No smoking...not even at home!!!

ABSTRUSE

Cirque du Freak
Joined
Mar 4, 2003
Posts
50,094
Workers Told 'No Smoking,' Even at Home




By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN, Associated Press Writer

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 (news - web sites) until 2000.


"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 Corp., 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. It hired 5,500 new workers last year and plans to hire 700 this year. About a quarter of the company's 48,000 employees now smoke, and Bromley said it's clear they cost the company more money.


"Looking at our safety records, (we know that) people who smoke seem to have higher accident rates than nonsmokers," he said. "It's no secret that people who smoke have more health issues than nonsmokers."


On Jan. 1, Kalamazoo Valley Community College stopped hiring smokers for full-time positions at both its campuses. Part-time staffers who smoke won't be hired for full-time jobs, and the 20 to 25 openings that occur each year among the college's 365 full-time staff positions will go only to nonsmokers.


"Our No. 1 goal is to reduce our health claims," said Sandy Bohnet, vice president for human resources. "So many diseases can be headed off if people simply pay attention to their health care."


Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia 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 since companies are wrestling with ever-higher health care costs.





"We're doing everything we can ... to get our staff healthier," Weyers said, noting that his company reimburses workers for a portion of health club costs, pays them bonuses for meeting fitness goals and offers fitness classes and a walking trail at its Okemos office.

"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 she signed up for a smoking cessation group a few months later.

"I wasn't about to put smoking ahead of my job," said Boyd, 37, of Haslett. She had tried once before to break her 10-year, half-pack-a-day habit and said she probably wouldn't have been able to quit if not for the new policy.

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. About 4 percent said they preferred not to hire smokers, and nearly 5 percent said they charge smokers higher health care premiums, a policy Weyco put in place a year ago.

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. "It has raised a lot of eyebrows."

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."

___
 
The fug?

There's no way that can be legal.

Oh wait, I'm doing that whole "expecting too much" out of humanity thing again, aren't I?
 
First, they came for the Jews, etc.

Don't be too hard on the idiots behind this policy. They are in pursuit of a perfect world. Such a thing demands a very high price from the unbelievers.
 
ABSTRUSE said:

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 (news - web sites) until 2000.



So, what you are saying is that Holland will kick some English butts later tonight, right?
 
I think they'd be better off just saying, "If you work here and you choose to smoke, we will choose not to provide you health benefits." May be less controversy that way.

I feel similarly about seat belts and automotive insurance -- and helmets on motorcycle riders. Sure, take your life into your own hands -- it's YOUR life, after all -- but don't expect others to pay for it if/when you are injured. (Or, perhaps adjust premiums to take behavior into account. That'd be hard to administer, though, when degree of injury becomes a factor.)





*ducking now*
 
I can see that company filing bancruptcy right after they lose the class action suit that is about to be lodged against them.
 
Dranoel said:
I can see that company filing bancruptcy right after they lose the class action suit that is about to be lodged against them.

I'm with Dran. The Feds will probably step in and help companies who use random drug testing to find hose using illegal drugs, but smoking is legal. I hope the fuckers loose so much in punative damages they have to go into recivership.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
I'm with Dran. The Feds will probably step in and help companies who use random drug testing to find hose using illegal drugs, but smoking is legal. I hope the fuckers loose so much in punative damages they have to go into recivership.

And I hope the principals of the company all die of colon cancer.
 
somewhat related ....

there was a doctor here recently who announced that he would no longer treat patients who smoked. He gave all his smoking patients 3 months to quit, assisted as much as possible etc .. (which was largely successful) any who were not "smoke-free" after 3 months were no longer able to book appointments with him.

Drastic ? yes ... but I applaud his stance on this. His argument was that he was only willing to help patients who were willing to help themselves and not continue to degrade their health
 
Last edited:
[url]www.bruce.[/url] said:
somewhat related ....

there was a doctor here recently who announced that he would no longer treat patients who smoked. He gave all his smoking patients 3 months to quit, assisted as much as possible etc .. (which was largely successful) any who were not "smoke-free" after 3 months were no longer able to book appointments with him.

Drastic ? yes ... but I applaud his stance on this. His argument was that he was only willing to help patients who were willing to help themselves and not continue to degrade their health

The hypocratic oath apparently means nothing to this doctor? Glad he isn't one of mine, I would hate to think I would be refused treatment because I like quarter pounders at some point in the future.
 
I am a nonsmoker but this is crazy. I don't understand how they feel justified to intrude on these peoples lives outside work. I'm afraid to see what is next.
 
