Fired for Smoking[MERGED]

[Missouri Mule]

Good! I would fire them too. Their stupidity is driving up the health care costs of all of us.
=========================

Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

UPDATED: 8:19 AM EST January 25, 2005

LANSING, Mich. -- A Michigan health care company has fired four of its employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

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 founder of Weyco Inc. 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...

(Snip)

http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/4125477/detail.html

[Churlant]

hehe... I quit cold turkey at 11:23pm, Dec 24, 2004.

Far as I'm concerned, they can hire or fire whoever the hell they like :p Of course, stress levels have a measurable impact on health costs. I'm not sure what kind of company this is (nor do I care again), but if it were a retail store for instance, they could fire all the smokers they like, but they'd likely never find a non-smoker to hire ;)

-JC

[Missouri Mule]

What more can one say?
===========================

From the New York Times, Oct. 13, 1985
: Country-western songwriter and entertainer Sollie "Tex" Williams, a heavy smoker best known for his tune, "Smoke, Smoke, Smoke That Cigarette," died after a year-long battle with cancer, his daughter said. . . . her father, who was diagnosed a year ago as having cancer, smoked two packs of cigarettes a day, dropping to about a pack a day before he died. "He tried to quit, but he couldn't," she said.SMOKE! SMOKE! SMOKE! (THAT CIGARETTE)
======================================
Smoke! Smoke! Smoke!(That Cigarette)
Now I'm a fellow with a heart of gold
And the ways of a gentleman I've been told
Kind-of-a-guy that wouldn't even harm a flea

But if me and a certain character met
The guy that invented that cigarette
I'd murder that son-of-a gun in the first degree

It ain't cuz I don't smoke 'em myself
and i don't reckon that it'll hinder your health
I smoked 'em all my life and I ain't dead yet

But nicotine slaves are all the same
at a pettin' party or a poker game
Everything gotta stop while they have a cigarette

CHORUS

Smoke, smoke, smoke that cigarette
Puff, puff, puff until you smoke yourself to death.

Tell St. Peter at the Golden Gate
That you hate to make him wait,
But you just gotta have another cigarette.

In a game of chance the other night
Old dame fortune was good and right
The kings and queens they kept on comin' around

Aw, I was hittin' em good and bettin' 'em high
But my bluff didn't work on a certain guy
He kept callin' and layin' his money down

See, he'd raise me then I'd raise him
and I'd say to him buddy ya gotta sink or swim
Finally called me but didn't raise the bet!

--Hmmph! I said Aces Full Pal -- I got you!
He said, "I'll pay up in a minute or two
But right now, i just gotta have another cigarette."

CHORUS

Now the other night I had a date
with the cutest little gal in any state
A high-bred, uptown, fancy little dame

She said she loved me and it seemd to me
That things were sorta like they oughtta be
So hand in hand we strolled down lovers lane

She was a long way from a chunk of ice
And our pettin' party was goin' real nice
And I got an idea I might have been there yet

So I give her a kiss and a little squeeze
Then she said, "Travis, Excuse me Please
But I just gotta have a cigarette."

CHORUS


http://www.tobacco.org/History/Smoke_Cigarette.html

[Rivet]

Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke
Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

Maybe they can fire all the people that are overweight, don't exercise, eat junk food, drink too much, smoke dope, ...

Oh wait a minute, there would be no employees left.

[::Major_Baker::]

This is discrimination. Like Rivet said, why not fire people who enjoy red meat?
And what good os firing them going to do for the rest of us? They'll still be an insurance burden.

[Missouri Mule]

Maybe they can fire all the people that are overweight, don't exercise, eat junk food, drink too much, smoke dope, ...

Oh wait a minute, there would be no employees left.

Well, they could. This is a private company and they should have some say-so who works for them or in this case kills themselves on the installment plan. You can be certain a substantial number of companies do not hire people with obvious medical problems. Why take on the baggage when there are other equally qualified people out there? Of course the "civil libertarians" will cry foul, but as one who hired hundreds of people there is no way it could be proven short of a smoking gun.

[The_Comedian]

Will this decision by the company survive a trial?
As already mentioned, it is a discrimination.

