Topic awaiting preservation: Where there's smoke, you'll be fired...

OK, I understand all about public health concerns and that there's a lot of pressure to get people to stop smoking.
I also understand companies that adopt a no-smoking policy in their building/property/during the workday.

But interfering with what I do over the weekend seems like taking things a step to far IMHO.

This company in Michingan apparently adopted a policy that they can fire their employees if they smoke (regardless of when they do it)
The Story
and the company founder clarification

What baffles me is the reasoning of the founder concerning "as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else". Sure, he's right to some extent but take that reasoning one step further and you'll not be able/allowed to do much at all; Don't drink (rehab cost money), don't drive (bad for the global environment) etc.. etc..


When I read it I kind hoped it was a hoax or something, but apparently not..

I saw this on the news this morning and was going to do a thread on it too! Well fast people beat late risers to posting i guess. I thought this was really dumb. I can see firing somebody for smoking while they work, especially in the food industry, or taking way too many smoke breaks. But what i do on MY off time is MY problem, unless it's illegal. Last time i checked smoking cigarettes wasn't illegal. Even though companies can do this i don't think they should be able to.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Freedom goes both ways.

You're free to do what you want on your own time, yes?
Well, then I should be free to hire/fire who I want in my company.

If I don't want smokers working for me, their gone. I don't want women, gone. Black people, gone. Sure, an employer like that may not be the most respectable person in the world. But it's his/her company, it should be his/her choice who works for it. Anyways, why would anyone want to work for an employer who doesn't want them as an employee? I know laws have been passed (like the Employment Equity Act) which have stripped away the rights of the people who own/manage large companies to choose who they employ. But these laws are wrong, unconstitutional, and are a smack in the face to everyone who thinks people are able to make their own choices in life.

You don't have a right to a job, you definitely don't have a right to a job at a certain company. The purpose of employment is to get a task done for the person/company that employs you - it has absolutely nothing to do with providing for you or your family, the compensation given to you is a result of an agreement between you and your employer to do work for them. You're doing a service for them, and asking for compensation, not the other way around. As such, a company should be able to set any standards of employee conduct they wish. If you don't want to conform to the standards that are set in the real world, for working for any company, then feel free to go live the nomadic life. Businesses don't owe you anything.

Obviously some degenerate/group of degenerates will take this to court, and probably win a suit against Weyco Inc. for overstepping their bounds as an employer. But before that happens, let me assure you all once again that freedom is more important than equality - and that's pretty much all that needs to be said.

quote:

---

Well, then I should be free to hire/fire who I want in my company.

---

To an extent.

The idea that freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want no matter what is just plain idiotic.

I agree whole heartedly that nobody has an inherent right to a job, and nobody has any gaurantee of "job security" or such things.

But to discriminate on things such as race, gender, religion is absolutely wrong, regardless of your personal feelings. The fact that a person is an employer requires that they act according to a variety of guidelines in regard to discrimination, safety, etc.

To somehow paint that as "unconstitutional" is outrageously ignorant.

I must reiterate: freedom does not mean that you can simply do whatever the hell you want because you want to.

We live in a society.
We have developed that society with a focus on the rights of the individual. But that does not erase the obilgation to the society.

As for the posted article...
I find it absurd that a company would do this.
I think where the problem lies is in the insurance idustry itself. This move was done to save on costs. The costs in question should never belong to anyone other than the person who incurred them by their own irresponsibility (and perhaps shared by an industry which knowingly promoted the addiction to a dangerous product)

(Edited by DL-44 on 01-27-2005 00:15)

quote:

---

But to discriminate on things such as race, gender, religion is absolutely wrong, regardless of your personal feelings. The fact that a person is an employer requires that they act according to a variety of guidelines in regard to discrimination, safety, etc.

---

I agree with this with every fibre of my being. Well said.

quote:

---

I agree whole heartedly that nobody has an inherent right to a job, and nobody has any guarantee of "job security" or such things.

---

I also agree with this.

quote:

---

The idea that freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want no matter what is just plain idiotic.

---

It is also the basis for Anarchy.

I quit smoking for over a year and a half now. It was a personal decision. It was also a damned hard thing to do. The first three days were hell. I took vacation to do it. Looking back, I hope to hell I never relapse into smoking again, because I don't want to go "Cold Turkey" again. I certainly wish I never had started, but I am mighty glad that I had the will to finally quit.

That said, cigarettes are incredibly addictive and not everyone has a strong enough will to quit by themselves. It is not just the physical addiction. Even after one and a half years, I still feel the psycological pull of cigarettes, especially when the stress levels start rising.

I also find that it is ludicrous that a company would try to do this. And how would one "enforce" this? Random tests?

quote:

---

The idea that freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want no matter what is just plain idiotic.

---

I agree with that. The idea of freedom means that you can act freely, so long as you don't limit the freedom of another individual. For example, a person is certainly able to smoke. But if their employer doesn't want to have smokers on staff, then this person is faced with a choice. Quit smoking, or lose their job.

