Political Corner

[pweber5]

I don't know if this is a political thing, but this is not very nice. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20050208/ts_latimes/...

Where There's Smoke, It Wouldn't Lead to Firing

By P.J. Huffstutter Times Staff Writer

CHICAGO — A Michigan state lawmaker said Monday that he planned to introduce a bill to bar companies from firing employees for smoking on their own time.

The proposed "lifestyle legislation" comes in response to a policy at Weyco Inc., an employee benefits firm in Okemos, Mich., near Lansing. On Jan. 1, Weyco began randomly testing its 200 workers for nicotine use, saying it would fire those who tested positive and refused to quit smoking.

Four Weyco employees have said they were let go under the policy.

"Two of those employees are my constituents, and they came to me asking for help," said state Sen. Virg Bernero, a Democrat from Lansing who plans to introduce his bill in the next three weeks.

If passed, Michigan would become one of the few states with a law expressly stating that employers could not fire or refuse to hire people for engaging in legal activities on their own time.

"I don't like smoking, but what this company is doing is just un-American," Bernero said. "These are things happening off duty…. If it's legal to fire someone for smoking at home, what's next? A company that fires employees for having a couple beers during the Super Bowl because the boss is a teetotaler? Firing someone because they wear clothes on the weekend that the boss doesn't like?"

In a statement released Monday, Weyco Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes said smoking was clearly a health hazard, and that Bernero's legislation would make it more difficult for employers to control health costs.

"When you do something that is extremely harmful to both yourself and others, it's not a privacy issue — it's a matter of exercising some personal responsibility for your behavior," Climes said in the statement. "Michigan businesses, taxpayers and co-workers of smokers have the right to protect themselves from the horrendous damage caused by the self-destructive behavior of a small percentage of employees."

Company officials said the policy was put into place to encourage healthful behavior among workers, as well as to underscore its health-conscious corporate culture. Inside the company's headquarters is a framed, handwritten note from Thomas Edison to Henry Ford. Dated April 1914, it reads: "I employ no person who smokes."

Weyco President Howard Weyers said last month that he also had rolled out the policy to combat the rising costs of employee benefits: "If I don't do something to change employees' demand for healthcare, I'll never do anything about costs."

Weyers estimated the company spent $750,000 a year on employee health insurance premiums and said he was concerned that it wouldn't be able to absorb additional increases.

But Anita Epolito — one of the four fired workers — said she had not been participating in Weyco's insurance plan.

"I'm covered by my husband's insurance policy, and have been for years," said Epolito, 48, who worked as a receptionist and special events coordinator at Weyco for 14 years.

Epolito said Weyers first told employees about the policy during a benefits meeting in November 2003.

At the time, workers were told they couldn't have any nicotine products in their bodies, she said. "There were some people who were trying to quit, using the patch or the chewing gum. We were told that if you're going to quit, you have to stop — and stop using those products — by Jan. 1 [2005]."

Epolito said she approached Weyco executives shortly before the deadline and asked what she should do.

"They told me to sign the waiver saying I refused to be tested so I could be given my final check," Epolito said. "So that's what I did."

Michigan's Kalamazoo Valley Community College instituted a similar policy last month, saying it wouldn't hire smokers for full-time positions. School officials could not be reached for comment Monday.

Federal and state laws prevent employers from firing or refusing to hire workers because of race, religion or gender. Some states, such as Colorado, have enacted laws offering similar protections for smokers.

Colorado lifestyle-discrimination statutes are considered to be among the broadest in the nation, legal experts said. Workers cannot be fired for taking part in legal activities, unless those actions affect their work.

Bernero said his staff was using the Colorado law as a guide for the proposed Michigan legislation.

I don't like smoking very much, but descriminating against good workers for engaging in a legal activity is not fair. There are plenty of good people who do smoke, and this does nothing but hurt them.

Message Edited by pweber5 on 02-09-2005 07:14 PM

[Egglick]

I'd say it's very political. People trying to impose and force their views upon others lifestyles is wrong. What these people do on their free time is none of the company's damn business.

I personally hope they get sued into oblivion, but with everyone so gung-ho about antismoking, it's questionable whether they'll even have to change their practices. Even as a non-smoker myself, this is rediculous.

[Harvester]

"When you do something that is extremely harmful to both yourself and others, it's not a privacy issue — it's a matter of exercising some personal responsibility for your behavior," Climes said in the statement. "Michigan businesses, taxpayers and co-workers of smokers have the right to protect themselves from the horrendous damage caused by the self-destructive behavior of a small percentage of employees."

Okaaaaayyyy. And smoking in your own home is harmful to co-workers exactly how?

[jwhx]

The whole thing is retarded and bound to get a few lawsuits. If they wanted to ban smoking at work, that's one thing, and as goofy as it is would be ok. But to fire employees that smoke at home on their own free time is just mindblowing. What's next? Firing people because they eat cheeseburgers at home or jackoff at home or eating cheeseburgers while jacking off? Just plain stupid!

[gregorov_14]

I saw this on the news. Heard it was related to insurance costs too. Seeing as only a few companies do it it's not a problem, but the employer can fire an employee for basically any reason, right or wrong. What they're trying to do is set a standard that everyone should live by I guess, which has good and bad things to it.

Good:
the nation looks better, people look better, treated better (both to others and to themselves), a lot of "better" statements with good values and morals

Bad:
takes away freedom - sums it all up pretty much

There are probably countless others, but I'm sure I can't think of them all.

[Harvester]

So smoking outside the building where you work (or in designated smoke rooms) is frowned upon in America?

Back when I smoked, if I had to survive a whole work or school day without smoking I'd quit smoking immediately. 8 or 9 hours without smoking is unbearable if you're addicted. Well, I'm glad I quit smoking anyway.

[pweber5]

---

Harvester wrote:

So smoking outside the building where you work (or in designated smoke rooms) is frowned upon in America?

Back when I smoked, if I had to survive a whole work or school day without smoking I'd quit smoking immediately. 8 or 9 hours without smoking is unbearable if you're addicted. Well, I'm glad I quit smoking anyway.

---

It's starting to get that way--most public places you can't smoke in (in most states, anyway). And because smoking is bad for you, it's hard to argue for smoker's rights.

[Egglick]

While it's good that they're kindof unintentionally causing people to become more healthy, don't think for a second that that's why they're doing it. Sure, that's why they SAY they're doing it, but in reality it all comes down to money, not surprisingly.

It costs more to insure a smoker than it does a non-smoker. If they get people to stop smoking, they save some cash. Does that mean that they have any right to attempt to change people's lifestyles?? Hell no. That's just how it goes, some people cost more to insure than others. What's next, fire everyone over the age of 35 cause they cost more too?? Fire all blacks because statics show they have a higher percentage of people in jail?? Fire any women who become pregnant and need maternity leave more than once every 5 years??

Don't be blinded by their "we want you to become more healthy" rhetoric. Realize what they're trying to do, and draw the line. What people legally do on their own time is none of their damn business. Employers have no right whatsoever to try and dictate people's lifestyles, especially through force.


....and "Weyco Chief Financial Officer Gary Climes" deserves to be violated by a red-assed baboon.