Companies P-ssing on the little people

[Ilander]

Yep...crapping on everyone's rights.

That's about par for medium to large-sized American companies.

This is a major load of crap.

[armageddon272]

Originally posted by Hivetyrant: I saw this on the news a while back, and I personally think it is a good idea, as they say, they have given them a HUGE length of time to quit, they offered to pay for councelling and quit programs, and they are not saying that they have to actually stop smoking, just not at their work.

Actually, if I read the article right, they mean to stop smoking, completely. Inside, and out of work.

[Hivetyrant]

By this:

"We had told them they had a choice," said Weyco Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes. "We're not saying you can't smoke in your home. We just say you can't smoke and work here."

I think it means you cant both work and smoke. As in, smoke at the same place you work...
Though I could be wrong.

[Bungleau]

As a Michigander (and yes, that's the right term), this has been in the news here. I can tell you it does not mean that they can't smoke at work. They can't smoke period -- at work, at home, in the car, on vacation, in a bar... nowhere.

I understand why the company is doing it. Health care costs are extremely expensive. However, this is definitely a slippery slope. Pretty soon they'll restrict drinking, then high-action activities, and other things.

I hope that this will generate a fuss. However, I think the ACLU has looked at this, and they determined that they can't do anything. Funny... that's never stopped them before [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think the safest approach for a company is to establish a policy for new hires, and grandfather existing employees in, perhaps with a higher premium. Hey, those smokers will be dead soon enough anyway, right? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Sir Goulum]

Originally posted by Q'alooaith: they are not stopping people doing what they want to do at home, they are just saying, if you want to do things that are detrimental to your health work for somone else.

But that isn't entirely fair to the employees, to fire them because they smoke.

[johnny]

Even if it was the last job on earth, i wouldn't want to work for something like that.

[Nerull]

The problem is that major companies copy each other once they find out they can get away with something like that. It will start with this one company, and once it goes to court and is upheld (or if the damages are small enough that it is still cheaper than hiring the smokers), then give it a few years before everyone is doing it. So the idea "if you can't quit smoking, then don't work here" is very short sighted, because it eventually will get to the point where they can't work anywhere. And no, it will not stop with smoking. Pretty soon, it will extend to "must be within the optimum weight range for your height", "cannot consume alcohol", and "must be able to pass a DNA test for having low risk of heart disease or other disorders". Remember, you do not have rights until you prove them in a court of law, so if they can get away with it they will try it.

I hate smoking. I hate being around it. However, this is very, VERY dangerous territory to be wading into. You can pretty much justify anything to cut costs (look at some of the nasty stuff that HMOs pull, much less with the same excuse of "cutting health care costs"). It always starts with one thing, then gets expanded very quickly. I agree that health care costs need to be cut (I work in a hospital business office and I can agree with that), but this is a very nasty way to go about it.

I really hope for all of our sakes that this company loses this case. However, with the current pro-business political climate, I really think that we are going to see a lot more of this, and sooner rather than later.

[Kakero]

Smoker do bother me sometimes. However I don't ban them from smoking in the company. Those that want to smoke have to go outside.

[Jaradu]

Seems I am one of the very few who actually supports this decision.

[Iron Greasel]

Originally posted by Melusine: (...) However, there are other lifestyle choices that people get fired over, and about which there is no outcry, like taking a tattoo or piercing in an invisible place (yes, that is forbidden in some companies even if the tattoo/piercing is never visible during work hours). (...)

Ummm... Is there any way for the employer to know someone has a tattoo if it's invisible during work? Take an example: I have a tattoo on my ass (no, I don't). I don't tell my employer about it. How are they going to know about it? Install secret cameras in toilets?

On the actual topic, I don't approve with huge rich companies telling people what to do. If someone wants to smoke (or breathe water for fun, or walk on sharp pieces of glass, or trim their hair with gasolene or anything else dangerous) at home, let them.