason" will become a fuzzy and sometimes abusable line as a result. Over time, chaos and a powerful lobby could easily break this system down into outright abuse by the insurance companies.
I'm as libertarian as they come. I just don't see this as an OVERALL good. When the law institutes a mechanism whereby one industry can exercise control over all others, the free market discontinues being free.
Jem's Law (inspired by Godwin's Law) -
As an online discussion on the topic of governmental authority grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Orwell's "1984" approaches 1.
The people take it upon themselves to put items that are known to cause conditions that cost a ton of money to treat.
You're absolutely right. Now let's round up all the fat people and fire them, too.
Smoking is a choice as much as overeating is. And it's a lot harder to quit smoking than it is to quit gorging yourself. So it's only fair, right?
Wow, thanks for reading my entire post before flying off the handle. Let me quote myself...
Ill say the same for the people who are grossly overweight.
As well as
and are not doing something to improve it(if possible)
If you are gonna sit there with a cigarette in your mouth and go "Its my god given right!", then damn right you deserve to pay more! But if you are sitting there, shaking from withdrawl saying "Ive slipped a few times, but Im really trying" and you show some form of improvement, then that at least shows you are trying. Same with eating. If I see a guy sit down to 2 quarter pounders, a large fry and the Bladder Burster drink, well then come on! But if hes got a salad and cottage cheese and uses his extra time at lunch to do a sit up or two, that shows an attempt.
Personally I think people should have to pay for any defects outside of what is deemed cost efficient by insurance companies, whether by choice or birth. If they couldn't afford care that way they could just die and thereby the race would be strengthened in a cost efficient way. It could be like the ultimate eugenics program without all the nasty active killings that usually accompany such things and it would improve the profit and savings margin. Or to quote the song "And they'll none of 'em be missed - they'll none of 'em be missed!"
i doubt that the core readers here are able to parse cynism, Koru.
We did train them to the fine European art of comparison, parable and hyperbole as well as sarcasm, but the level you introduce now is (IMO) beyond the comprehendability of the masses here
Translation of Koru's post above: "Nazi no no good."
Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test
Hmm this seems a bit different then being fired for smoking, nice job with the title though :D
Did you not read the following:
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.
There isn't much of a difference there, unless you just want to quibble over semantics. Whether they got fired for smoking, or got fired for not taking a test that would show they are smokers... Either way, the company fired them, because of the fact they smoke.
Ulthuien, were you aiming for condescending or patronizing there? Either way, I think you hit at least one of them, and a few other things that might be censored by the filter.
Anyway about the libertarian comment above: I didn't say that the employers should be legally barred from doing this. I just think its a jackass thing to do, even if they are within their legal rights to do so. Having the right to do something includes sometimes having the legal right to do something stupid.
If they wanted to Charge them more for Insurance? Sure, I can see that. But fire them? WTF?
Ulthien, don't be a dink. You != smarter than everyone here at the Safehouse. You = smarter than some people at the safehouse. Some people at the safehouse = smarter than you. I can't remember the last time someone questioned your intelligence. Perhaps you would do us the courtesy of refraining from questioning anyone else's.
This is non-negotiable, and passive-aggressive swipes at the ethical/intellectual standing of SH members (even in aggregate) will start earning you warnings, and then a banning.
______________________________________
The original gnomosexualizer
100% socializer 53% explorer 33% achiever 13% killer and 100% lover.
Requiring that their employees are tested to prove that they don't smoke outside of work seems the same to me as requiring that employees are tested for genetic markers, like the Parkinson's marker, the high cholesterol marker, or whatever genetic markers we know about now, or discover in the future. Of course, I think drug testing is over the line, so of course I'm going to be against cigarette testing as well.
Ohh I get it Ulthien don't think I can understand all the big words here. Me also not be understanding sarcasm. Do that make me a core reader?
The inner Machinations of my mind are an Enigma - Patrick Star
A steel fist in a Velvet glove, the force is there but it's concealed just below the surface.
I'll wait while one of you figures out how smoking is protected under the law. Maybe you can argue it's a disability.
Exactly the point I was going to make. I don't think smokers are a "protected class."
While I don't think that smokers are a "protected class" per se, somehow I get the feeling that people's right to do whatever they so choose (assuming it's legal which the last I recall, smoking is in general, legal) in their own free time OUTSIDE of company time and premises in places such as oh, the privacy of their own home...I'm guessing somehow, that's a protected right... I could be totally wrong of course...
Koru said:
If they couldn't afford care that way they could just die and thereby the race would be strengthened in a cost efficient way.
No, not at all. Actually, I haven't even read Ulthien comments.
I'm pretty sure that people's personal rights are protected in the US, and I'm pretty sure that there'd be an uproar if those rights are violated. My humble opinion is just that. I'm not so arrogant to think that everything I say holds merit. I'm not perfect. I could be wrong. Lord knows I've been wrong before. If you view it to be sarcasm, well then that's your problem, not mine.
What Koru said sounded an awful lot like Darwinism to me. Who knows, I could very well be mistaken. Was I even criticizing her for suggesting that? Was I attacking her for saying it? Um, no I don't think so. At least that never popped in my head. I'm quite fond of Darwin's theories, and as a matter of fact, I made a post just a few days ago comparing Darwin's theories to some dumbass in the news. So thanks for your cleverness, Hordubear.
