You smoke? You're fired!

[Baker]

More companies are taking action against employees who smoke off-duty, and, in an extreme trend that some call troubling, some are now firing or banning the hiring of workers who light up even on their own time.

The outright bans raise new questions about how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock. The crackdown is coming in part as a way to curb soaring health care costs, but critics say companies are violating workers' privacy rights. The zero-tolerance policies are coming as more companies adopt smoke-free workplaces.

• Weyco, a medical benefits provider based in Okemos, Mich., this year banned employees from smoking on their own time. Employees must submit to random tests that detect if someone has smoked. They must also agree to searches of briefcases, purses or other belongings if company officials suspect tobacco or other banned substances have been brought on-site. Those who smoke may be suspended or fired.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/compa...moke-usat_x.htm

 

[crimresearch]

Anything new on this issue since January?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51899&highlight=Weyco

 

[Baker]

Anything new on this issue since January?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51899&highlight=Weyco

The article deals with more companies taking action against employees who smoke off-duty.
However I wasn’t aware of the thread from January.

 

[shanek]

More companies are taking action against employees who smoke off-duty, and, in an extreme trend that some call troubling, some are now firing or banning the hiring of workers who light up even on their own time.

Their business, their right.

The outright bans raise new questions about how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock.

They can't and aren't regulating their behavior at all. They're just exercising their rights as to what kind of people they want working for them. As long as there isn't anything in the employment contract that prohibits them from doing this, they have the right to hire and fire whomever they want.

What if it were a black business owner who fired someone for demonstrating with the KKK and burning crosses in his own time? Would you still be outraged?

 

[El Greco]

1) This is idiotic.
2) Unfortunately it can't be stopped.

In the past it was women, now it is smokers, tomorrow it will be fat people, the day after tomorrow all those with bad DNA, and before we know it we'll be living in the world of "Gattaca".

Great. Just great.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

Their business, their right.

That is true. That doesn;t make it one bit less alarming. Just because they have the RIGHT to do it, doesn't mean that they aren't scumbags if they DO do it. They might have the right to act like scum, but that doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't call them scum when they do. I don't think that there is much more scumbaggy a thing than for a company to decide to treat its employees as property, and that is exactly what this company is doing.

They can't and aren't regulating their behavior at all. They're just exercising their rights as to what kind of people they want working for them. As long as there isn't anything in the employment contract that prohibits them from doing this, they have the right to hire and fire whomever they want.

What if it were a black business owner who fired someone for demonstrating with the KKK and burning crosses in his own time? Would you still be outraged?

No, they are regulating these people's behavior. They have something over them (the threat of losing their jobs) and are using that to determine what the employee does in their private time. Granted the employee has the right (in theory) to walk off the job if he doesn't like it, but there can be a zillion things that make that 'option' unrealistic. And yes, I would be just as offended if the company fired someone for demonstrating with the KKK on their own time. Would you be just as prone to defend the company if the owner decided he wanted to create a forbidden book list of tomes the workers were forbidden from reading even at home? I.e. he wanted to make good little Republicans out of all his workers so he decided to forbid anything by Micheal Moore or Al Franken. And the employees would be fired if management saw them reading such a book off the clock in a library? Its much the same thing. You might argue that it's the employers right and I couldn't argue against you, but wouldn't you agree that such an employer is at the very least worthy of derision?

 

[wahrheit]

1) This is idiotic.
2) Unfortunately it can't be stopped.

In the past it was women, now it is smokers, tomorrow it will be fat people, the day after tomorrow all those with bad DNA, and before we know it we'll be living in the world of "Gattaca".

Great. Just great.

I fully agree. Also, I think this would not be legal here in Europe, am I right? Well, at least I hope so. Searching personal briefcases for tobaccco, firing people because they smoked off-duty, submit to tests etc.

 

[Tmy]

Well they have drug testing at companies. No one seems to mind that.

I swear smokers act as if they have a constitutional right to blow smoke in everyones faces and stick us with the cancer bills.

 

[Sushi]

I'm pretty sure shanek agrees with you, 'though I can't speak for him.

The problem is is when people raise alarms over stuff like this, it's usually "OH NO HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT SOLVE THIS???"

 

[Sushi]

I fully agree. Also, I think this would not be legal here in Europe, am I right? Well, at least I hope so. Searching personal briefcases for tobaccco, firing people because they smoked off-duty, submit to tests etc.

So you have a problem with people running their own businesses and hiring who they want?

Nobody has ANY sort of a privilege to be able to work at my store, your store, or any other store. How is this different from asking Ned to run to James' house for you to pick up your pet puppy for you and giving him 10 bucks for his time instead of asking George, because you don't like him?

Hell, I wouldn't hire a scientologist!

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Well they have drug testing at companies. No one seems to mind that.