[url]www.bruce.[/url] said:
somewhat related ....

there was a doctor here recently who announced that he would no longer treat patients who smoked. He gave all his smoking patients 3 months to quit, assisted as much as possible etc .. (which was largely successful) any who were not "smoke-free" after 3 months were no longer able to book appointments with him.

Drastic ? yes ... but I applaud his stance on this. His argument was that he was only willing to help patients who were willing to help themselves and not continue to degrade their health
But Mr Smith won't have any trouble paying his bills if his doctor won't see him. When he loses his job because of a legal choice of lifestyle, that causes a hardship.

I can find a doctor any time. I'm pretty sure Columbus has at least three or four doctors in town. One of them will treat me if he needs it.
 
Wait until Arnold is President.

Then only people below a certain body fat percentage and with a certain standing heart rate will get health insurance.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
The hypocratic oath apparently means nothing to this doctor? Glad he isn't one of mine, I would hate to think I would be refused treatment because I like quarter pounders at some point in the future.

yep, there was lots of debate in the press about the hypocratic oath .. etc.

you like Quarter Pounders ?? kool:D
 
dr_mabeuse said:
As long as they don't take my airplane glue away from me!

---dr.M.

Acme Insurance Company
Acme NY 10012

Dear Dr. M,

Due to information we gathered on you online, we hereby withdraw your insurance coverage. We have made an entry into the Insurance Industry Central Database as to our reasons, so it is unlikely you will receive coverage anywhere else.

However, we will gladly continue to deduct your premiums from your paycheck.

Too bad about the airplane glue. If it was a joke, and this information is inaccurate, please call our dispute hotline. Is is open from 12:01 AM to 12:02 AM every Feburary 29th. You have 3 days to file a dispute.

Sincerely,

Joe M. Stooge
Acme Insurance (proud sponsors of the Republican Party)
 
They will take my cigarettes away from me in my own house when they pry my gun out of my cold dead fingers.
 
ABSTRUSE said:
...nearly 5 percent said they charge smokers higher health care premiums, a policy Weyco put in place a year ago.

Doesn't this negate anything Weyco might use to defend itself? If their reasoning is that they're trying to save on the company's health coverage costs, this surcharge should be enough. A smoker in his/her twenties is going to be paying far more for coverage for a long time before they ever get sick.
 
Lisa Denton said:
They will take my cigarettes away from me in my own house when they pry my gun out of my cold dead fingers.
AMEN AND HALLELUJAH!!!
 
Just a perspective on this...

Where I work, there is a non-smoking policy.

That doesn't mean you can't smoke. In fact several people do smoke in their private time. But if you're at the office, or inside the buiding,you can't smell like a smoker. Not at all. Not even a trace.

There are five people with severe smoke allergy in the office, and if they feel any discomfort with your smoke impregnated hair or clothes, you're told to go home, take a shower and change clothes, or else you're not welcome in the building.

This means nobody smokes while at work, or at lunch, or at breaks. Because that will make it hard for some of their co-workers to breathe. And those that do smoke are careful to leave that behind when coming to work. It's a respect thing. For some, passive smoking is not limited to people just blowing smoke at you. It's more sneaky than that. Those with allergies have the right to not choke while trying to do their job.

Likewise, people who bathes in perfume are not welcome. I'm one of those who can't breathe in too much of those fumes.

#L
 
Last edited:
Liar said:
Just a perspective on this...

Where I work, there is a non-smoking policy.

That doesn't mean you can't smoke. In fact several people do smoke in their private time. But if you're at the office, or inside the buiding,you can't smell like a smoker. Not at all. Not even a trace.

There are five people with severe smoke allergy in the office, and if they feel any discomfort with your smoke impregnated hair or clothes, you're told to go home, take a shower and change clothes, or else you're not welcome in the building.

This means nobody smokes while at work, or at lunch, or at breaks. Because that will make it hard for some of their co-workers to breathe.

#L

Thing is, that's not what's going on here. This is a monetary issue, no matter how they might try to dress it up as a health issue.
 
LadyJeanne said:
Thing is, that's not what's going on here. This is a monetary issue, no matter how they might try to dress it up as a health issue.
I know. Just saying that it has health benefits too, something that many 'allow me to do what I damn well please'-people tend to overlook.
 
Liar said:
I know. Just saying that it has health benefits too, something that many 'allow me to do what I damn well please'-people tend to overlook.

True. I just hate that we're getting closer and closer to Big Brother every day.

Next, they're going to want to monitor your sex life. Anal sex is more dangerous, and we don't want to pay for your infections, so you can't do that. No, you can't have casual sex anymore; spreads disease. No, don't have a baby; it costs us too much money.
 
things like this can ONLY take place in the Excited States of America
 
Back
Top