company fires smokers

[nabraxas]

Mich. company fires smokers

Law in North Carolina and 27 other states doesn't allow such discrimination

Weyers said his company tries to help workers' health habits.

By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN, The Associated Press

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, 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.

"If a company said, 'We're going to cut down on our health care costs by forbidding anyone from eating at McDonald's,' they could do it," he said. "There are a thousand things about people's private lives that employers don't like for a thousand different reasons."

Former Weyco receptionist Cara Stiffler of Williamston, one of those who found herself without a job Jan. 1, called Weyco's policy intrusive. "I don't believe any employer should be able to come in and tell you what you can do in your home," she said.

Some companies, while not going as far as Weyco, are trying to lower their health care costs by refusing to hire any more smokers.

Union Pacific, headquartered in Omaha, Neb., began rejecting smokers' applications in Texas, Idaho, Tennessee, Arkansas, Washington state, Arizona and parts of Kansas and Nebraska last year and hopes to add more states. Public affairs director John Bromley said the company estimates it will save $922 annually for each position it fills with a nonsmoker over one who smokes.

"Looking at our safety records, (we know that) people who smoke seem to have higher accident rates than nonsmokers," he said.

On Jan. 1, Kalamazoo Valley Community College stopped hiring smokers for full-time positions at both its campuses.

North Carolina is among 28 states and the District of Columbia that protect workers who smoke, saying they can't be discriminated against for that reason.

Michigan doesn't have such a law, but state Sen. Virg Bernaro has taken up the cause of the former Weyco workers. He plans to introduce a bill banning Michigan employers from firing or refusing to hire workers for legal activities they enjoy on their own time that don't impinge on their work.

Weyco President Howard Weyers thinks Bernero is on the wrong side, especially because companies are wrestling with ever-higher health care costs. "We're doing everything we can ... to get our staff healthier," Weyers said.

"Employers need help in this area. And I just don't think employers' hands should be tied" on how to accomplish that, he said.

Chris Boyd, an 18-year Weyco employee, said she considered the no-smoking policy drastic when Weyers first announced it. But "I wasn't about to put smoking ahead of my job."

The Society for Human Resource Management in Arlington, Va., found only one human resource manager among 270 surveyed nationally in December that had a formal policy against hiring smokers.

Although few companies are copying Weyco's example, "a lot of people are paying attention to this case because it's potentially the edge of a very slippery slope," said Jen Jorgensen, a spokeswoman for the society.

Maltby said he doesn't have a problem with companies raising health insurance premiums for employees who have unhealthy habits. But he worries about what's next on employers' lists.

"If employers are going to make the smokers pay a surcharge, they might as well make the deep-sea divers and the motorcycle riders and the Big Mac eaters and the skiers pay a surcharge," he said. "Smoking, drinking, junk food, lack of exercise, unsafe hobbies, unsafe sex -- the list of things many people do is endless."

web page

[ 17. February 2005, 06:14: Message edited by: nabraxas ]

[gomaos]

well i bet Americans wish for something the rest of the world has had for a long time:

UNIONS. STRIKES.

Fuck those idiotic employers to hell!

[Salvi]

 

quote:

---

Weyco President Howard Weyers thinks Bernero is on the wrong side, especially because companies are wrestling with ever-higher health care costs. "We're doing everything we can ... to get our staff healthier," Weyers said.

---

Right, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the money saved on health insurance.

On a side note, wouldn't it be easy enough to tell them you quit and then continue smoking at home?

[Flip]

well I'm not too sure about that salvia,

the money saved is enough of a reason to get rid of a few people

who can perhaps be replaced with others at a lower wage.

This is all in addition to the motivation that non-smokers can apply to management

over cig butts, "poor air quality", and even a personality conflict with

a die hard smoker.

I know the kinda of pressure insurance companies can apply upon a business.

health coverage and business insurance can be very expensive

Still this is a slippery slope... along the lines of urine testing

and once again motivated by insurance rates and their studies

that support said position of :

Drug using workers are liabilities for a company to have.

