4 employees fired for refusing smoking test....

[taoist]

Weyco fires 4 employees for refusing smoking test
January 24, 2005, 2:53 PM


LANSING, Mich. (AP) -- Four employees of Okemos-based health benefits administrator Weyco Inc. have been fired for refusing to take a test that would determine whether they smoke cigarettes.

The company instituted a policy on Jan. 1 that makes it a firing offense to smoke -- even if done after business hours or at home, the Lansing State Journal reported Monday.

Weyco founder Howard Weyers said previously that he instituted the tough anti-smoking rule to shield his company from high health care costs.

"I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.

The anti-smoking rule led one employee to quit work before the policy went into place. Since Jan. 1, four more people were shown the door when they balked at the anti-smoking test.

"They were terminated at that point," said Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes.

Even so, Weyco said, the policy has been successful. Climes estimated that about 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 place. Weyco offered them smoking cessation help, Climes said.

"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.


:scared :scared

 

[toastonastick]

whats next random seatbelt checks for employees.? Better yet, if caught eating a big mac you get the can too!! Complete BS I see a lawsuit coming.

 

[ageecee]

Lawyers are salivating when they read this.

 

[Wilson]

All the money the idiot saved on health care insurance will now go to a few lawyers..fking idiot.

 

[Nick Douglas]

The employer has a legitimate point and there is no way that he will lose a major lawsuit over this. It's all based on insurance. His insurance company offered him less expensive coverage if his employees didn't smoke, so he took it.

Look, if you want to smoke, go find a job where the employer is willing to pay higher health insurance costs to cover you. I know one pot smoker who will only work for a company if they don't test for dope (he's from Wisconsin, not California for what it's worth).

All that said, it is a good point that fast food and alcohol pose a health risk to many Americans, yet cigarettes are singled out by health insurance companies. That is unfair in some ways, but I'm not going to shed a tear after all the years that tobacco companies marketed their product to teens and attempted to hide the addictive nature and health risks of smoking.

My last note is that I hope all you people who are ticked off about this article are equally ticked off about companies that drug test for grass or other recreational drugs. In my opinion personal freedom is personal freedom, whether the drug you choose to take is legal (caffiene, cigarettes, alcohol, vicidin) or illegal (pot, coke). That's one of the reasons I want the conservatives out of office.

 

[marine]

In my opinion personal freedom is personal freedom, whether the drug you choose to take is legal (caffiene, cigarettes, alcohol, vicidin) or illegal (pot, coke).

So can I take it upon myself to have the personal freedom to just take any car I choose from a parking lot?
I mean, my car is nice, but I would really like this shiny red vette that I always see at the grocery store.
Things are legal and illegal for reasons. Personal freedom does not override the legality of things.

 

[dr. freeze]

you should also have the personal freedom to run your business as you see fit

 

[kneifl]

I'm a smoker so I say......

:mj22: :mj10: :mj22:

kneifl

 

[toastonastick]

Nick,

What if one of these employees does not choose use his insurance plan, and uses his spouses. what then?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Since obesity causes more deaths than smoking and actuarily Ins Co do not decline smokers on but will decline the obese on individual policys it is obvious which is the greater health risk.

How bout having them step on the scales--all in excess of obesity height/weight charts--hit the door.

Is there anything worse than politically correct obese bitch whining about secondary smoke as she shovels in the fats grams and complains she worried abouther health

Now I think everyone should respect others. I am only smoker in my entire office---I make it point to quit smoking in bldg 2 hours before employees come in and go outside remainder of day if I feel the urge to fire up. I do it out of respect--without them asking---but let one try and TELL me what I am going to do and they will be looking for other empoyment.

 

[dawgball]

I think it is a fair statement that the business owner should be allowed to not provide insurance coverage for individuals that smoke.

On the same lines, I think it is completely unfair to tell a business owner (bars and restaurants) that their patrons can not smoke if the owner does not have a problem with it.

Nick--you started out good on your post, but you went too far left in the end.

It was also asked if an employer should be able to deny health coverage for other health-adverse conditions. My answer is yes. if it is costing the company and the other employees money, then the owners/decision makers in a company should be able to base their decisions upon that.

I could be wrong about this and convinced otherwise, but my initial take is the one stated above.

 

[SixFive]

The big trend in health care now is "smoke free campuses". Huge hospitals are now completely smoke free. The large local hospital even mandates that employees/visitors must leave the property before they can smoke. It is against the rules for them to even smoke on a break in a car if it is in the hospital's parking lot. I can understand not smoking in the hospital, but I think smokers should be able to at least go to an outside, designated smoking area and light up on their break if they choose (I'm not a smoker, but this seems common sense to me). What the smokers do is walk across the street to a different property and huddle in the cold and dark. Seems like a great opportunity for a mugging/rape.

Until smoking/nicotine are made illegal, I think it is crazy to test for it. Like DTB said, obesity is a MUCH HUGER problem than smoking. Obesity is a common theme in many of my patients. Who's going to recover faster from a stroke, somebody who is 5'6" and weighs 300 pounds, or somebody who is 5'6" and weighs 170 pounds?

I also don't equate smoking and illegal drug use. They're totally different, and I have no problem with anybody having to submit to a drug test whether it be pre-employment or random.

 

[dr. freeze]

i think smoking is probably just as bad as obesity and it is hard to know which one is worse

cardiovascularly they are probably about the same but smoking is definitely related to more problems with cancer

 

[djv]

Soon in about 50 years America will be smoke free. But if they forget to take care of all air pollution it wont matter. So it's almost a joke. I know it's not good for you that's why I stopped 22 years ago. What happen to personal freedom. Make them smoke outside or off campus. But to say they can't smoke seems strong.
Over weight folks cost the system as much as smokers. So know it's time everyone goes back to 165 lbs or your fired.

 

[Penguinfan]

Like DTB said, obesity is a MUCH HUGER problem than smoking. Obesity is a common theme in many of my patients.

It could also be argued that nobody ever got sick from second hand chocolate, or second hand fried chicken, unlike second hand smoke.

 

[dr. freeze]

Soon in about 50 years America will be smoke free. But if they forget to take care of all air pollution it wont matter. So it's almost a joke. I know it's not good for you that's why I stopped 22 years ago. What happen to personal freedom. Make them smoke outside or off campus. But to say they can't smoke seems strong.
Over weight folks cost the system as much as smokers. So know it's time everyone goes back to 165 lbs or your fired.

i would like to see your data on how

1. our weight costs as much as our smoking

and

2. how reducing smoking won't matter if we don't cut our "pollution"