The intersection where one persons free act directly limits another persons ability to act freely results in a choice. First, we decide where ownership lies (in this example, the ownership lies in the company, as it owns the facilities, and controls the income of the employee) - if ownership can be clearly established, then the burden to make the choice should be on the party without ownership, as in this example. Next, if ownership cannot be established, then law must be created with the intent of providing the greatest benefit to society.

Instead of forcing a company to hire workers so that the company reflects the society it is located in. Why don't we just allow society to punish the company for not reflecting the society it is party of by.. oh, I don't know.... allowing the company to fail? If a company thinks it's a sound business strategy to racial profile, and discriminate against certain employees, then I'd claim the best way to punish them is to do absolutely nothing, and allow them to bankrupt themselves when people in the society will no longer use their product/service.

quote:

---

Instead of forcing a company to hire workers so that the company reflects the society it is located in. Why don't we just allow society to punish the company for not reflecting the society it is party of by.. oh, I don't know.... allowing the company to fail? If a company thinks it's a sound business strategy to racial profile, and discriminate against certain employees, then I'd claim the best way to punish them is to do absolutely nothing, and allow them to bankrupt themselves when people in the society will no longer use their product/service.

---

We tried that already Dan - it doesn't work. First of all, it is not always clear which company is offering what service, product, etc. Second, you can't seriously mean what you are saying. History is full of examples that disprove the effectiveness of your system.

Quite frankly, in this day and age, I am a bit shocked to see such antiquated ideas and beliefs still alive.

I suppose women should go back to the kitchen, as well?

Hmmm, this is v.interesting - should companies be able to dictate what YOU do in YOUR freetime - well the answers gotta be an unequivocal NO...

..otherwise you can kiss goodbye to any and lets face it ALL fun, thrill-seeking weekend/holiday pursuits, be this driving a car, a bike, going for a hike, skiing, surfing, parachuting, diving, racing (cars, horses, whatever!), bunggeee-jumping, OMG the list could be endless!!! *

Gesh!

Better stay home and become a couch-potato... but hold on a minute that'll make me lazy, possibly a little fat, heck maybe I'll become obese, wont THAT cost the COMPANY even more $$£$@£$$£$Y$$$@££ in sick days / insurance / hospitalisation costs...

so whaddya going to do...

{!?run and hide!?}

*{edit: I've gotta admit, I'm too chicken for most of these things! LOL)

I totally agree with the points DL made above.

I have no right to a job but then again the company does not have the right to have employees.

I also agree with Dan to some extent. In an ideal world a company acting accoring to such guidelines should be put out of business by the force of market, but sadly I do not think this is the case.

Also from the company view this is (IMHO) absurd. If I ran a company I'd focus on keeping the most talented and devoted people in and fire the lazy morons no matter how healthy a life they would be living.

I'm a bit interested in how they would go about enforcing this. OK, they start out with testing everyone. If I show traces of being a smoker I'm out. Then what?
Random tests? Home survelliance? PIs?

What if I'm exposed to second hand smoke?


As a smoker myself (trying to quit) I would for sure be pissed off by a policy like that of Wayco. But on the other hand I would understand if they cut my medical plan to not include illness related to my smoking habits.
I mean it's not like I'm doing a better job if I don't have a cigarette with my morning coffee at home, but the real "hazard" must be related to any evetual illness and whether that is self inflicted.

Quote:I don't want women, gone. Black people, gone. Sure, an employer like that may not be the most respectable person in the world.

Dan, there is a little thing called discrimination which is illegal in the U.S. If we were governed by a state of nature instead of the screwed up capitilism that we are now than you would be correct. I am not saying that employers do not have the right to fire a smoker, nor am i saying that having a job is a right. It isn't, having a job is a privilege. I am merely saying is that I believe it is wrong for them to fire somebody for something they do on their own time if it doesn't harm work performance or others.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Dan, I truly hope that you are playing Devil's advocate for the sake of pointing out what a ridiculous idea that is.

I lend my skills and abilities to a company because they require them. I work for a company because it requires my knowledge and my expertise. A company employs me because, as it stands, there is nobody else more suitable for the job.
My employer is free to hand me my notice at any moment, but he'd regret it - I've introduced systems and carried out my work in a manner that has earned him more than he could possibly have earned without me. Our clients continue to use our services based upon the previous reliability and quality of the service and the kit, as provided and supported by me and my colleagues.

In a sense, I have been an investment for my company. I have been a worthwhile investment too - rather than see me leave, my employer agreed to a raise of two-thousand pounds (rather a substantial amount in my job).

My employer has often suggested that I should give up smoking, and has even offered me a further raise if I do quit. There are many other things that I do from time-to-time, that he may not entirely agree with, condone, or personally enjoy - but he would prefer a reliable and hard-working employee with somewhat disagreeable habits to an unsuitable one who is a paragon of virtue.

I agree that an employer should have a choice - the choice to deny employment to those who are unsuitable for the positions to which they apply. I wouldn't employ a blind man to choose the colour scheme of my interior decor, and I doubt that I would really be open to accusations of discrimination for stating such, but to suggest that completely unconnected and irrelevant personal habits or practices which in no way affect an individual's ability to do their job, should be reason enough to fire them is preposterous!