Btw: In Germany studies have shown that smokers do more good for the state than bad, because although they suffer more often from lung diseases (e.g.) they also pay lots of taxes through tobacco tax and die far earlier than non-smokers who are a burden for the public sector (cause old people are expensive).

[Strel]

Anti-discrimination laws do not protect smokers...this company just better make sure they stay within the lines...firing people for health problems per se will get them prosecuted by the EEO.

[::Major_Baker::]

Anti-discrimination laws do not protect smokers...this company just better make sure they stay within the lines...firing people for health problems per se will get them prosecuted by the EEO.

If smoking is adversly affecting their work ethic, go for it. If not, it isn't fair.

It would be the same as me firing someone because they like to snowboard, which, could be dangerous and ultimately lead to an injury..

[mataj]

http://www.despair.com/demotivators/demotivation.html

[Churlant]

Hm...


WEYCO, INC was founded in 1979, and is located in Okemos, Michigan. In 1983, we became a licensed Michigan Third Party Administrator (TPA) to administer self-funded Medical, Dental, Vision, and Short-term Disability Plans.

WEYCO, INC is a service company specializing in Employee Benefit Plans and Benefit Management.

WEYCO, INC is also an agent for Insured Plans such as Life, Long Term Disability, Medical, Dental, Vision, and Flexible Spending Accounts.


www.weyco.com

In the context of what this company does, the reasoning behind this decision makes much greater sense.

-JC

[Captain America]

I smoked for years, albeit less than a half a pack a day, but I am going on two months now smoke free and it ain't killed me yet so I suppose I will keep it going. One day at a time.

But this is gonna open a whole can of worms. What's next? McDonalds? Alcohol? Driving an automobile? Sports? All of those things can land you in a hospital.

That song has been around since I have and I am pushing 50. How old was Sollie "Tex" Williams?

My grandfather was born in 1876. He drank his share of whiskey. Especially in his last few years. They told him that if he didn't quit it was going to kill him. Sure enough, at the age of 97 he died. That damn whiskey!

My guess is that if it is protested, it won't stand. But who can tell? As we see our rights eroding, day by day here in America, nothing would surprise me.

I have put aside all of my substance vices. Cigarettes were the hardest. But it can be done. I hope. I still have urges now and again. But I have to say, food tastes better, I don't wake up each morning with the taste of doggy doo in my mouth and my singing abilities have improved.

I highly recommend that anyone who smokes try to kick the habit. Sure, it's tough. But it shouldn't take a a law, a job loss or government mandate to get one to want a healthier life.

But if anyone thinks that quitting smoking or anything else that relieves the cost of health care, will put more money in their pocket from insurance relief, I think they are sadly mistaken. If any savings are realized, the common worker will not see it. Health costs are going to rise regardless. Greed.

But you will save money not purchasing cigarettes and you will feel better. That should be incentive enough.

People tell me that Mr. Bush is cutting my taxes. My paycheck is not any bigger than it was three years ago and I get nice annual pay raises. That extra money is gobbled up by the price increases in my benefits. If Mr. Bush truly wanted us to have more bring home money he would tackle health care costs rather than cutting my taxes and cutting social benefits such as infrastructure and education and any other social programs that the rightwing detests so. Besides, all our money is going to Iraq now. How many billions more is he asking for now?

Bush will not be content until he completely destroys our global integrity, and bankrupts the nation. Oh well, that's not his problem. he'll be gone in 4 years and somebody else will have to clean up his mess. Too bad Clinton can't be re-elected. He cleaned up a Bush mess once. Perhaps he could do it again, but with two term limits already fulfilled, we can forget that idea.

[Albert]

I believe MM has uncovered the cusp of a new movement in health insurance, risk weighted premiums. Many employers carry policies that use current employees (and retires if covered) as their risk pool. Insurance premiums are directly related to the benefits paid in the previous year. It would seem logical that employers should want to control known risk factors and that smoking, diet and fitness could be deciding factors for employee retention or individuals may be required to pay risk adjusted premiums for health insurance.

The flaw in this logic comes when you consider risk factors that are beyond the control of individuals such as essential hypertension unrelated to weight or diet, most type-1 diabetes and hereditary increased cancer risk. Medical science is not far from producing DNA screening that will display individual’s risk factors for a host of conditions. What would prevent employers from screening accordingly?

