a place to put random discourses on life
Weyco's Anti Cigarette Standard
Published on January 25, 2005 By lifehappens In Current Events
A Michigan Company, Weyco INC. has instituted a NO SMOKING rule. So what's the big deal? They insist that their employees are 100% no smoking, even at home or when off work. 4 employees were fired after refusing a test that would detect whether they had been smoking. see link here.Link

Wow. As I am a non-smoker, I have no problems with this rule personally, but I can see a BIG lawsuit in the future. People claiming that they have the RIGHT to participate in a legal activity and that the company can not force them to abide by standards that they do not agree with.

My answer to that is.....You do have the "right" to smoke. You also have the "right" to quit your job and work somewhere else. Noone is forcing an employee to quit. The option to leave is there. But unfortunately, this is probably going to turn into a big media issue. "Personal rights being trampled" etc.etc.

The complany does not want to shoulder the burden of smoking related health costs and offered support to those who wanted to quit. I am all in favor of that. The remaining employees will have a healthier workplace and (hopefully) lower premiums for health coverage.

So, what do you think? Do you side with the "Right to smoke" side or the "right to run my buisness how we want"?




Comments
on Jan 25, 2005
I side with the right to run your business as you see fit, so long as it stays on business. When off work the business has no say in anything their employees do, so long as they don't bring it with them when next they work. While I'm all for no smoking at work and such, if this goes through what next? You can only eat certain brands of food? Wear certain brands of clothes? And so on, does work own your life or is it merely someplace you spend part of your day...
on Jan 25, 2005
When off work the business has no say in anything their employees do, so long as they don't bring it with them when next they work


Wouldn't you say that if the off duty behaviour is brought back to work in the form of increased medical costs that the buisness does have the right to have a say in said behaviour?
on Jan 26, 2005
besides, many companys have employees sign contracts stating that their behavior off work is still a reflection of the company, and action can be taken for not complying with the company's standards.
on Jan 26, 2005

Unless I am much mistaken (Karma, can you help me on this?), Michigan is an "employ at will" state (I know Wisconsin is, but I'm not 100% sure about Michigan). This means an employee can be dismissed by a company at any time, for any reason (the only exceptions are where federal anti discrimination laws override; cigarette smokers aren't among the protected categories). Employers can and have dismissed employees for obesity, and the challenges have simply not stood up in any court of law; as smoking is a MUCH more easily controlled variable, I'd have a hard time seeing a lawsuit succeed and not dismissed as "frivolous".


I still think the company is robbing itself of potentially productive employees, when a simpler solution would be to tie employee benefit copays to certain risk factors (smoking being among them), as they DO affect the cost of benefits, but, by and large, I'm with the employer on this one.

on Jan 26, 2005
I'll take the simplistic approach to this one. Smoking is stupid. So anyone who smokes should be imprisoned on an island called "Stupid People Live Here." And the rest of us will run and work for successful corporations that don't have to worry about lost work time due to people always taking smoke breaks.
on Jan 26, 2005
I'll take the simplistic approach to this one. Smoking is stupid. So anyone who smokes should be imprisoned on an island called "Stupid People Live Here." And the rest of us will run and work for successful corporations that don't have to worry about lost work time due to people always taking smoke breaks.
on Jan 26, 2005
I'll take the simplistic approach to this one. Smoking is stupid. So anyone who smokes should be imprisoned on an island called "Stupid People Live Here."


I agree. I used to be one of 'em. Thank God no more...
on Jan 27, 2005
besides, many companys have employees sign contracts stating that their behavior off work is still a reflection of the company, and action can be taken for not complying with the company's standards.


a contract is a good idea...I'm sure they had to sign something...

robbing itself of potentially productive employees

Of course those "potentially productive employees" are more likely to have sick days related to URIs, missed days for dr. apts....etc etc. At some point the company had to weight the benifits. I like how you also suggested
tie employee benefit copays to certain risk factors

but I wonder why that isn't already done in other buisnesses. They could really gouge people who engage in undesirable behavior and make more money.....their may be a legal reason why that hasn't been done....but I like the idea.

anyone who smokes should be imprisoned on an island called "Stupid People Live Here."

I think there are many reasons to be imprisoned on an island....smoking around a sick baby tops my list....(some people are so thoughtless)

PS Congrats Shovelheat!