Anti smoking

[imported_Technick]

Company Fires Employees for Smoking Test

2 hours, 53 minutes ago U.S. National - AP



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.

Am I the only one who thinks this is crazy? :)

[Lee]

Discrimination!

The tobacco companies should sue ;)

[Newton]

They can try and pry these cuban cohibas from my cold dead hands

[JR]

a company can fire any employee as long as its not for an illegal reason.... and "descrimination" is defined by law... not by the individuals opinion of right and wrong. ugly people dont sell cosmetics, fat people dont make good personal trainers and maybe... just maybe a health care professional should be a health care professional. i am tired of paying for the costs of smoking too. i am tired of paying for the costs of stupid lawsuits. i am tired of paying for the costs of people who eat like idiots, teach their kids to eat like idiots and then tell me its "genetic".

in The Autonomous Republic of JR, all morons will pay their own way and be the only ones who pay for their bad decisions, unhealthy lifestyles and the consequences of their actions. Smart people will enjoy the benefits of being smart, irresponsible people will suffer the consequences of being irresponsible. stupid people will be tightly controlled, sterilized and tagged as such, to keep them from hurting themselves and others as happens all too often in a "free society"

[VooMan]

Does that mean that only smart people get to be rich as well?






Maybe Paris Hilton and Britney Spears can go broke while I keep smoking... :nyanya:

[Nickatilynx]

I think I fired someone for NOT smoking once LOL

[Almighty Colin]

A good sound financial decision. And draconian as well. Tough call.

[JR]

Originally posted by VooMan@Jan 24 2005, 06:27 PM
Does that mean that only smart people get to be rich as well?






Maybe Paris Hilton and Britney Spears can go broke while I keep smoking... :nyanya:
well... yes and no. stupid people will have neither authority or power in my system. in fact, they will not breed at all, which in theory should make the question a moot point after a few generations (nothwithstanding the occasional exception which will be dealt with swiftly and effeciently). its a long term plan for the betterment of mankind. i anticipate that it will be the only social program that democrats will not be falling all over themselves to fund... but then again, most of them will be tagged and desposed of under my program.

[VooMan]

Well, it looks like I better quit smoking or else... or do I already qualify as stupid and thus worthy of extermination? :awinky:

[Raven]

Whole cities are going smoke free.

If I've heard correctly, the Phoenix forum is going to be smoke free, as Tempe is one of those cities.

[overdose]

interesting thread...

[Hell Puppy]

Mixed feelings on that one.

On one hand, as a non-smoker I do very much like the current trend of pretty much banning it in public places. One reason I hate to go to trade shows is when I get home my whole freaking suitcase smells like smoke from all you fuckers who cant have a drink in one hand without a cigarette in the other. Not that I'm a health freak or anything, it just gives me a pounding headache if the area isn't well ventilated. However, I'm an advocate of anyone being able to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home.

Problem with banning it for the reason of it raises insurance is where do you stop? Do you relegate anyone who is fat, has diabetes, hypertension, a family history of cancer, irritable bowel syndrome or chronic ingrown toe nails to unemployment?

Either way, it's treating the symptom not the disease....get health care costs under control and this all fixes itself.

[JR]

Originally posted by Hell Puppy@Jan 24 2005, 08:43 PM

Problem with banning it for the reason of it raises insurance is where do you stop? Do you relegate anyone who is fat, has diabetes, hypertension, a family history of cancer, irritable bowel syndrome or chronic ingrown toe nails to unemployment?

in a perfect world, you would ban it when it affects other people financially/physically because it is no longer a singular issue of personal choice.

[JoesHO]

I quit smoking cigs in 2000 and I am glad I did, but i think that people should have the right to smoke if they want, I also believe that employers have the right to make their business smoke free igf they so choose, and if a smoker does not want to work there they do not have to, or if a smoker does not want to go in non smoking restaraunt eat somewhere else... same as a non smoker, if they do not want to go in a smokey bar, dont go it is really simple if you ask me...

damn maybe i should run for office!!!!

MikeAI would you vote for me? maybe run my campaign?

[Raven]

Private enterprise can dictate dress codes and no smoking policies.

What I object to is a company dictating a policy that affects me, after working hours.

If I want to drink after work, no policy should be in play that stops that activity.

If I want to smoke cigs after work, away from the premises, there should be nothing that stops that either.

The only thing I can see where a company would have anything to say is pot or cocaine or other mind altering substances.

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by Raven@Jan 24 2005, 09:27 PM
Private enterprise can dictate dress codes and no smoking policies.

What I object to is a company dictating a policy that affects me, after working hours.

If I want to drink after work, no policy should be in play that stops that activity.

If I want to smoke cigs after work, away from the premises, there should be nothing that stops that either.

The only thing I can see where a company would have anything to say is pot or cocaine or other mind altering substances.
a case in Oregon was recently won by an employee that tested positive for MJ and was terminated he won cause he was a medical patient and legal to smoke weed ... the employer is appealing the ruling.

the key was that they could not prove he smoked it at work.
he was on his own time.

[kath]

Never was a smoker but DAMN - when are people going to wake up? They just keep take, take, taking things away from us as we stand there, gaping at them in wonder, pondering how they are able to get away with it...

:o

HOW are they able to get away with it???

It's because we are just standing there.... gaping at them in wonder... pondering... instead of standing up and saying, "NO MORE!"

Today it's cigarettes... what will it be tomorrow?

[overdose]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Jan 24 2005, 07:21 PM
I think I fired someone for NOT smoking once LOL
That's too bad. :o