I believe we have to find a balance between the current attitudes of, “I’ll do what the hell I want some one will pay for it” and “If you ain’t physically perfect you are S.O.L.”

[prst31]

The founder of Weyco Inc. 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...So we're talking about a net of 4 to 6 employees out of 200 here. Simple solution, charge those employees the cost difference in their health insurance policy.
I can't support actions like this because eventually when our genes are decoded at birth, what will prevent this type of action from happening because someone is going to have heart problems when they're 40? As disgusting as smoking is, people still have the right to do it.

[Captain America]

As disgusting as smoking is, people still have the right to do it.

Have you not noticed that there is a new movement in America by a select partisan group that are trying to redefine what your rights are? I would not be so quick as to declare what are or are not our rights anymore. They are hell bent on deciding for us all what is or is not our rights. According to THEIR will.

[Churlant]

So we're talking about a net of 4 to 6 employees out of 200 here. Simple solution, charge those employees the cost difference in their health insurance policy.
I can't support actions like this because eventually when our genes are decoded at birth, what will prevent this type of action from happening because someone is going to have heart problems when they're 40? As disgusting as smoking is, people still have the right to do it.

Interestingly enough, I remember when there was a little box on health insurance forms titled "Do you smoke?" Guess why that box was there :)

For some reason it isn't on forms now... can't imagine why. When I started my current job, I expected to be hit hard in my insurance for smoking - and you know what? I would have accepted it. That didn't happen... and granted I've got what is probably the best medical benefits in my industry and one of the best of ANY company in the country...

But anyway, I agree. Charge them more, why fire em? Unless you're a company which offers insurance to other companies, in which case you'd fire them for image reasons.

-JC

[Rivet]

It would be the same as me firing someone because they like to snowboard, which, could be dangerous and ultimately lead to an injury..

Speaking of snowboarders not getting "hired"...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/snow.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol:

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[::Major_Baker::]

Speaking of snowboarders not getting "hired"...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/graphics/snow.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol:

(sorry, couldn't resist)

HAHA, that was actually pretty funny. Good call.
However, I'd take an ex-hippie snowboarder over and ex-alcoholic bible thumper anyday!

[Missouri Mule]

Anti-discrimination laws do not protect smokers...this company just better make sure they stay within the lines...firing people for health problems per se will get them prosecuted by the EEO.

That's why you don't hire them. Trying to prove discrimination in hiring is much, much, much more difficult than proving discrimination after they are on the payroll. I know, been there, done that. Personally, if I smelled cigarette smoke on a person's breath I would give them the bum's rush (being very nice of course.)

[Missouri Mule]

I believe MM has uncovered the cusp of a new movement in health insurance, risk weighted premiums. Many employers carry policies that use current employees (and retires if covered) as their risk pool. Insurance premiums are directly related to the benefits paid in the previous year. It would seem logical that employers should want to control known risk factors and that smoking, diet and fitness could be deciding factors for employee retention or individuals may be required to pay risk adjusted premiums for health insurance.

The flaw in this logic comes when you consider risk factors that are beyond the control of individuals such as essential hypertension unrelated to weight or diet, most type-1 diabetes and hereditary increased cancer risk. Medical science is not far from producing DNA screening that will display individual’s risk factors for a host of conditions. What would prevent employers from screening accordingly?

I believe we have to find a balance between the current attitudes of, “I’ll do what the hell I want some one will pay for it” and “If you ain’t physically perfect you are S.O.L.”


You are correct about hypertension. I take meds for this condition and a lot of the reason is that I am too damn fat. I sit on my butt here trying to respond to queries and issues, when I should be out walking. So out I go. Later.

[patrickt]

http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html

A company in Michigan fired four employees for refusing to take a test to see if they were smoking at home or off the job. The company says their decision to fire smokers was to save on health care costs.

I wonder who will be next, those who drink or those who don't exercise regularly?

[::Major_Baker::]

That's why you don't hire them. Trying to prove discrimination in hiring is much, much, much more difficult than proving discrimination after they are on the payroll. I know, been there, done that. Personally, if I smelled cigarette smoke on a person's breath I would give them the bum's rush (being very nice of course.)

What if they smelled of elderberries?
Or had a scab on their knee?

