Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

[RugbyBuck]

Folks, it may suck, it may be wrong, it may be bad business, and it may be discrimination, but it is not illegal discrimination and, therefore, is not unlawful. Any company in an at-will employment state, assuming it's not a union shop, can fire an employee for any reason or no reason, as long as it isn't an expressly unlawful reason. Anyone that sues that company will lose early and wind up paying the company's costs and possibly it's attorneys' fees, depending on MI law, and there won't be an appeal, Wingate.

I could, and probably should (both for frequency and content), be fired for BuckeyePlanet participation. I could be fired for continuing to play rugby or because one of my best friends is gay or because my wife works rather than being a stay-at-home mom. The fact is that I'm in an at-will state and I'm not a partner in this firm. It's their company. That's not illegal discrimination and it's not regulation. It's called capitalism.

 

[jcfiesta]

It's total bullshit. I dont smoke, I never will, and I think those that do smoke are stupid as shit for ever getting started...however, it's a personal choice, and people should not be fired for smoking on their own time. The company uses the excuse that smoking raises their health costs. Fuck them. What's next? Are they going to make eveyone become fucking vegetarians because red meat is bad for you? Will they forbid you from playing sports because you may get hurt? Will they forbid couples from fucking to eliminate lost time due to employee pregnancy? As long as your actions do not directly affect your performance at work or reflect a negative image on the company, employers have no right to terminate you for your off-duty actions.

Getting pregnant is a choice just as smoking, I'd agree w/ mili that this is BS to fire someone because of smoking at home. I run a small business and will consider smokers for factory work but not for office/customer service positions. Not a written policy but a common sense approach to presenting the best image to customers. Our customer service employees have direct contact w/ customers on a limited basis (mostly on the phone) but I don't want them reeking of tabacco leaving a poor impression. The smokers in the factory have no problem with their individual scrap bins/trash cans overflowing as they are always emptying in the outside dumpster while hitting a cig. I am fortunate enough not to have to make hiring decisions based on health care costs but things may change in the future. Health care costs in my business are $20.00 for every $1000 in sales (2%) and climbing. If you smoke you do limit your chances of getting hired, same with the biggies, people with offensive body odor, or those that dress poorly.

 

[scooter1369]

I'm a smoker, and I don't have a problem with this policy. Also, it is completely legal, at least in Ohio. Yeah, you can do what you want on your own time...go ahead. But if you smoke on your own time, then work someplace else. There are several companies in Ohio that have this policy, and have had for quite some time. I interviewed for a job at State Auto Insurance Company about five years ago, and they had this policy in effect. If you used tobacco, you didn't get hired. Period. I told the guy I interviewed with that I smoked a cigar on New Year's Eve, but that was it....and he told me I had no shot. Half the reason people are pissed about this is because it's something that is being taken away. If this policy was in place when they were hired, they wouldn't have a problem with it. Rules are rules. I can understand being pissed when the rules change halfway through the game (so to speak), but don't say this is illegal. In all reality, tobacco itself shouldn't be legal.

You're right. Just as the company I used to work for included in their interview process that "this is a smoking facility, do you have a problem with that"? Everyone who got hired agreed to tolerate the fact that people there smoked. Then two bitches after being hired and agreeing to the policy took them to court to change it to a non-smoking facility and won.

In this case, they changed their rules to eliminate undesirables. If it had been a policy when they were hired, I'd say they have no recourse. But to be fired for something you legally do in your own home is absurd.

Even in Ohio, to fire a person, as a manager or supervisor you have to "make book" on someone to be able to prove the firing was justified. I've dealt with this before. Especially when dealing with minorities.

Getting pregnant is a choice just as smoking, I'd agree w/ mili that this is BS to fire someone because of smoking at home. I run a small business and will consider smokers for factory work but not for office/customer service positions. Not a written policy but a common sense approach to presenting the best image to customers. Our customer service employees have direct contact w/ customers on a limited basis (mostly on the phone) but I don't want them reeking of tabacco leaving a poor impression. The smokers in the factory have no problem with their individual scrap bins/trash cans overflowing as they are always emptying in the outside dumpster while hitting a cig. I am fortunate enough not to have to make hiring decisions based on health care costs but things may change in the future. Health care costs in my business are $20.00 for every $1000 in sales (2%) and climbing. If you smoke you do limit your chances of getting hired, same with the biggies, people with offensive body odor, or those that dress poorly.

So how do you go about that? Its illegal to ask those sort of questions in an interview as it does not pertain to the job description and can be used for discriminitory purposes.

 

[AKAK]

In all reality, tobacco itself shouldn't be legal.

Yes-- Because that's what I want... More rules.

Let's all go hang out with the Temperance biddies too.