I mind it. Though I will admit that I find it maddening that more people don't mind it. It's another example of how companies are slowly beginning to confuse 'employees' with 'serfs'.

 

[El Greco]

I fully agree. Also, I think this would not be legal here in Europe, am I right?

Yes, but for how much longer ? If companies start to calculate that they will be saving money from health care costs, then "legal" will become a very relative word... Besides, they can always use backdoors and manipulate things to their liking. "Oh, but we're not firing you because you smoke, how did you get that crazy idea ? We just have to cut on personnel!"

 

[Blue Monk]

I mind it. Though I will admit that I find it maddening that more people don't mind it. It's another example of how companies are slowly beginning to confuse 'employees' with 'serfs'.

I mind it. I don't take drug tests or lie detector tests unless there is a legitimate reason to require them. I did take drug tests when I worked for the county because as a county employee I would sometimes use county vehicles so in that context it seemed reasonable.

But normally I'll just work somewhere else.

You're not the only Dairy Queen in town!

 

[Sushi]

Yes, but for how much longer ? If companies start to calculate that they will be saving money from health care costs, then "legal" will become a very relative word... Besides, they can always use backdoors and manipulate things to their liking. "Oh, but we're not firing you because you smoke, how did you get that crazy idea ? We just have to cut on personnel!"

And then when someone gets fired because they are truly incompetent, it's "OH YOU ARE JUST HOLDIN THE SMOKING MAN DOWN!"

 

[Sushi]

or lie detector tests unless there is a legitimate reason to require them.

There is never a legitimate reason to take the test: it does not work. Unless you believe in it and admit to guilt because you think it's working.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm pretty sure shanek agrees with you, 'though I can't speak for him.

The problem is is when people raise alarms over stuff like this, it's usually "OH NO HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT SOLVE THIS???"

If you are talking to me, let me point out that so far on this thread I have seen no one, myself included, demand government action on the company. If anything, the sort of action I would like to see is the companies workers and people who might buy their products (though I have no idea what they make) tell the company to shove their stupid policy where the sun doesn't shine (and I don't mean Seattle, Washington). I would also like a pony and am fully aware I will get neither one.

 

[Sushi]

If you are talking to me, let me point out that so far on this thread I have seen no one, myself included, demand government action on the company. If anything, the sort of action I would like to see is the companies workers and people who might buy their products (though I have no idea what they make) tell the company to shove their stupid policy where the sun doesn't shine (and I don't mean Seattle, Washington). I would also like a pony and am fully aware I will get neither one.

Trust me, there are people who believe in government action on these sorts of things. Hell, you can't discriminate based on race, religion, etc...

 

[Grammatron]

I am torn - on one handI am for companies hiring who they want, on the other I don't like them telling me what to do.

Then again they are paying money and if the issue is health insurance, then perhaps the employee can opt-out of the insurance and smoke on their time?

 

[punchdrunk]

Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

What if it were a black business owner who fired someone for demonstrating with the KKK and burning crosses in his own time? Would you still be outraged?

The company's stated reason for weaning smokers is cost. Does the business owner incur any cost due to the burned crosses? From someone doing it in his own time? I don't know; perhaps bad publicity leading to lower sales. Unless it could be proven that the issue was picked up by the local community and the owner could show it led to lower sales, I just don't see it.

On the other hand, if Michael Eisner showed up at a press conference with a teeshirt on of Mickey Mouse sporting a short mustache, nazi uniform and a swastika armband, it seems like common sense that Disney should be able to fire him. Even if it isn't shown that his shirt caused lowered sales.

Perhaps I'm missing something, I don't know. But it's a gray issue to me and that is troubling when it comes to liberties.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: You smoke? You're fired!

That is true. That doesn;t make it one bit less alarming. Just because they have the RIGHT to do it, doesn't mean that they aren't scumbags if they DO do it.

Granted. Call them scumbags all you want. But the phrase "how far companies can go in regulating workers' behavior when they are off the clock" certainly states there should be some sort of government intervention here. There shouldn't be.

What can be done is speaking out against it, boycotting their products, etc. Vote with your dollars.

No, they are regulating these people's behavior. They have something over them (the threat of losing their jobs) and are using that to determine what the employee does in their private time.

But the employee has something over them, too: the thread of losing their labor. And if enough employees get sick of this and leave, these scumbags will get the message.

Granted the employee has the right (in theory) to walk off the job if he doesn't like it, but there can be a zillion things that make that 'option' unrealistic.

Just like there are a zillion things that can make firing someone unrealistic.

Would you be just as prone to defend the company if the owner decided he wanted to create a forbidden book list of tomes the workers were forbidden from reading even at home?

Legally, yes. The employer has that right.

You might argue that it's the employers right and I couldn't argue against you, but wouldn't you agree that such an employer is at the very least worthy of derision?

Of course. But as you said above, you can have the right to do something and still be a scumbag.