[AgentM]

I think this is unfair. Now I have to say that I don't smoke, and never have. And I'm all for taxing the hell out of cigarettes and all that, and banning smoking in public spaces. However, I think that unless smoking actually interferes with the work the employee was doing, that is a really unfair thing to do.

[prst31]

Have you not noticed that there is a new movement in America by a select partisan group that are trying to redefine what your rights are? I would not be so quick as to declare what are or are not our rights anymore. They are hell bent on deciding for us all what is or is not our rights. According to THEIR will.Yes the left want's to redefine a person's right to smoke, drive SUVs, mow their lawns, ride their motorcycle, worship God, marry, have a business, or build a home in a certain location. The left screams about what people do in their own bedrooms being their own business yet they have no problem telling others they can't drive an SUV or smoke a cigarette.
"But those things effect other people (in whining voice)." Yet forcing the left's morality down the right's throat is ok. Pure hypocricy. People, no matter who you are, have the right to believe what you want without it being forced upon you as correct. If someone believes gays should not be married because of their religious or philisophical beliefs, they have that right. If someone does believe gays should be married, they also have that right. But one requires a change in law. Until there is enough support to change it, it must be accepted as the majority opinion and the rights of that majority must be acknowledged.
We came to this country because we wanted to be free. We seem to be getting closer and closer to losing it through radical extremist political correctness. Everytime someone whines about something, EVERYONE has to change. Something effects ONE person so 300 million must change. I'm getting sick of it.

[prst31]

http://www.wral.com/news/4126577/detail.html

A company in Michigan fired four employees for refusing to take a test to see if they were smoking at home or off the job. The company says their decision to fire smokers was to save on health care costs.

I wonder who will be next, those who drink or those who don't exercise regularly?Those who drive SUVs, eat meat, or are (God forbid, republican). Christians? How about people that own leaf-blowers? :D

[ZXL]

How about firing women because they can become pregnant? It will also save costs :)

[Djj1973]

I think this is unfair. Now I have to say that I don't smoke, and never have. And I'm all for taxing the hell out of cigarettes and all that, and banning smoking in public spaces. However, I think that unless smoking actually interferes with the work the employee was doing, that is a really unfair thing to do.


How is paying higher taxes or higher insurance rates not discriminatory? It seems like a catch 22 to me. No matter what a company does here, its descrimination.

[Churlant]

Yes the left want's to redefine a person's right to smoke, drive SUVs, mow their lawns, ride their motorcycle, worship God, marry, have a business, or build a home in a certain location. The left screams about what people do in their own bedrooms being their own business yet they have no problem telling others they can't drive an SUV or smoke a cigarette.
"But those things effect other people (in whining voice)." Yet forcing the left's morality down the right's throat is ok. Pure hypocricy. People, no matter who you are, have the right to believe what you want without it being forced upon you as correct. If someone believes gays should not be married because of their religious or philisophical beliefs, they have that right. If someone does believe gays should be married, they also have that right. But one requires a change in law. Until there is enough support to change it, it must be accepted as the majority opinion and the rights of that majority must be acknowledged.
We came to this country because we wanted to be free. We seem to be getting closer and closer to losing it through radical extremist political correctness. Everytime someone whines about something, EVERYONE has to change. Something effects ONE person so 300 million must change. I'm getting sick of it.

Interestingly enough, half of your tirade doesn't apply to me, and yet I would likely be identified as a leftist.

Generalization Picnic anyone? I've got the creamy cheesey!

-JC

[prst31]

I can't see any of the original pages of the Current events one or the second page of the Business one. What's up?

[Redratio1]

This is discrimination. Like Rivet said, why not fire people who enjoy red meat?
And what good os firing them going to do for the rest of us? They'll still be an insurance burden.

They should fire all Blacks and Hispanics, because their life expectancy is lower than Whites.

[Missouri Mule]

How about firing women because they can become pregnant? It will also save costs :)

That's clearly illegal. Don't hire them if it's a problem.

[Seth928]

Yeah this is complete BS and Rivet put it perfectly.

[historyteach]

Very well stated, Capt!
And, sadly, all too true
Thanks :)
Shalom!

[patrickt]

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_health_story_skin/470987%3fformat=html

The president of the company says he wants to get rid of fat, now.