And in Okemos, Michigan....

[frazzledspice]

all smokers were fired from Weyco, Inc. on January 1.

OKEMOS, Mich. A Michigan company's decision to dismiss workers who smoke, even if it's on their own time, has privacy and workers' rights advocates alarmed and is raising concerns about whether pizza boxes and six packs are the next to go.

Weyco Inc., an Okemos-based medical benefits administrator, said its offer of smoking cessation classes and support groups helped 18 to 20 of the company's nearly 200 workers quit smoking over the past 15 months.

But four others who couldn't or wouldn't no longer had jobs on Jan. 1.

"We had told them they had a choice," said Weyco Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes. "We're not saying you can't smoke in your home. We just say you can't smoke and work here."

Such policies basically say employers can tell workers how to live their lives even in the privacy of their own homes, something they have no business doing, said Lewis Maltby, president of The National Workrights Institute in Princeton, N.J., a part of the American Civil Liberties Union until 2000.

Should a company be able to fire a person based on his behavior in his own home in his own free time?

[realtraveller]

Weyco should be thinking of how much smokers are saving the pension fund.

[anderclayton]

Its based on insurance. The abiding rationale behind the seat belt laws (once you get past the bogus for-your-own-good stuff) is that they are allowed to have them because of insurance premiums. Same sort of rationale so what is the problem?

Ander

[Prepoia[$]]

The problem is that it takes away your personal rights! Performance on the job is the only business of the employer. And don't give me the "but it costs the company in time off etc." Those factors are a part of owning a business. We have a job that we go to and give them their money's worth but when not on the job, people have the right to live their lives as they choose (illegal actions are a case for authorities.) My employer doesn't own me.

Sandy
Who doesn't smoke

[eris esoteric]

Been seeing this one in the news.

I would say that I don't think that they have the right to change the conditions of employment after a person's been hired. If they want to encourage people to not smoke, fine. If they want to change hiring practices and hire only non-smokers, fine. But suddenly changing the rules and firing people because they partake in a legal activity in their own homes is, I believe, grounds for a suit for contract breaking and improper firing.

I am NOT a lawyer, however, I am only speaking from my moral outrage and two classes in business law *mumble* years ago in college.

[erik_kosberg]

< I_am_not_a_lawyer_and_I_do_not_play_one_on_TV >
I think Michigan is an “at will employment” state. For better or worse, a company can hire or fire in “at will” states for any reason they want except for a few very specific reasons (race, religion, national origin, etc.) and smokers are not one of the protected classes.

[frazzledspice]

A few years ago, there was speculation that companies could, in the near future, screen potential employees for possible hereditary diseases.

I would hate to think that my own children would have problems getting hired because their uncle had MS, an illness with a potential hereditary link which could be very costly.

[Helen_B[$]]

It's spooky when you consider the lengths to which a given company might go to contain costs.

[rmthunter]

And four employees out of 200 is really going to bust the insurance budget now, isn't it?

Bob

[mjfrombuffalo[$]]

There are other ways to discourage employee smoking (even at home), such as giving them higher health insurance premiums. Firing someone based on what they do on their own time seems just wrong to me.

[emeleel]

I'm with MJ. Raise their premiums, shoot, even outright refuse to cover 'em if you want to (assuming legality here), but firing is just wrong.

[Prepoia[$]]

What I do in my free time is none of my employer's (who only pays me for the time I'm on the job) business. This will just be one more step in taking away personal rights and responsibilities. We are continually being subjected to our lives being taken over by others and this is wrong and should be illegal.

[mtomm[$]]

I can be fired if I do not keep certain personal standards, at home, on the job it doesn't matter. My personal conduct has a huge impact on whether or not I can keep my job. BUT I knew that when I took this job. I signed a statement stating as much and therein lies the difference.

These poor folks got shafted. I hope they have found better jobs.

[murasaki]

I also can be fired if I do not keep certain personal standards at home or on the job, including my appearance and my weight. However, even the Army doesn't tell people that they can't smoke or that they'll revoke the healthcare benefits of smokers or family members who smoke (though the Army does offer smoking cessation courses). This company's reason seems specious to me.

[realtraveller]

If the smokers were key employees, big producers etc. they would have no trouble keeping their jobs, smokers or not. Obviously these people were easily replacable, expendable. In purely capitalistic terms, they weren't worth the increased costs they added to the company health plan.

[rmthunter]

It would be interesting to know if those four positions were filled, or if their jobs were just split up among other employees, and what the salaries are for any replacements.

And how much of an increase to the company's benefit costs are 2% of the employee's going to cause?

[cristina1]

Apparently, they want their workers to lose weight, too.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/31/news..._smoking.reut/

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight.

[Prepoia[$]]

Like we've all been saying, "It was only the beginning.......