While firing them for it is stupid, I would never hire the smoker if I had a choice between two equally good candidates and one of them smoked. And I'm a part time smoker myself.
Smokers usually need far more breaks than non-smokers, and they can in some cases stink up a room pretty well. 5 minutes every hour adds up. Quickly.
Health Care Company That Fired Smokers Also Targeting Fat
Weyers Won't Fire Employees For Obesity
POSTED: 7:20 am PST January 27, 2005
A Michigan health care company that fired four employees for smoking is also targeting fat.
Howard Weyers, the founder of Weyco Inc., said he wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else, Reuters reported.
Weyers brought in weight experts to speak with employees, according to Reuters. The company also offers employees a $35 monthly incentive for joining a health club and $65 for meeting fitness goals.
But the company isn't planning to fire employees for unhealthy lifestyle choices, according to a Weyco news release.
"Anyone concerned about limiting employers' rights to specify terms of employment should know that federal law protects people with conditions like obesity, alcoholism and AIDS. But there's no right to indulge in tobacco," the news release said.
Four Weyco employees were fired after the company enacted a new policy this month, allowing workers to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking takes place after hours or at home.
The four employees were fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke. Weyers said the company doesn't want to pay the higher health care costs associated with smoking.
An official of the company -- which administers health benefits -- estimated that 18 to 20 of its 200 employees were smokers when the policy was first announced in 2003. As many as 14 of them quit smoking before the policy went into effect.
The company's Web site states:
Weyco Inc. is a non-smoking company that strongly supports its employees in living healthy lifestyles.
Better start making it a habit to inhale the 6 lbs burger then go sweat it off if you want that bonus.
But the company isn't planning to fire employees for unhealthy lifestyle choices, according to a Weyco news release.
It isn't so much that aren't planning to, its that they already have.
"Anyone concerned about limiting employers' rights to specify terms of employment should know that federal law protects people with conditions like obesity, alcoholism and AIDS. But there's no right to indulge in tobacco," the news release said.
In other words, We would fire you if we could for having that desk drawer full of twinkies, but luckily for you we can't. Yet.
So basically you have to conform to his idea's of what a person should be like both at work and at home or youll get fired and if he cant fire you he will just pay everyone else around you more till you quit.
Always wondered what a modern day Nazi would look like.
He's trying to save his company, and his other employees money. Smoking is a choice, the smokers were told about the program, and offered help in quitting. The ones who lost their jobs choose not to comply to a company rule.
Well, the term Nazi may be overblown, but an overly intrusive, @#$%hole of an employer.. Sure. I could go with that description.
Why would the company need to stop at smoking? Why not say that its against company policy to eat an unhealthy diet? You get caught going out to McDonalds on your lunch break for a couple big macs, well... Theres no law that says they can't fire you for that.
Or maybe they want people to be spiritually healthy. Perhaps they decide that they don't want to hire anyone who attends a different denomination church than they do.
I'm not saying they aren't legally permitted to do these thigns just as they did with smoking. But its still an @#$%hole thing to do.
I'll wait while one of you figures out how smoking is protected under the law. Maybe you can argue it's a disability.
ciba said:
Exactly the point I was going to make. I don't think smokers are a "protected class."
This is absolutely correct and I fully agree that the business owners have every right to decide how to best run their business. Also, I hate cigarettes. However, I like having an occassional cigar. I heard about this on the radio yesterday, any my only concern regarding this issue was this:
Suppose some insurance underwriter does some market research and finds that people who live an alternative lifestyle are considered a higher health risk. Or suppose that the underwriter finds that people who have had a work related injury in the past are more likely to have another work related injury in the future. Or suppose that he finds that people who have been involved in an personal automobile accident are more likely to have a work related injury. Or he finds that people who's ancestors have a history of heart disease blah blah blah... And the insurance company adjusts their rates according thus forcing their client companies to adjust hiring practices based around these parameters to keep their company premiums low.
This is bad for two reasons. Number one, it opens the door for potential abuse and discrimination against employees along a number of lines, some traditional some not. After all, your don't have a constitutionally protected right to have a job. Secondly, it puts the insurance company at the helm of hiring practices across the state/nation sending their client companies on a costly roller coaster ride each time a policy adjustment is made and they have to come into compliance or face raised rates.
The point of any business is to make money. The insurance business is no exception. Their interest lies in collection premiums while maintaining as low a payout ratio as possible. It simply isn't in their best interest to consider the best interests of either the client company or the individual employee being insured. Now, obviously they have to keep things within reason lest they lose business to the competition. However, supply and demand WILL normalize rates and acceptable practices, and "within reason" will become a fuzzy and sometimes abusable line as a result. Over time, chaos and a powerful lobby could easily break this system down into outright abuse by the insurance companies.
I'm as libertarian as they come. I just don't see this as an OVERALL good. When the law institutes a mechanism whereby one industry can exercise control over all others, the free market discontinues being free.
My fundamental issue with this is that people who make healthy lifestyle choices subsidize those who don't under "group" insurance plans. I would be opposed to these firings if there were two insurance groups, one for smokers and one not. I think it is reasonable that they carry the increased burden their choices make.
