Company Fires All Employees Who Smoke

a1aara · Post by **a1aara** » January 26, 2005 1:51 pm

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.

nycparrothead · Post by **nycparrothead** » January 26, 2005 1:53 pm

You've gotta be friggin' kidding me! What an idiot this guy is.... He doesn't actually expect to get away with it does he?

iuparrothead · Post by **iuparrothead** » January 26, 2005 1:59 pm

Get used to it. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot more companies, especially small ones, initiate anti-smoking policies & make it grounds for dismissal. Healthcare coverage for employees is the fastest growing expense for most small businesses, if not already the biggest expense. Smoking increase the likelihood that employees will be in poor health, thus filing more insurance claims because they're visiting the Dr. more.

It's a sign of the times.

semitruths · Post by **semitruths** » January 26, 2005 2:00 pm

They mentioned on the news last night that there is nothing in the constitution that prevents them from hiring/firing based on 'smoking'.

land_shark3 · Post by **land_shark3** » January 26, 2005 2:01 pm

Since this is a health care company, I can see the logic. On top of that, some states (like Georgia) are right-to-work states. They can fire you for no reason.

iuparrothead · Post by **iuparrothead** » January 26, 2005 2:01 pm

semitruths wrote:They mentioned on the news last night that there is nothing in the constitution that prevents them from hiring/firing based on 'smoking'.

Private companies can establish it as a policy and grounds for dismissal if they want to.

sonofabeach · Post by **sonofabeach** » January 26, 2005 2:01 pm

What's next?
Fatties like me?

Seriously , Many years ago I worked for a company that would not hire smokers. Really no big deal, especially if you know this going in.

rednekkPH · Post by **rednekkPH** » January 26, 2005 2:03 pm

semitruths wrote:They mentioned on the news last night that there is nothing in the constitution that prevents them from hiring/firing based on 'smoking'.

In states that are not consiered "right to work" states, you can hire/fire for ANY reason as long as it doesn't violate the provisions of the Federal EEO Act (age, gender, religion, which way your gate swings, etc.)

iuparrothead · Post by **iuparrothead** » January 26, 2005 2:03 pm

sonofabeach wrote:What's next?
Fatties like me?

I don't know if you're fat, but it's also very possible that companies could initiate mandatory weight loss programs for the same insurance reasons.

rednekkPH · Post by **rednekkPH** » January 26, 2005 2:04 pm

land_shark3 wrote:Since this is a health care company, I can see the logic. On top of that, some states (like Georgia) are right-to-work states. They can fire you for no reason.

Got that backwards, I think. GA is not a right to work state, therefore they can hire or fire at will, as long as it doesn't violate the EEO Act.

sonofabeach · Post by **sonofabeach** » January 26, 2005 2:06 pm

iuparrothead wrote:
sonofabeach wrote:What's next?
Fatties like me?
I don't know if you're fat, but it's also very possible that companies could initiate mandatory weight loss programs for the same insurance reasons.

I'm what some would call, uh husky! yeah that's it

A mandatory weight loss or you're outta here would trim me down for sure. What motivation!! I need a fire lit under me

iuparrothead · Post by **iuparrothead** » January 26, 2005 2:12 pm

sonofabeach wrote:
iuparrothead wrote:
sonofabeach wrote:What's next?
Fatties like me?
I don't know if you're fat, but it's also very possible that companies could initiate mandatory weight loss programs for the same insurance reasons.
I'm what some would call, uh husky! yeah that's it
A mandatory weight loss or you're otta here would trim me down for sure.
What motivation!! I need a fire lit under me

Seriously. I do research on bariatric/gastric bypass procedures & for a while the trend was higher surgery approval rates from insurance companies but now it's on the decline, because they are pushing for more extensive/longer weight loss treatment & counseling before surgery. Therefore, companies may take it upon themselves to write policy for obese workers making it mandatory to lose weight in attempts to lower or eliminate co-morbities like diabetes, asthma, hypertension, sleep apnea, etc.

LIPH · Post by **LIPH** » January 26, 2005 2:16 pm

Why don't they just require all employees to take a physical and if anyone is high risk for a disease, any disease, charge them more for their health insurance? Insurance companies do it for car insurance all the time. If you're a lousy driver you pay more for insurance than a good driver.

iuparrothead · Post by **iuparrothead** » January 26, 2005 2:17 pm

There's potential for that too.

pair8head · Post by **pair8head** » January 26, 2005 2:40 pm

Stand by for the law suit.

rednekkPH · Post by **rednekkPH** » January 26, 2005 2:43 pm

pair8head wrote:Stand by for the law suit.

I'm sure there will be one, but I'm not sure it will be successful. Michigan is not a RTW state.

pair8head · Post by **pair8head** » January 26, 2005 2:46 pm

rednekkPH wrote:
pair8head wrote:Stand by for the law suit.
I'm sure there will be one, but I'm not sure it will be successful. Michigan is not a RTW state.

Matters not, they will base the lawsuit on discrimination. Smoking is legal therefore would be subject to this in my non legal minded opinion.

iuparrothead · Post by **iuparrothead** » January 26, 2005 2:49 pm

pair8head wrote:
rednekkPH wrote:
pair8head wrote:Stand by for the law suit.
I'm sure there will be one, but I'm not sure it will be successful. Michigan is not a RTW state.

Matters not, they will base the lawsuit on discrimination. Smoking is legal therefore would be subject to this in my non legal minded opinion.

Yes, but dressing in a clown suit is legal as well, but if a company has a dress code policy that does not allow for wearing a clown suit to work in and employees don't adhere, there is legitimate grounds for dismissal.

nycparrothead · Post by **nycparrothead** » January 26, 2005 2:49 pm

pair8head wrote:
rednekkPH wrote:
pair8head wrote:Stand by for the law suit.
I'm sure there will be one, but I'm not sure it will be successful. Michigan is not a RTW state.

Matters not, they will base the lawsuit on discrimination. Smoking is legal therefore would be subject to this in my non legal minded opinion.

That was my thinking too.. But since when do I know anything.

aquaholic · Post by **aquaholic** » January 26, 2005 2:50 pm

land_shark3 wrote:Since this is a health care company, I can see the logic. On top of that, some states (like Georgia) are right-to-work states. They can fire you for no reason.

like posting when u should be working????