Durka-Durka-Muhammed-Jihad!!
Company Fires All Employees Who SmokeBut downing a quart of Jack Daniel's on your off-time is okey-dokey? And going to a gay porno theater and getting slammed by a complete stranger is fine with company executives??Michigan Firm Won't Allow Smoking, Even On Employee's Own Time
LANSING, Mich. -- 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.
Oh please - spare us the 'we're doing this for your own good' crap.
Even though I quit smoking back in late-October to get on the transplant list, this kind of crap still irritates me.
Personally if I had been in this position and was faced with either quitting smoking or being fired, I'd probably tell them to go pound sand and make them fire me. With very few exceptions, I do not take do this....or else threats lightly.
If a company is going to dictate what you do in your off-time with this one little thing, what is to stop them from telling you how to cook your food, or how to raise your children, or how you should vote.
All it takes is one thing that leads to another, which leads to another, etc, etc.
It's a 'slippery-slope' that I'd prefer to not get pushed onto.....
Actually, after some consideration, I have to 'flip-flop' a bit.
I think it's one thing f
Read more in Do This.....or Else!
The Other Mike S said:
I've gotta disagree. And I'm a smoker.
This is a private company making what it sees as
Read more in Do This.....or Else!
ruthie said:
Hey Tetzman..I'm a liberal, and I'm, sure as shit, not rejoicing about this load of bullshit.
Read more in Do This.....or Else!Hey Jim - glad you found my little slice of Heaven here on the (evil, military) Internet!!
Read more in Do This.....or Else!What a load of crap... These folks should have a pretty good court case to challenge their dismis
Read more in Do This.....or Else!
Scott said:
Neil Boortz seems to be all in favor of this.
"Generally speaking, smokers simply aren't
Read more in Do This.....or Else!
Comments on Do This.....or Else!
I was talking to a guy who works for one of the NY State "cachement area" rehabs a few weeks ago. He was telling me that NY State is either considering or has passed a ban on smoking for NY State employees where you can't smoke an hour before you come to work, and that an employee that comes to work smelling like smoke can be sent home to change their stinky clothes. Some shit, eh?
|| Posted by scroff, January 25, 2005 08:58 AM ||Neil Boortz seems to be all in favor of this.
"Generally speaking, smokers simply aren't as productive in the workplace as are non-smokers. They take more frequent breaks (to do drugs,) and they're absent from work more often due to illness.
And ... to cap it all off ... smokers just aren't all that bright. In repeated trials smokers have scored lower on intelligence tests than non-smokers. Smoking, then, is an excellent way for you to get an immediate indication of who has common sense, and who doesn't."
I think Neil doesn't go far enough - I present the following "modest proposal" for smokers:
1. Require they be segregated into "smoker-only" companies. Ban them from employment in "smoker-free" companies.
2. To protect non-smokers from the smell, require smokers to wear a patch on their clothes to identify them before they get within smelling range.
3. Require smokers to live in private houses, away from non-smokers. Provide mandatory living accomodations (smokers only) for smokers that cannot afford private housing.
4. Ban smokers from marring, or having sex with, non-smokers.
5. Make it illegal to smoke tobacco products of any kind.
Yup. That should do it. [/sarcasm]
|| Posted by Scott, January 25, 2005 09:41 AM ||What a load of crap... These folks should have a pretty good court case to challenge their dismisals. Yes, it is a slippery slope.. Colorado is a right to work state, but companies here don't have the right ti fire someone because he smokes...
|| Posted by Tetzman, January 25, 2005 02:54 PM ||Talk about an invasion of privacy. People (Liberals) are worried about the evil US Government infringing on their civil liberties, and here you have some company doing it, and people (Liberals) are rejoicing and singing the company's praises?
Hey Jim - glad you found my little slice of Heaven here on the (evil, military) Internet!!
|| Posted by Mad Mikey, January 25, 2005 03:29 PM ||Hey Tetzman..I'm a liberal, and I'm, sure as shit, not rejoicing about this load of bullshit.
|| Posted by ruthie, January 26, 2005 06:46 AM ||I've gotta disagree. And I'm a smoker.
This is a private company making what it sees as a sound business decision. IMO, similar to certain companies restricting what they see as dangerous activities (sky diving, scuba diving, etc). The NFL has had a ban on pro football players participating in off-season basketball leagues because of the injuries they incur.
This is very different from Nanny legislating No Smoking in a business.
And they didn't say it was primarily, "for their own good". It was for lower health care costs. I hope they've analyzed the potential increased difficulties they'll have retaining and recruiting employees. I know I'd never work for a company that tried to tell me how to live my life.
But they have the right to make that decision.
|| Posted by The Other Mike S, January 27, 2005 08:21 AM ||Actually, after some consideration, I have to 'flip-flop' a bit.
I think it's one thing for the state to make this kind of rule, as here in NY, but if I own a company I should be able to choose who I want working for me. If I own a construction company and I don't want to work with people who drink, smoke, whatever, that's my right as a business owner. If I don't want to deal with smokers, I don't have to hire them, just like if I'm a landlord I don't have to rent to smokers or pet owners.
|| Posted by scroff, January 29, 2005 10:48 AM ||Interesting...