I'm sure it can't be this easy, but... this whole anti smoking thing is driven by a bunch of nosey assholes who want to save other people from themselves, backed financially by insurance companies and count on public support from those who are annoyed by smokers... (By the way, second hand smoke damage "statistics" are so inflated, and in a lot of cases flat out 'made up' its not funny, remember, these are the idiots who spent five years spreading the myth that second hand smoke is more dangerous than actually smoking ) So the answer here is to have the smokers pay higher insurance premiums. I do. This way the smokers can have an additional cost benefit analysis to consider.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

One of the things that really pisses me off is the company drug-testing for tobacco use. Last time I checked, tobacco wasn't an illegal substance (although many think it should be). If I'm not mistaken, most if not all states have rules against companies discriminating against potential employees based on medical history, to keep those companies from declining applicants simply because the company feels they may develop costly diseases just because others in their family had those diseases. I've already had cancer once, and cancer and diabetes runs rampant in my family (my aunt just died from cancer a few weeks ago). Should a company be allowed to refuse me employment because of that? Or, in the case of the company which is the subject of this thread, should they be allowed to fire me after I've already been employed with them just because they find out I'm a cancer/diabetes risk?

 

[RugbyBuck]

Generally, although there is some variation by state, they can't fire you for what you have or have had, but they can fire or refuse to hire you because of things you do. Bassackwards in many respects, I know.

Glad to hear you've beat it once, Mili. My family has a pretty pronounced cancer history, as well. I drive my doctor nuts about PSAs even though I'm only 35. My dad beat prostate and kidney. I hope that when/if the time comes, that I'll be that tough.

 

[Thump]

One of the things that really pisses me off is the company drug-testing for tobacco use. Last time I checked, tobacco wasn't an illegal substance (although many think it should be). If I'm not mistaken, most if not all states have rules against companies discriminating against potential employees based on medical history, to keep those companies from declining applicants simply because the company feels they may develop costly diseases just because others in their family had those diseases. I've already had cancer once, and cancer and diabetes runs rampant in my family (my aunt just died from cancer a few weeks ago). Should a company be allowed to refuse me employment because of that? Or, in the case of the company which is the subject of this thread, should they be allowed to fire me after I've already been employed with them just because they find out I'm a cancer/diabetes risk?

Mili, you actually being up some good points here.

I'm surprised High Blood Pressure doesn't run in your family considering some of your roid rages!!!

 

[MyDixieWrecked]

Rugby: Do you have a law background? I think you've just about nailed this one.

I don't think this will hold up - primarily because it is too much of an intrusion into the employee's personal life. However, if they are employees-at-will (no contract), there is no legal reason why it will not hold up. Smokers are not a protected class. The employer may be able to show a cost relationship between smoking and insurance premiums and absenteeism. The workers may argue that the American with Disabilities Act protects them. They will argue that smoking is a disease (like alcoholism), and that they are therefore disabled. Thus the ADA requires the employer to reasonably accommodate their disability.

That being said, alcoholism is 'classified' as a disease, but that is bull shit and an insult to anyone with a real disease. Alcoholism is an adiction and a dependancy on alcohol, real diseases are not a product of a character flaw (self-control).

Sorry if i didn't say it, Tibor would have

 

[RugbyBuck]

Rugby: Do you have a law background? I think you've just about nailed this one.

It's what I do to pay the bills so my wife will let me travel to play rugby.

 

[FKAGobucks877]

Yes-- Because that's what I want... More rules.

Let's all go hang out with the Temperance biddies too.


I'm sure it can't be this easy, but... this whole anti smoking thing is driven by a bunch of nosey assholes who want to save other people from themselves, backed financially by insurance companies and count on public support from those who are annoyed by smokers... (By the way, second hand smoke damage "statistics" are so inflated, and in a lot of cases flat out 'made up' its not funny, remember, these are the idiots who spent five years spreading the myth that second hand smoke is more dangerous than actually smoking ) So the answer here is to have the smokers pay higher insurance premiums. I do. This way the smokers can have an additional cost benefit analysis to consider.

AKAK, don't get me wrong, I don't want more rules either. I just find it amusing that more and more municipalities are moving towards smoking bans, and now companies are apparently heading in the same direction. I am a smoker, at least for now, but I don't see how it is any more illegal or unconstitutional for a company to fire smokers than it is for a city to ban smoking in public places and buildings.

Oh, and smokers do have to pay higher insurance premiums for both health care and life insurance. At least, if you admit it...or if you have to take a physical.

 

[ScarletInMyVeins]

For those who said the company should fire the fat people... here ya go

From nbc4i.com

Health Care Company That Fired Smokers Also Targeting Fat
Weyers Won't Fire Employees For Obesity

POSTED: 10:20 am EST 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.

Edit: I only read the headline and not the story before posting it. I thought it was gonna say that the employees were told they had to lose weight or they would be fired.