Sod it - whatever I do, I'm a social outcast, unemployable, or downright crazy...

I may as well just go the whole hog and take class-A drugs, drive over the limit, treat women like sh*t, hit children, abuse ethnic minorities, and generally live-it-up and have a rip-roaringly wicked time of it.
If not, I'll miss it all when it's illegal to breathe loudly, break wind in public, or eat anything but protein biscuits...

Hell, at this rate I'll be fired for smiling negligently (or something) before I'm thirty!

^ With but few exceptions... the only reason an employer hires anyone is because that individual brings in more money than what they're paying that individual.

Everyone is equating what I said to the proposition that a company should be able to deny you the right to do something on your own time. This isn't at all the message I wanted to put forth.

Lets start from the basics, and create a (rediculous) scenario.

...So, lets say I have a friend who smokes, and in an effort to get him to give up smoking, I tell him that he can no longer enter my house until he gives up smoking (completely gives it up, not just at my house).

Have I done something wrong? (Clearly I've done something stupid, but lets assume that this particular person actually enjoys spending time with me at my place, and put all other stupidity aside...) No. It's my house, I can allow whoever I want to come in. Even when I have stupid reasons, I can deny people access to my house.

Now, lets say that when my friends come over, I make them do my chores. They tidy up, clean my bathroom, cook my meals, and in return, I give them money. Sure... this makes me a horrible friend, but it also makes my friends something: my employees. Now, imagine this business of operating my house goes national, then international. Somehow I'm making money in this wacky venture, and I have a board of directors, shareholders, the works. Now lets say the shareholders elect a new board of directors for the purpose of enforcing my no-smoking policy on all of my workers (they own the house now, it's their call).

What has changed? Somehow making money means that the company has an obligation to society? I don't think so. Otherwise what would we say about not-for-profit organizations? The only real difference is that it makes the news when a big company discriminates.

Look, discrimination is wrong. It's wrong.. horribly wrong, and that's all there is to it. It's wrong to fire someone because of how they dress (enless it has a negative affect on the company), it's wrong to fire someone because of what they look like, it's wrong to fire someone because of where they're from, it's wrong to fire someone because of what they had for breakfast, and it's wrong to fire someone because they happen to smoke. I'm not trying to give a thumbs-up to Weyco Inc. for a policy that can only be described as: "I sure hope this is just for the publicity", all I want to get across is that doing something wrong is still well within the bounds of what an individual, or a company should be allowed to do.

quote:

---

all I want to get across is that doing something wrong is still well within the bounds of what an individual, or a company should be allowed to do.

---

Dan: I have to admit your reasoning elludes me. So help me out here . Give me an example or two of what you would consider 'out-of-bounds' for.. let's say... that same company.

quote:

---

Somehow making money means that the company has an obligation to society? I don't think so.

---

Yes and I do.

Does Union Carbide and Bopahl ring a bell.

Dan - as I mentioned above, it comes down to a matter of responsibility.

It goes along the lines of everyone's favorite spider themed super hero's mantra: with great power comes great responsibility.

When you become an employer, your are bound by certain responsibilites. Period.

If you are going to open that door, you need to take what comes with it. Period.

Otherwise we very quickly go back to a time before such things child-labor laws, when the safety and well being of an employee didn't matter, when the rich could do *whatever* they wanted to the poor with no consequence or acountability.

While that may be a scenario you enjoy the thought of, it's not one that has any arguable justification whatsoever. I would not presumem to put words in your mouth, but your attitude on such things as long as I can recall has leaned this way...

Now, notice that when addressing your position in my earlier post, I did not address the issue of the article posted in the same context.

You very quickly drove your point towards race, gender, etc.
These are more serious issues, quite obviously. But they go hand in hand with this line of thinking, and as a society we need to be careful which direction such an occurance turns.



(Edited by DL-44 on 01-29-2005 04:35)

quote:

---

But to discriminate on things such as race, gender, religion is absolutely wrong, regardless of your personal feelings.

---

I don't fully agree. Discriminating on race, look or gender is absolutely stupid because you are born as you are. And in my view it is normal to have this as a law.

However, I don't see the problem in discriminating on things such as religion or smoking. They're choices. You were not born with faith. You were not born with the habit to smoke. They could be morally wrong to somebody else. Therefore, an employer should have the right to refuse hiring people who made such choices.

But I didn't say it was a step forward equality.

----
If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets.



(Edited by Moon Shadow on 01-29-2005 19:14)

quote:

---

...all I want to get across is that doing something wrong is still well within the bounds of what an individual, or a company should be allowed to do.

---

Right.

Anyone want some of this joint?

Dan you confuse me. How was your point NOT: a company should be able to stop you form doing something on your own time?

Your first statement stated this and your follow up stated arguements for the same.

quote: ...all I want to get across is that doing something wrong is still well within the bounds of what an individual, or a company should be allowed to do.

So....if I wanted to have a person killed it would be okay as long as I was some big corporate business leader???
Please explain how that works.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte