Fired for smoking Cigs

[Charlie P]

Four employees of a health care company have been fired for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoke cigarettes.


Weyco Inc., a health benefits administrator based in Okemos, Mich., adopted a policy Jan. 1 that allows employees to be fired if they smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours or at home.

Company founder Howard Weyers has said the anti-smoking rule was designed to shield the firm from high health care costs. "I don't want to pay for the results of smoking," he said.

The rule led one employee to quit before the policy was adopted. Four others were fired when they balked at the smoking test.

Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes estimated that 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 effect. The company offered them help to kick the habit.

"That is absolutely a victory," Climes said.

On the company's Web site, it states:

Weyco Inc. is a non-smoking company that strongly supports its employees in living healthy lifestyles.

[datamax]

Interesting. It would lead on to believe that not wearing a seatbelt, multiple speeding tickets, admittal of drinking alcohol or taking prescription drugs or such would also lead the company to have higher premiums of insurance ? Is this the beginning or a precedence I wonder ?

[kevin1]

Isn't that illegal ?
Maybe it's my own state's reg , but I remember reading an official looking poster on the wall at work that stated what companies couldn't disciminate over . I'm pretty sure smoking was near the bottom of the list but was still there . I don't even smoke anymore and that bothers me whether they help you quit or not .

[Tazman]

In my opinion this is going to far, I understand certain jobs requiring its employees to not do illegal drugs, but what someone does on thier own time is thier business. I wonder if they will be firing fat people next? Then of course the next thing they will be doing is checking folks DNA to determine if they may develop cancer! The list goes on and on of what this could lead to.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Cougar Mag]

Having rules now allowing smoking on the job or even on the premises is one thing, but not retaining employees because of doing something legal away from the business is something else![:@] I believe this would not hold up in court but.......who would want to continue to work for a company like this?

[tardfarmer]

Isn't that illegal ?

Nope. Most states are "At Will" states, meaning your employment is "at will".

You can be fired for absolutely nothing at all. Hence the big push by some special interest groups to get aboard the AA bandwagon - then they're affraid to fire you.

At will has it's good and it's bad. Here is a great case in point of how it's bad:

My bro in law was getting overpaid for about 2 years as a service manager. He thought it was a retro raise for improved service performance (thats how he's paid). It turns out that the book keeper was an idiot and overpaid 2 managers by as much as $30,000. The dealership said "pay it back or you're fired" -- and he don't have the money!

[tardfarmer]

but not retaining employees because of doing something legal away from the business is something else!

considering that recent studies have shown that being obese is much worse for you than smoking, i wonder when they'll start tossing the fatties.

[Charlie P]

Blacks get heart diesese more then whites too you know,Guess we shouldn't hire any blacks.

[tardfarmer]

Blacks get heart diesese more then whites too you know,Guess we shouldn't hire any blacks.

that would be an excellent argument if not for AA.