Company fires smokers... [Archive]

Se7en

01-24-2005, 10:43 PM

Company Fires Smokers

Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time

POSTED: 5:53 pm EST January 24, 2005
UPDATED: 6:26 pm EST January 24, 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.
http://images.ibsys.com/sh/images/structures/misc/spacer.gifhttp://images.ibsys.com/sh/images/structures/misc/spacer.gif
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.

Every Lawyers DREAM case :)

Gold9472

01-24-2005, 10:45 PM

BS with a capital B

Se7en

01-24-2005, 10:48 PM

This screams discrimination. The question that should be asked is: Since this company is firing people because they smoke because of rising health insurance, why haven't they fired anyone for drinking alcohol? Stuides have shown that alcohol abuse can lead to serious health issues.

You cannot isolate a single group, and expect it to be upheld. You have to apply it to the majority, or not at all.

Each of those employees will walk away with 100K each. They could also fight to have their jobs back.

princesskittypoo

01-24-2005, 10:55 PM

This screams discrimination. The question that should be asked is: Since this company is firing people because they smoke because of rising health insurance, why haven't they fired anyone for drinking alcohol? Stuides have shown that alcohol abuse can lead to serious health issues.

You cannot isolate a single group, and expect it to be upheld. You have to apply it to the majority, or not at all.

Each of those employees will walk away with 100K each. They could also fight to have their jobs back.

don't forget about the people who overeat... remember they have more health problems than either of the other two...

Se7en

01-24-2005, 11:27 PM

don't forget about the people who overeat... remember they have more health problems than either of the other two...

Exactly. So now companies are going to control people's diets, smoking habits, and alcohol consumption?

Incredible. I would have a field day if I got that case to argue!

Ophie

01-26-2005, 07:35 PM

This screams discrimination. The question that should be asked is: Since this company is firing people because they smoke because of rising health insurance, why haven't they fired anyone for drinking alcohol? Stuides have shown that alcohol abuse can lead to serious health issues.

You cannot isolate a single group, and expect it to be upheld. You have to apply it to the majority, or not at all.

Each of those employees will walk away with 100K each. They could also fight to have their jobs back.
Good point. How about firing people for obesity too? That's costly in the long run. That would be politically incorrect though, so we'll just pick on the smokers. :rolleyes:

Gold9472

01-26-2005, 07:40 PM

Good point. How about firing people for obesity too? That's costly in the long run. That would be politically incorrect though, so we'll just pick on the smokers. :rolleyes:

What about people with hangnails?

Ophie

01-26-2005, 08:03 PM

What about people with hangnails?
Yeah, throw them on the list too. :rolleyes:

Gold9472

01-26-2005, 08:04 PM

Yeah, throw them on the list too. :rolleyes:

The ONLY thing a company MAY BE able to do is charge someone who smokes more for their health coverage...

Se7en

01-26-2005, 09:42 PM

The ONLY thing a company MAY BE able to do is charge someone who smokes more for their health coverage...
No, that can't happen. Even if there was an option to add that to the companies rider, it will still be discriminatory. Do they charge extra for people that have been diganosed with Diabetes? Or maybe Breast Cancer? You don't charge them, you can't charge the smokers.

The only viable argument would be 'well, smoking is a choice - diseases are not'. That really isn't the issue here. What the issue is: is that the company is starting to infrindge on a person's rights. As long as they meet the legal requirements to smoke, then the company cannot dictate what they do in their own time.

Ban smoking from work. That is an option; however, firing people for smoking is illegal.