[Salvi]

Woops, I meant to be sarcastic on that post. :D

Sorry for any confusion there, Flip. I fully disagree with this companies actions. I think whatever a person does outside of work is totally their own business, as long as it's not infringing on others, or their work etc.

[Torsten]

salvi, how can after-hours activity be none of the companies business if the company has to pay for the effects of any such activity?

I think, if you want to have those liberties at home then don't expect your company to pay for them.

I am not in favour of any company or law restricting personal freedom, but then the responsibility for the effects of this freedom also need to be the individual's responsibility.

We should not forget the fundamental differences in the health systems between Oz and US though. In Oz it is very rare for the employer to pay health inusurance (other than workcover). In the US healthinsurance is often/usually part of the wage package.

In australia I don't think there is any justification for such a blanket smokers ban. However, just like any employer can send home an employee smelling of booze, they should also have the right to eliminate stinking smokers.

personally I could not care less what people do in their time off, but if they come to work smelling of smoke, booze or anything else offensive then why should it not be the employers right to sack them? if a smoker wears non-smoky clothes to work, doesn't smoke at work, and pays his own health insurance then the employer should have no right to interfere.

[ 17. February 2005, 17:40: Message edited by: Torsten ]

[rkundalini]

As soon as you used the word "offensive" Torsten the flaw in your argument was made apparent IMO. Who is the arbiter of "offensive"? If they're anything like the staff at the OFLC, God help us!!

The financial/insurance issue I acknowledge is much more slippery.

[nabraxas]

i agree it's a slippery slope. lookout obese folks...

in answer to Salvi; the company was going to run continuing tests to see that employees were nicoteen free., so lying about it wouldn't have helped.

i guess if you choose to be a wage slave you have chosen to be kicked around like a dog anyway so no real suprises here.

[Flip]

sorry salvi,

while I may not agree with the company

I believe that the engine behind this is actually the analysis

from the insurance companies and worker cost/risk assessments.

imo, Torsen points are valid, a offensive / lacking worker is often

a liability for a company to have in their employ.

Within the United States it is a valid reason to terminate one's

employment if they're deemed disruptive or even inefficient

after providing proper training and or counseling.

To my knowledge, the only way to combat this sort of thing

historically has been the creation of a workers union.

I guess they're finding out what bush adminstration

means be being "pro business" huh?

btw, Given the last decades worth of anti-smoking Propaganda

and resulting laws cultural shifting shouldn't come as a shock.

[ 18. February 2005, 06:05: Message edited by: Flip ]

[Salvi]

Torsten I agree with you that the company should not pay for any smoking related illness. This should be the responsibility of the smoker. I just don't think firing these people was the right solution.

[gomaos]

I believe all companies acting like this should be shut down indefinitely by strikes.

But today's cowardish workers do not support unions.

If cigarettes are so harmful, why are they legal to buy?

[2b]

quote:

---

If cigarettes are so harmful, why are they legal to buy?

---

$$$$$$$$$$$.......

[Salvi]

Of course this must raise the thought, what about people's diets? Should workers not be allowed to eat fatty foods outside of work? I think this is a step in the wrong direction.

[gomaos]

plus all the dangers of sports

any employee actively engaged in say, footy, or boxing & similar, skiing, scuba-diving etc etc etc are so very dangerous and accident-prone, why should the company support their employees with sick-pay?

What about car-racing?

Sooooooo very dangerous!

[MrBumpy]

Gomaos : because if they didn't play sports or exercise, most people become obese, which would then leave them open for the employer to fire them for that reason..

damn... who are they expecting to be able to work in the future? besides robots or cheap indian and asian sweat houses?

-bumpy

[Torsten]

rk - the arbiters of what is 'offensive' are the coworkers. It doesn't matter if this means cheap perfumes, sweat soaked shirts, or stale smoke.

I don't mind people's smoking as long as their freedom and right to smoke does not impinge my freedoms and rights. So, we have no problem employing a smoker, as long as they keep their smoke away from us and their coworkers. But then again, we don't pay for health insurance. And hence we don't care what foods they eat either.

However, if we did in fact have to pay for their health insurance we might feel very differently about it.

Gomaos - not all companies are big multinationals syphoning money off to millionaire shareholders. Many companies only have 2 or 3 employees where the owners/directors work with the rest of the staff. To them a $900 p.a. loss in productivity is a major issue. To them having a smoke-drenched sales staff member would be financial suicide.

Employees constantly want the employer to take more interest and control in their remuneration package. Employees want their employers to sort their insurances, superannuation and fringe benefits for them. But then they complain about the employer safeguarding and limiting these extras. Don't get me wrong, I am all for better working condition and pay, and I am all for unions, but when you push control onto the employer then you should not complain if he takes it. If you don't want your employer to have any say in your private life then don't involve him into it in the first place.

The whole issue of this thread would have no legal justification if emloyees sorted out their own health insurance. I have never understood who's idea it was to include health insurance in the wage package anyway. Surely the last thing employers wanted was another set of paperwork. To an employer it is the same whether they pay the money to the employee or to the health fund, so why not pay it to the employee and let him sort it out himself (like it is done in australia).

Gom, you can't be serious about your question re why tobacco is legal. Probably the same reason why alcohol is legal....

[rkundalini]

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Torsten:

 

[QB] rk - the arbiters of what is 'offensive' are the coworkers. It doesn't matter if this means cheap perfumes, sweat soaked shirts, or stale smoke.

 

---

Geez, how about long hair? Short hair? Certain shades of lipstick? Halitosis? Overly long nose hair? Bumper stickers that say "my other car is a broom"? Dirt under the fingernails! Deodorant-soaked shirts? Slurping your soup at the lunch table? Skin colour?

Coworkers should feel free to be offended by something (I myself find 99% of perfume far more irritating than thick cigarette smoke), and say something to the offender if they wish. But when you start saying this is grounds for sacking someone you're descending into a conservative social engineering nightmare. Soon enough anyone who is not a fat balding 50-something with a Johnny Farnham CD in one hand and an Aussie flag in the other will be out of a job.

[Flip]

Interesting thread.

Three things come to mind here

1) Being the packaging of health insurance with employment.

2) The other having to do with workplace culture.

3) Government and capitalistic pragmatism

Aside from business insurance

(required depending upon national /local laws and risk)

Individual employee coverage got their foothold

as a pitched added incentive when luring prized workers.

Also, working collectively, a larger businesses could

negociate a bulk discount from a health insurer.

- to everyones benefit

This became a standard practice in the business world

Thus removing the pressure for real governmental health case

for it's citizens.

In turn, to maximize profits the insurance companies eventually

conducted cost risk assessments on the workforce...

leading to the situation we have here.

Rkundalini,

RE: social engineering nightmare

all these concerns are currently counterbalanced by the

realization that to each individual, over scrutiny is indeed

a double edge sword. Majority opinion tends to "win" in

these cases as part of a companies identity and "culture"

What tends to happen is that some companies and businesses

tend to attract and hire like minded people that fit into their established culture.

Take IBM and Apple computer for example:

one highly "uptight" and conservative ..

(as a example IBM's dress code involved sock garters )

while apple is much looser and creative without a dress code.

Eventually these cultures can become assets in the marketplace

or not, allowing one to survive and prosper or not.

just like other societies.

In this case, smoking is proven to be a dangerous habit.

and that causes serious health problems that the insurance companies

would have to shell out millions for.

They're just maximizing their bottle line.

imho,

I believe that the US government is coming down on smoking

because the money gained from taxes isn't enough to cover

the uninsured various costs resulting from smoking.

Just one of the downsides of being able to treat

cancer vs letting people all die quickly as in the past.

side note:

rkundalini,

In the united states the "right to offend" is in Serious Jeopardy.

This whole neo-conservative (read fascist) nation I live in

is seriously in need of an liberal enema.

If this continues it'll lead to something like Genomism.

then we'll all be genetically enhanced robots or totally screwed.

[ 19. February 2005, 09:27: Message edited by: Flip ]

[peas-pipe]

Torsten:

if a smoker wears non-smoky clothes to work, doesn't smoke at work, and pays his own health insurance then the employer should have no right to interfere.

What about if this was accepted as truth:

 

quote:

---

"Looking at our safety records, (we know that) people who smoke seem to have higher accident rates than nonsmokers," he said.

I'm not a fan of statistics personally, I suppose I'm paranoid that an "authority" could make any point they want from a carefully sculpted (abstracted from reality) test group. However, lots of professions on this planet use statistics all the time like in the point above, and so in this time and place, statistics carry some clout.

I think that if the above point was proved it would be very persuasive for anti-smoking legislation some time down the road.

[ 19. February 2005, 10:23: Message edited by: peas-pipe ]

[gomaos]

Gom, you can't be serious about your question re why tobacco is legal. Probably the same reason why alcohol is legal....

I guess i just wanted to hear some new points of view and I got at least 1:

$$$$$$$$$$$.......

which pretty much sums it up.

[mr toodly]

Torsten:

However, just like any employer can send home an employee smelling of booze, they should also have the right to eliminate stinking smokers.

Torsten. You know this isn't right. An employer does not eliminate one who smells of alcohol because that person stinks. The employee is eliminated because the smell of alcohol carries connotations of drunkeness and alchoholism. Drunkeness and alcoholism are typically marked by erratic behavior---behavior that isn't conducive to white collar work unless you direct a Human Resources department. Someone who smells of alcohol is sent home because his boss does not want him tripping around the office, vomiting in the filing cabinet, and botching every job he gets his hands on.

I have considered that some alcoholics can drink themselves into lucidity, that some alcoholics operate quite well, that not all drunks exhibit erratic behavior. The employer generally doesn't consider any of this. For a number of reasons, but especially because it's not in line with the popular stigma.

Smokers, on the other hand, operate well on nicotine. It's when the smoker goes without nicotine that his work will suffer. Tobacco doesn't carry a popular connotation of inebriation. Actually, I don't think most non-users even know it's psychoactive.

You have only considered cigarette smell as a stink, and by your reasoning, the employer should also remove all foul smelling workers.

[mr toodly]

RK is wrong. Your argument is flawed because alcohol connotations aren't analogous to tobacco connotations. Even so...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Torsten:

 

rk - the arbiters of what is 'offensive' are the

coworkers

. It doesn't matter if this means cheap perfumes, sweat soaked shirts, or stale smoke

---

Maybe at SAB, but not in any office I've ever been to. Maybe the employers I know are autocrats. The coworkers' offense is only operative when it starts to destroy the overall work dynamic. Usually this is due to something like sexual harassment or racial discrimination.

Anyway, cheap perfume is not offensive in itself. Maybe you should have said "bad perfume". Whatever that is. "Sweat soaked shirts" doesn't denote a smell. Even so, not all sweat smells bad.

In the end, I think, every employer would weigh something like this against the worker's overall value. But if you can, cite some cases where jobs were terminated due to personal odors. It sounds interesting.

[Torsten]

No, I did mean the smell and not the inebriation.

I know a teacher who got sacked because he used to smell of farmyard (he lived in a barn loft). A DJ friend of mine got sacked from AMP for arriving at work smelling of nightclub (booze&smoke), even though he was alcohol tested a couple of times with negative results and had informed his employers before he was hired that he was working two jobs. Both cases were taken to the unions who pretty much said it was their own fault.

I also know a secretary who wanted to get fired to collect the dole, so she wore an excess of a mix of several very bad/cheap perfumes. She was sacked a week after being given a warning.

At SAB we don't care what people smell like, cos by the end of the day we all smell bad. But if I was running a fine restaurant I would not employ a smelly person because it would be business suicide. Also, if I was managing a team of 10 people in an enclosed space and someone smelled offensive to the point of causing discomfort to the rest of the team, why the hell should an employer put up with that?

I have no problems with expression of personal freedoms, but only as long as it isn't impinging on my own or anyone else's personal freedoms.

10 years ago we used to argue that second hand smoke was the right of the smoker to impose on everyone around them. These days that's not an issue anymore because most people agree that someone's freedom should not limit anyone elses.

[Rev]

rkundalini:

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Torsten:

 

[QB] rk - the arbiters of what is 'offensive' are the coworkers. It doesn't matter if this means cheap perfumes, sweat soaked shirts, or stale smoke.

 

---

Geez, how about long hair? Short hair? Certain shades of lipstick? Halitosis? Overly long nose hair? Bumper stickers that say "my other car is a broom"? Dirt under the fingernails! Deodorant-soaked shirts? Slurping your soup at the lunch table? Skin colour?

fucken oath RK

geez torsten

i must say i am truly truly shocked

did u get up on the wrong side of the bed?

i reckon the only thing you should be sackable for is failure to live up to the job description in competency, attitude and execution - eg did the job on time and did it well without bitchin about it

(and yes i appreciate the restaurant analogy - and part of the job description for hospilatilty is to be clean and well presented - hence BO is out)

If the reason for sacking was cos they smelled like smoke im pretty sure you find yourself trying to bullshit your way out of an unfair dismissal case.

if you really think that way torsten then you shouldnt be hiring staff as your obviously not cut out to take on that responsibility

hiring people is no joke - people plan their lives and that of their families around having work and to have fickle and overly anal employers put you through the wringer of losing a job for no good reason is beyond tolerance

Any employer that tried to pull shit like that on me would get my resignation in the form of a fat lip

[ 21. February 2005, 00:32: Message edited by: Rev ]

[Torsten]

So Rev, say funky fungus becomes highly successful and profitable the way you plan it to be and you need to employ one or two staff. They turn up clean enough for the interview, you sign the contract and next thing they rock up to work every day smelling of something you really really dislike (whatever that might be). You can't tell me that you will work 8 hours a day in close proximity to such a person upholding the values you just touted.

Or maybe you would (I've smelled your place at times ), but what about the second person you employed who is really really good at what you want them to do, but will leave because the smell creates an unpleasant work environment? Don't you have a responsibility to them and their rights and freedoms as well?

What about if you opened up a walk-in retail store and your sales staff suddenly decided urine makes good hair conditioner (laugh not, I know someone who does that). Would you uphold this persons freedom to smell of urine while your business goes bust?

A friend who was working in a bookstore was sacked because she failed to notice that she absolutely reeked of her new pet ferret and was keeping the customers away - and that was in Newtown

I know a small local nursery business that employed someone without trial. he was a good worker, but smelled so bad that staff refused to pair up with him. He refused to do anything about the smell. What was normally a pleasant workplace turned into bitchiness and politically incorrect jokes etc. Productivity plummeted. The person ended up being sacked. Explain to me why this person should have been protected? He disrupted the whole workplace, made everyone else feel uncomfortable or worse resentful (if they had to work with him), and he made no attempt to remedy the situation.

You know society works because we all try to be as pleasant as we can to each other rather than all the time pushing the boundaries of where we infringe on the freedoms and rights of the next person. This has nothing to do with arbitrarily conforming to what is acceptable while not intrusive on someone's freedoms (eg dresscode), which is what most of conformity is about. This is about equal rights and freedoms.

If someone smells because they have a physical disorder then we can live with that, but if someone smells because they have an attitude about soap or choose to smoke then why should ANYONE be forced to put up with that?

I refuse to go into employment because I refuse to conform. That is my right. It is not my right to let my nonconformity impinge on someone else's rights. Furthermore, as I am now an employer I also have responsibilities to other employees and to the viability of my business. Do you really think that publicans 20 years ago thought for a moment they would be held responsible for second hand smoke? No they didn't, but these days we recognise the rights of the non-smoker.

In the US employers get sued for failing to maintain comfortable working conditions. Luckily we don't have that here yet, but it doesn't mean that we can't start taking responsibility for it.